Marketization has been one of the most profound trend in the third sector over the past decades. Social enterprise model that intent to achieve social mission through commercial activities has appealed to the public agencies and nonprofit organizations. Proponents claim that market-orientated approach could be a prescription for social problems such as unemployment, marginal group welfare, and so on (Bornstein, 2007; Mari & Marti, 2006). However, studies have revealed the dark side of the social enterprise. Some even show the evidence that marketization leads to mission drift（Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004; Kent & Dacin, 2013; Garrow & Hasenfeld, 2014）. While comments on social enterprise model vary, the arguments of pro and cons both recognized market logic as dominated logic in social enterprise field. However, the thesis of market logic domination could be debated.
Scholars highlight that social enterprise as the hybrid organization whose distinct feature is multiple institutional logics co-existing. How actors employ plural logics to manage institutional complexities is central issues what researchers concern (Battilana & Lee, 2014; Greenwood et al., 2011). Thus, the study argues that the thesis that market logic leads to intended and unintended consequences needed to revise by employing the institutional logics perspective.
Drawing on a qualitative research of work integration social enterprises (WISEs) for the persons with disability, we investigate how actors from different institutional and professional backgrounds employ logical frameworks in their micro-level interactions and thus their effect- intended and unintended consequences. Our analysis built on the inhabited institutions perspective, which highlights the importance of interpretation in the enactment of institutional logics (Hallett & Ventresca, 2006; McPherson & Sauder, 2013; Thornton et al., 2012). We view that logics serve as tools that can be used by actors in a contested environment to reach the settlement. Thus, the study examines the ways in which actors with four distinct logical orientations-the logics of state, market, charity, and social model- use logics to negotiate institutional arrangements in the WIESEs field. We demonstrate that actors strategically employ multiple logics to maintain their legitimacy and fulfill their interests. But that strategy backfire, because the institutional arrangements serve for the WISEs, not the clients. Our study advances understanding of how mission drift occurs as a by-product of the intended actions with goodwill. Our results contrast with popular accounts of market logic domination, advance organizational research on the role of embedded agency in social enterprise field and their backfire effect.
Reference
- Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing–Insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397-441.
- Bornstein, D. (2007). How to change the world: Social entrepreneurs and the power of new ideas. Oxford University Press.
- Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64, 132-132-140.
- Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317-371.
- Hallett, T., & Ventresca, M. J. (2006). Inhabited institutions: Social interactions and organizational forms in Gouldner’s Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy. Theory and Society, 35(2), 213-236.
- Kent, D., & Dacin, M. T. (2013). Bankers at the gate: Microfinance and the high cost of borrowed logics. Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6), 759-773
- Mair, J., & Martí, I. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight. Journal of World Business, 41, 36-44.
- McPherson, C. M., & Sauder, M. (2013). Logics in action managing institutional complexity in a drug court. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(2), 165-192.
- Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press on Demand.
6. Institutionalization, scaling up and public policies
