This study draws on institutional theory to provide insights into how new forms of organizations gain legitimacy under institutional voids. Based on interviews with leaders of 42 Chinese social enterprises (SEs), we find that dominant stakeholders—the state—are ambivalent about new ventures’ agendas and practices, which is displayed in their being sometimes supportive and other times skeptical, even hostile. SEs favor the contingent engagement political strategy to develop mutually beneficial relationships with the state while keeping a healthy distance. This enables them to gain sociopolitical legitimacy in a nonthreatening and acceptable way for survival and growth. The findings further highlighted the individual, organizational, and environmental factors that condition SE legitimation approaches, including the form of state control, leaders’ political capital, organizational social mission, and regional political environment. This study makes theoretical contributions to the institutional and SE literatures, highlighting stakeholder ambivalence as an essential characteristic of an institutional context fraught with institutional voids.
ArmstrongD.GoslingA.WeinmanJ.MarteauT. (1997). The place of inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: An empirical study. Sociology, 31(3), 597–606.
2.
BattilanaJ.DoradoS. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.
3.
BattilanaJ.LeeM. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing—Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.
4.
BesharovM. L.SmithW. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381.
5.
BhattB.QureshiI.RiazS. (2019). Social entrepreneurship in non-munificent institutional environments and implications for institutional work: Insights from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 154, 605–630.
BothelloJ.NasonR. S.SchnyderG. (2019). Institutional voids and organization studies: Towards an epistemological rupture. Organization Studies, 40(10), 1499–1512.
8.
ChakrabartyS.BassA. E. (2014). Institutionalizing ethics in institutional voids: Building positive ethical strength to serve women microfinance borrowers in negative contexts. Journal of Business Ethics, 119, 529–542.
9.
ChandraY.WongL. (2016). Social entrepreneurship in the Greater China region. Routledge.
10.
DacinM. T.DacinP. A.TraceyP. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organization Science, 22(5), 1203–1213.
11.
DacinP. A.DacinM. A.MatearM. (2010). Social entrepreneurship: Why we don’t need a new theory and how we move forward from here. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(3), 37–57.
12.
DartR. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14(4), 411–424.
13.
DeephouseD. L.BundyJ.TostL. P.SuchmanM. C. (2017). Organizational legitimacy: Six key questions. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 4(2), 27–54.
14.
DefournyJ.NyssensM. (2008). Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and developments. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 202–228.
15.
DenzinN. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. McGraw-Hill.
16.
DenzinN. K.LincolnY. (2005). Introduction: Entering the field of qualitative research. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–32). Sage.
17.
DohJ. P.LawtonT. C.RajwaniT. (2012). Advancing nonmarket strategy research: Institutional perspectives in a changing world. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(3), 22–39.
EstrinS.MickiewiczT.StephanU. (2013). Entrepreneurship, social capital, and institutions: Social and commercial entrepreneurship across nations. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 37(3), 479–504.
20.
FisherG.KuratkoD. F.BloodgoodJ. M.HornsbyJ. S. (2017). Legitimate to whom? The challenge of audience diversity and new venture legitimacy. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(1), 52–71.
21.
GeJ.CarneyM.KellermannsF. (2019). Who fills institutional voids? Entrepreneurs’ utilization of political and family ties in emerging markets. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(6), 1124–1147.
22.
GreenwoodR.RaynardM.KodeihF.MicelottaE.LounsburyM. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.
23.
GreenwoodR.SuddabyR. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 27–48.
24.
HallJ.MatosS.SheehanL.SilvestreB. (2012). Entrepreneurship and innovation at the base of the pyramid: A recipe for inclusive growth or social exclusion?Journal of Management Studies, 49(4), 785–812.
25.
HsuJ. Y.HasmathR. (2014). The local corporatist state and NGO relations in China. Journal of Contemporary China, 23(87), 516–534.
26.
HuaR. (2021). Referee, sponsor or coach: How does the government harness the development of social enterprises?VOLUNTAS, 32(5), 1054–1065.
27.
KenyonT.NaoiM. (2010). Policy uncertainty in hybrid regimes: Evidence from firm-level surveys. Comparative Political Studies, 43(4), 486–510.
28.
KerlinJ. A. (2010). A comparative analysis of the global emergence of social enterprise. VOLUNTAS, 21(2), 162–179.
29.
KerlinJ. A. (Ed.). (2017). Shaping social enterprise: Understanding institutional context and influence. Emerald Group Publishing.
30.
KerlinJ. A.PengS.CuiT. S. (2021). Strategic responses of social enterprises to institutional pressures in China. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 14(2), 200–224.
31.
KhouryT. A.PrasadA. (2016). Entrepreneurship amid concurrent institutional constraints in less developed countries. Business & Society, 55(7), 934–969.
32.
KimS.SchifelingT. (2022). Good Corp, bad Corp, and the rise of B Corps: How market incumbents’ diverse responses reinvigorate challengers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 67(3), 674–720.
33.
KingB. G.ClemensE. S.FryM. (2011). Identity realization and organizational forms: Differentiation and consolidation of identities among Arizona’s charter schools. Organization Science, 22(3), 554–572.
34.
LawrenceT. B.BuchananS. (2017). Power, institutions and organizations. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.LawrenceT. B.MeyerR. E. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 477–506). Sage.
35.
LawrenceT. B.LecaB.ZilberT. B. (2013). Institutional work: Current research, new directions and overlooked issues. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1023–1033.
36.
LawrenceT. B.SuddabyR. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In CleggS. R.LawrenceT. B.HardyC. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organization studies (pp. 215–254). Sage.
37.
LeeB. H.HiattS. R.LounsburyM. (2017). Market mediators and the trade-offs of legitimacy-seeking behaviors in a nascent category. Organization Science, 28(3), 447–470.
38.
LittlewoodD.HoltD. (2018). Social entrepreneurship in South Africa: Exploring the influence of environment. Business & Society, 57(3), 525–561.
39.
MairJ.MartíI. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 419–435.
40.
MairJ.MartíI.VentrescaM. J. (2012). Building inclusive markets in rural Bangladesh: How intermediaries work institutional voids. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 819–850.
41.
MarquisC.BirdY. (2018). The paradox of responsive authoritarianism: How civic activism spurs environmental penalties in China. Organization Science, 29(5), 948–968.
42.
MarquisC.QianC. (2014). Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance?Organization Science, 25(1), 127–148.
43.
MarquisC.RaynardM. (2015). Institutional strategies in emerging markets. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 291–335.
44.
McMullinC.SkelcherC. (2018). The impact of societal-level institutional logics on hybridity: Evidence from nonprofit organizations in England and France. VOLUNTAS, 29(5), 911–924.
45.
NeeV. (1992). Organizational dynamics of market transition: Hybrid forms, property rights, and mixed economy in China. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(1), 1–27.
46.
NeubergerI.KroezenJ.TraceyP. (2023). Balancing “protective disguise” with “harmonious advocacy”: Social venture legitimation in authoritarian contexts. Academy of Management Journal, 66(1), 67–101.
47.
NorthD. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
48.
O’ConnorC.JoffeH. (2020). Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220
49.
OliverC. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.
50.
OmettoM. P.GegenhuberT.WinterJ.GreenwoodR. (2019). From balancing missions to mission drift: The role of the institutional context, spaces, and compartmentalization in the scaling of social enterprises. Business & Society, 58(5), 1003–1046.
51.
PacheA.-C.SantosF. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.
52.
PalepuK. G.KhannaT. (1998). Institutional voids and policy challenges in emerging markets. The Brown Journal of World Affairs, 5(1), 71–78.
53.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (1978). External control of organizations—A resource dependence perspective. Stanford University Press.
54.
PufferS. M.McCarthyD. J.BoisotM. (2010). Entrepreneurship in Russia and China: The impact of formal institutional voids. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(3), 441–467.
55.
RadoynovskaN. (2024). Expectations meet reality: Leader sensemaking and enactment of stakeholder engagement in multistakeholder social enterprises. Business & Society. Advanced online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503231221537
56.
RamusT.VaccaroA.BerroneP. (2021). Time matters! How hybrid organizations use time to respond to divergent stakeholder demands. Organization Studies, 42(10), 1529–1555.
57.
RawhouserH.CummingsM.CraneA. (2015). Benefit corporation legislation and the emergence of a social hybrid category. California Management Review, 57(3), 13–35.
58.
SalamonL. M.AnheierH. K. (1998). Social origins of civil society: Explaining the nonprofit sector cross-nationally. VOLUNTAS, 9, 213–248.
59.
SinghJ. V.TuckerD. J.HouseR. J. (1986). Organizational legitimacy and the liability of newness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(2), 171–193.
60.
SmithW. K.BesharovM. L. (2019). Bowing before dual Gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 1–44.
61.
SmithW. K.GoninM.BesharovM. L. (2013). Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3), 407–442.
62.
SpiresA. J. (2011). Contingent symbiosis and civil society in an authoritarian state: Understanding the survival of China’s grassroots NGOs. American Journal of Sociology, 117(1), 1–45.
63.
SpiresA. J. (2020). Regulation as political control: China’s first Charity Law and its implications for civil society. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(3), 571–588.
64.
StephanU.UhlanerL. M.StrideC. (2015). Institutions and social entrepreneurship: The role of institutional voids, institutional support, and institutional configurations. Journal of International Business Studies, 46, 308–331.
65.
StinchcombeA. L. (1965). Social structure and organizations. In MarchJ. G. (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 142–193). Rand McNally.
66.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage.
67.
SuchmanM. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571–610.
68.
SydowA.CannatelliB. L.GiudiciA.MolteniM. (2022). Entrepreneurial workaround practices in severe institutional voids: Evidence from Kenya. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 46(2), 331–367.
69.
TauberL. (2021). Beyond homogeneity: Redefining social entrepreneurship in authoritarian contexts. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 12(1), 50–68.
70.
TraceyP.DalpiazE.PhillipsN. (2018). Fish out of water: Translation, legitimation, and new venture creation. Academy of Management Journal, 61(5), 1627–1666.
71.
TraceyP.PhillipsN.JarvisO. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22(1), 60–80.
ÜberbacherF. (2014). Legitimation of new ventures: A review and research programme. Journal of Management Studies, 51(4), 667–698.
74.
WebbJ. W.KhouryT. A.HittM. A. (2020). The influence of formal and informal institutional voids on entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(3), 504–526.
75.
WryT.ZhaoE. Y. (2018). Taking trade-offs seriously: Examining the contextually contingent relationship between social outreach intensity and financial sustainability in global microfinance. Organization Science, 29(3), 507–528.
76.
WuJ.CaiW.SongY. (2023). Determinants of social enterprise performance: The role of passion, competence, and organizational legitimacy. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 33(4), 807–834.
77.
XinK. K.PearceJ. L. (1996). Guanxi: Connections as substitutes for formal institutional support. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1641–1658.
78.
YeM. (2021). Building an enabling legal environment: Laws and policies on social enterprises in China. Journal of Asian Public Policy, 14(2), 182–199.
79.
YinJ.ChenH. (2019). Dual-goal management in social enterprises: Evidence from China. Management Decision, 57(6), 1362–1381.
80.
YuX. (2011). Social enterprise in China: Driving forces, development patterns and legal framework. Social Enterprise Journal, 7(1), 9–32.
81.
ZhaoE. Y.FisherG.LounsburyM.MillerD. (2017). Optimal distinctiveness: Broadening the interface between institutional theory and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 38(1), 93–113.
82.
ZhaoM. (2012, Spring). The social enterprise emerges in China. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 30–35.
83.
ZhaoM. (2016). Reinventing social enterprise in China: Language, institution and strategy. In ChandraY.WongL. (Eds.), Social entrepreneurship in the Greater China region (pp. 33–50). Routledge.
84.
ZhaoM.TanJ.ParkS. H. (2014). From voids to sophistication: Institutional environment and MNC CSR crisis in emerging markets. Journal of Business Ethics, 122, 655–674.
85.
ZhouK. Z.WangK.XuD.XieE. (2022). Drinking poison to quench thirst: Does bribery foster firm performance in China?Journal of Business Research, 147, 505–517.
86.
ZimmermanM. A.ZeitzG. J. (2002). Beyond survival: Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 414–431.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
