Entrepreneurship theory considers networks primarily as resources and, by association, mechanisms to which other resources flow to firms. This has included strategic conceptions of entrepreneurship that examine networking as a purposeful act (Jarillo 1989; Chell and Baines 2000) and theories of resourcefulness that are concerned with network use in bricolage, or making do with the means at hand (Baker and Nelson 2005; Baker, Miner, and Eesley 2003). Social entrepreneurship literature has similarly considered networks as resources and the development of networks by social entrepreneurs thus as resourceful behaviours (Desa 2012; Di Domenico, Haugh, and Tracey 2010; Sunley and Pinch 2012).
Each of these literatures frame entrepreneurial networking activity as extractive actions used to increase competitive advantage, capacity for innovation or – in the case of social enterprises – social goals. With regard to the latter, however, another body of literature that engages very strongly with questions of the role of networks and relationships in creating social progress is social movement literature (Diani and McAdam 2002; Melucci 1996). As Broek et al. (2012) observe, social entrepreneurship and social movement literatures have developed almost entirely independently of each other. Some social entrepreneurship scholars have observed how social entrepreneurs utilise tactics common to social movement activists (Mair and Martí 2006). Others have observed the collective entrepreneurial characteristics of social entrepreneurs as a distinct form of entrepreneurial behaviour (Spear 2006; Corner and Ho 2010). Yet, there has been very limited focus on how social movement theory might recast our thinking about the nature and purpose of networks and relationships amongst social enterprises.
In this paper, we examine the role of networks and relational activities in mission fulfilment within sustainability-focused social enterprises (SSEs). We focus on this particular sub-group of social enterprises because environmentalism is a well-documented new social movement (Habermas 1981) and there is a a history of SSEs evolving out of earlier environmentalist initiatives within our research setting.
Drawing on the literatures described above, we examine the ways that SSEs embed relational activity in their organisational practices, how such activity presents in business activities to support mission fulfilment of SSEs, and what social movement characteristics and tactics are enacted by SSEs in their use of networks and relationships.
Drawing on thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 10 senior staff and directors of 10 SSEs in the Australian state of NSW, we find that these organisations engage in a high degree of network bricolage as well as purposefully leveraging relationships to access strategic resources in fulfilment of their missions. However, relational activities are also explicitly concerned with collective identity formation, with such efforts to build networks extending to members, staff, customers and, to a lesser degree, supply chain partners. These findings have implications for understanding social entrepreneurial behaviours and shed light on the ways in which social enterprises effect institutional change and enact politics by seeking to make their mission binding upon a wider population (Offe 1985).
References
Baker, T., Miner, A. S., and Eesley, D. T. 2003. “Improvising Firms: Bricolage, Account Giving and Improvisational Competencies in the Founding Process.” Research Policy 32 (2): 255–76.
Baker, T. and Nelson, R. E. 2005. “Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial Bricolage.” Administrative Science Quarterly 50 (3): 329–66.
Broek, T. A., Ehrenhard, M. L., Langley, D. J., and Groen, A. J. 2012. “Dotcauses for Sustainability: Combining Activism and Entrepreneurship.” Journal of Public Affairs 12 (3): 214-223.
Chell, E. and Baines, S. 2000. “Networking, Entrepreneurship and Microbusiness Behaviour.” Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 12 (3): 195–215.
Corner, P. D., and Ho, M. 2010. “How Opportunities Develop in Social Entrepreneurship.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 34 (4): 635–59.
Desa, G. 2012. “Resource Mobilization in International Social Entrepreneurship: Bricolage as a Mechanism of Institutional Transformation.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 36 (4): 727-751.
Di Domenico, M., Haugh, H., and Tracey, P. 2010. “Social Bricolage: Theorizing Social Value Creation in Social Enterprises.” Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 34 (4): 681–703.
Diani, M. and McAdam, D. 2002. Social Movements and Networks : Relational Approaches to Collective Action. Comparative Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Habermas, J. 1981. “New Social Movements.” Telos 1981 (49): 33–37.
Jarillo, J. C. 1989. “Entrepreneurship and Growth: The Strategic Use of External Resources.” Journal of Business Venturing 4 (2): 133–47.
Mair, J, and Martí, I. 2006. “Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight.” Journal of World Business 41 (1): 36–44.
Melucci, A. 1996. Challenging Codes: Collective Action in the Information Age. Cambridge University Press.
Offe, C. 1985. “New Social Movements: Challenging the Boundaries of Institutional Politics.” Social Research 54 (4): 817–68.
Spear, R. 2006. “Social Entrepreneurship: A Different Model?” International Journal of Social Economics 33 (5/6): 399–410.
Sunley, P., and Pinch, S. 2012. “Financing Social Enterprise: Social Bricolage or Evolutionary Entrepreneurialism?” Social Enterprise Journal 8 (2): 108–22.
6. Institutionalization, scaling up and public policies
