The purpose of this study was to examine whether work integration social enterprises (WISEs)— with different legal forms affect their social and financial performances. Utilizing data collected in 2021 by the Korea Social Enterprise Promotion Agency (n = 1,990), this study conducted analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests and multiple linear regression analyses. The findings reveal that, although all WISEs share the common goal of employing vulnerable individuals, their performance varies based on their legal structure. Specifically, nonprofit WISEs employed more vulnerable individuals than their for-profit and cooperative counterparts, even after adjusting for organizational characteristics. In addition, in terms of financial performance, nonprofit WISEs consistently outperformed for-profit entities across various measures, including government grants, private donations, public market sales, and net income. These outcomes prompt a discussion on the practical and policy implications of these findings.
ArenaM.AzzoneG.BengoI. (2015). Performance measurement for social enterprises. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26, 649–672.
2.
BagnoliL.MegaliC. (2011). Measuring performance in social enterprises. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 149–165.
3.
BartonS.PorterH.MurphyS.LysaghtR. (2022). Potential outcomes of work integration social enterprises for people who are homeless, at risk of homelessness, or transitioning out of homelessness. Social Enterprise Journal, 18(3), 409–433.
4.
BillietA.DufaysF.FriedelS.StaessensM. (2021). The resilience of the cooperative model: How do cooperatives deal with the COVID-19 crisis?Strategic Change, 30(2), 99–108.
5.
BirchallJ.KetilsonL. H. (2009). Resilience of the cooperative business model in times of crisis. International Labour Organization.
6.
BoydB.HenningN.ReynaE.WangD.WelchM.HoffmanA. J. (2017). Hybrid organizations: New business models for environmental leadership. Routledge.
7.
BrewerC. V. (2016). The ongoing evolution in social enterprise legal forms. In YoungD. R.SearingE.BrewerC. (Ed.), The social enterprise zoo: A guide for perplexed scholars, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, leaders, investors, and policymakers (pp. 33–64). Edward Elgar Publishing.
8.
BrownE.FanC. Q. (2023). Lower prices for customers, and less charity care? The prospects for mixed-market competition with nonprofit and hybrid firms. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 52(6), 1565–1586.
9.
CalvoS.MoralesA. (2016). Sink or swim: Social enterprise as a panacea for non-profit organisations?Journal of International Development, 28(7), 1170–1188.
10.
ChavesR.SolerF.SajardoA. (2008). Co-operative governance: The case of Spanish credit co-operatives. Journal of Co-operative Studies, 41(2), 30–37.
11.
ChoS.KimM. A.KwonS. I. (2019). Using the photovoice method to understand experiences of people with physical disabilities working in social enterprises. Disability and Health Journal, 12(4), 685–693.
12.
ChronopoulosV. I.PierrakosG. (2024). Economic and social performance evaluation of the two types of work integration social enterprises (WISEs) in Greece: Mental health sector’s WISEs versus social entrepreneurs’ WISEs. JEOD, 13(1), 84–108.
13.
ChuiC. H. K.ChanC. H.ChandraY. (2023). The role of social enterprises in facilitating labour market integration for people with disabilities: A convenient deflection from policy mainstreaming?Journal of Social Policy, 52(1), 176–196.
14.
DaiH.LauY.LeeK. H. (2017). The paradox of integration: Work-integration social enterprises (WISE) and productivist welfare regime in Hong Kong. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28, 2614–2632.
15.
DeesJ. G.AndersonB. B. (2002). For-profit social ventures. International Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 2(1), 1–13.
16.
DefournyJ.NyssensM. (2008). Social enterprise in Europe: Recent trends and developments. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 202–228.
17.
EikenberryA. M.KluverJ. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk?Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132–140.
18.
ElmesA. I. (2019). Health impacts of a WISE: A longitudinal study. Social Enterprise Journal, 15(4), 457–474.
19.
FergusonK. M.XieB. (2008). Feasibility study of the social enterprise intervention with homeless youth. Research on Social Work Practice, 18(1), 5–19.
20.
FiciA. (2016). Recognition and legal forms of social enterprise in Europe: A critical analysis from a comparative law perspective. European Business Law Review, 27(5).
21.
GuoB.PengS. (2020). Do nonprofit and for-profit social enterprises differ in financing?VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31, 521–532.
22.
GuzmánC.SantosF. J.SavallT. (2024). How to explain social innovation in elderly care services: The role of for-profit and non-profit social enterprises. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 20, 1849–1877.
23.
HansmannH. (1980). The role of nonprofit enterprise. Yale Law Journal, 89, 835–901.
24.
HasenfeldY.GarrowE. E. (2012). Nonprofit human-service organizations, social rights, and advocacy in a neoliberal welfare state. Social Service Review, 86(2), 295–322.
25.
HelmigB.JegersM.LapsleyI. (2004). Challenges in managing nonprofit organizations: A research overview. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15, 101–116.
26.
HussainA.AhmadS. A.MiaM. S. (2023). A systematic literature review on performance of social enterprises. Cogent Economics & Finance, 11(2), 2269738.
27.
JeongB. (2015). The developmental state and social enterprise in South Korea: A historical institutionalism perspective. Social Enterprise Journal, 11(2), 116–137.
28.
JoyceA.ElmesA.CampbellP.MoussaB.SuchowerskaR.BarraketJ.CareyG. (2022). The health and well-being impacts of a work integration social enterprise from a systems perspective. Health Promotion International, 37(1), daab052.
29.
KatzR. A.PageA. (2010). The role of social enterprise. Vermont Law Review, 35, 59–104.
30.
KimH. W. (2009). Formation of social enterprise policy and prospects for social enterprises in Korea. In JunM. S. (Ed.), Labor issues in Korea 2009 (pp. 162–195). Korea Labor Institute.
31.
Korea Social Enterprise Promotion Agency. (2015a). Social Enterprise Guidebook: How to use social enterprise [in Korean].
32.
Korea Social Enterprise Promotion Agency. (2015b). 2014 social enterprise performance analysis report [in Korean].
33.
Korea Social Enterprise Promotion Agency. (2017). 2016 social enterprise performance analysis report [in Korean].
34.
Korea Social Enterprise Promotion Agency. (2020). 2019 social enterprise performance analysis report [in Korean].
KrupaT.SabettiJ.LysaghtR. (2019). How work integration social enterprises impact the stigma of mental illness: Negotiating perceptions of legitimacy, value and competence. Social Enterprise Journal, 15(4), 475–494.
40.
LammersJ. C.GarciaM. A.PutnamL. L.MumbyD. K. (2014). Institutional theory. In CarrollE. C. (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 195–216). Sage.
41.
LeungZ. C.HoA. P.TjiaL. Y.TamR. K.ChanK. T.LaiM. K. (2019). Social impacts of work integration social enterprise in Hong Kong–Workfare and beyond. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 10(2), 159–176.
42.
LukeB.BarraketJ.EversoleR. (2013). Measurement as legitimacy versus legitimacy of measures: Performance evaluation of social enterprise. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, 10(3/4), 234–258.
43.
Ministry of Employment and Labor. (2021). Certification of 428 social enterprises in 2022. Ministry of Employment and Labor.
44.
MookL.WhitmanJ. R.QuarterJ.ArmstrongA. (2015). Understanding the social economy of the United States. University of Toronto Press.
45.
NyssensM. (2007). Social enterprise at the crossroads of market, public policy and civil society. In NyssensM. (Ed.), Social enterprise (pp. 329–344). Routledge.
46.
PacheA. C.SantosF. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455–476.
47.
ParkC. (2012). The institutional embeddedness of social enterprises: The case of South Korea with a comparative perspective. Korean Journal of Sociology, 46(3), 33–57.
48.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (1978). The external control of organisations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row.
49.
RazK. G. (2012). Toward an improved legal form for social enterprise. NYU Review of Law & Social Change, 36, 283–309.
50.
ReficcoE.LayrisseF.BarriosA. (2021). From donation-based NPO to social enterprise: A journey of transformation through business-model innovation. Journal of Business Research, 125, 720–732.
51.
SalamonL. M. (1993). The marketization of welfare: Changing nonprofit and for-profit roles in the American welfare state. Social Service Review, 67(1), 16–39.
52.
SieversS. M. M. (2016). Fragile heterotopias–A case study of a Danish social enterprise. Community Development Journal, 51(1), 77–94.
53.
SmithP.McVillyK. R.McGillivrayJ.ChanJ. (2018). Developing open employment outcomes for people with an intellectual disability utilising a Social Enterprise Framework. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 48(1), 59–77.
54.
SpearR.BidetE. (2005). Social enterprise for work integration in 12 European countries: A descriptive analysis. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 76(2), 195–231.
55.
TownsendD. M.HartT. A. (2008). Perceived institutional ambiguity and the choice of organizational form in social entrepreneurial ventures. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(4), 685–700.
56.
TriponelA.AgapitovaN. (2016). Legal frameworks for social enterprise. World Bank Group.
57.
WeisbrodB. A. (Ed.). (2000). To profit or not to profit: The commercial transformation of the nonprofit sector. Cambridge University Press.
58.
WilsonE. W. (2016). Cooperatives: The first social enterprise. DePaul Law Review, 66, 1013–1080.
59.
YoungD. R. (2014). The state of theory and research on social enterprises. In GidronB.HasenfeldY. (Eds.), Social enterprises: An organizational perspective (pp. 19–46). Palgrave Macmillan.
