Do Hybrid Firms Out- Provide Traditional Business Structures? An Examination of Prosocial Behavior in North Carolina Firms

Abstract

With the rise of social enterprises has come a push for formal hybrid legal forms. Hybrid structures formalize a for-profit model with a social mission but carry no tax benefits. Using the case of North Carolina, this article examines a sample of formal hybrid firms and variation in their prosocial practices compared with informal social enterprises and traditional for-profit and nonprofit entities. Using firm-level survey data, Poisson estimations reveal that formal hybrid firms are associated with additional production-related prosocial practices as compared with traditional for-profits, informal social enterprises with both for-profit and nonprofit structures, and traditional nonprofits. This study contributes to the literatures on organizational identity and prosocial behavior as well as to the field of social enterprise by offering a comparison of formal and informal hybrid identification with a relatively large sample quantitative analysis.

Keywords

social enterprise hybrid prosocial behavior organizational identity social responsibility

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agrawal

Hockerts

(2013). Institutional theory as a framework for practitioners of social entrepreneurship. In Osburg

Schmidpeter

(Eds.), Social innovation (pp. 119-129). Berlin, Germany: Springer.

Bacq

Hartog

Hoogendoorn

(2013). A quantitative comparison of social and commercial entrepreneurship: Toward a more nuanced understanding of social entrepreneurship organizations in context. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 40-68.

Bagnoli

Megali

(2011). Measuring performance in social enterprises. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 149-165.

Battilana

Lee

Walker

Dorsey

(2012). In search of the hybrid ideal. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 10(3), 50-55.

Besharov

M. L.

Smith

W. K.

(2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39, 364-381.

Bolino

M. C.

Turnley

W. H.

Bloodgood

J. M.

(2002). Citizenship behavior and the creation of social capital in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 27, 505-522.

Brickson

S. L.

(2007). Organizational identity orientation: The genesis of the role of the firm and distinct forms of social value. Academy of Management Review, 32, 864-888.

Brief

A. P.

Motowidlo

S. J.

(1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11, 710-725.

Cooney

(2011). An exploratory study of social purpose business models in the United States. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 185-196.

10.

Cooney

Koushyar

Lee

Murray

(2014). Benefit corporation and L3C adoption: A survey. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/benefit_corporation_and_l3c_adoption_a_survey

11.

Dacin

M. T.

Dacin

P. A.

Tracey

(2011). Social entrepreneurship: A critique and future directions. Organizational Science, 22, 1203-1213.

12.

Dees

J. G.

(2007). Taking social entrepreneurship seriously. Society, 44(3), 24-31.

13.

Dees

J. G.

Battle Anderson

(2003). Sector-bending: Blurring lines between nonprofit and for-profit. Society, 40, 16-27.

14.

Defourny

Nyssens

(2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1, 32-53.

15.

Fisher

Kotha

Lahiri

(2016). Changing with the times: An integrated view of identity, legitimacy, and new venture life cycles. Academy of Management Review, 41, 383-409.

16.

Fitzgerald

Shepherd

(2018). Emerging structures for social enterprises within nonprofits: An institutional logics perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47, 474-492.

17.

Graddy-Reed

Feldman

M. P.

(2015). Stepping up: An empirical analysis of the role of social innovation in response to an economic recession. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8, 293-312.

18.

Grieco

Michelini

Iasevoli

(2015). Measuring value creation in social enterprises: A cluster analysis of social impact assessment models. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44, 1173-1193.

19.

Jäger

U. P.

Schröer

(2014). Integrated organizational identity: A definition of hybrid organizations and a research agenda. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25, 1281-1306.

20.

Kerlin

J. A.

(2013). Defining social enterprise across different contexts: A conceptual framework based on institutional factors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 42, 84-108.

21.

Leana

C. R.

Van Buren

H. J.

(1999). Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review, 24, 538-555.

22.

Majee

Hoyt

(2011). Cooperatives and community development: A perspective on the use of cooperatives in development. Journal of Community Practice, 19, 48-61.

23.

Martin

R. L.

Osberg

(2007). Social entrepreneurship: The case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 5(2), 27-39.

24.

McWilliams

Siegel

(2001). Corporate social responsibility: A theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review, 26, 117-127.

25.

Peloza

(2006). Using corporate social responsibility as insurance for financial performance. California Management Review, 48(2), 52-72.

26.

Peredo

A. M.

Chrisman

J. J.

(2006). Toward a theory of community-based enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 31, 309-328.

27.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Paine

J. B.

Bachrach

D. G.

(2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513-563.

28.

Rothschild

(2009). Workers’ cooperatives and social enterprise: A forgotten route to social equity and democracy. American Behavioral Scientist, 52, 1023-1041.

29.

Scott

S. G.

Lane

V. R.

(2000). A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. Academy of Management Review, 25, 43-62.

30.

Van Dyne

Graham

J. W.

Dienesch

R. M

. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765-802.

31.

Voss

Z. G.

Cable

D. M.

Voss

G. B.

(2006). Organizational identity and firm performance: What happens when leaders disagree about “who we are?” Organization Science, 17, 741-755.

32.

Warren

C. R.

McFadyen

(2010). Does community ownership affect public attitudes to wind energy? A case study from south-west Scotland. Land Use Policy, 27, 204-213.

33.

Whetten

D. A.

(2006). Albert and Whetten revisited: Strengthening the concept of organizational identity. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15, 219-234.

34.

Wittek

Bekkers

(2015). Altruism and prosocial behavior, sociology of. In J. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 579-583). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

35.

Zeuli

Radel

(2005). Cooperatives as a community development strategy: Linking theory and practice. Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 35, 43-54.

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.

0.00 MB

0.37 MB