This paper explores the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and performance of social entrepreneurship (SE) organizations in Croatia. SE organizations are defined as nonprofits which accomplish or strive towards accomplishing their social mission(s) primarily by using the money made through trading products in the free market. In other words, they are social mission oriented entrepreneurs (Dees 2001). EO is a theoretical construct conceptualized through dimensions of proactivenes, risk taking, and innovativeness (Covin and Slevin 1989).
In the context of for-profit entrepreneurs (i.e. “conventional” entrepreneurship), the above mentioned relationship represents an extensively investigated research topic (Rauch et al. 2009). On the other hand, it has not been the case with nonprofit entrepreneurs (i.e. SE) – regardless of the fact that a tremendous fraction of all SE organizations is, generally speaking, highly “vulnerable” in the sphere of the economic/commercial (and consequently social) performance. However, in spite of a relatively small number of research papers on SE organizations, they offer a wide range of findings. As an illustration, economic performance was found to be positively (Anderson and Helm 2012), non-significantly (Morris et al. 2007), and negatively and non-significantly related to EO (Miles et al. 2013); social performance was reported to be positively related to EO (Coombes et al. 2011); while the relationship between socio-economic performance and EO was found to be positive (Hu and Pang 2013), and inverted U-shaped (Chen and Hsu 2013). To the best of our knowledge, none of these aspects has been investigated within the emerging SE scene in Croatia.
Therefore, the research aims are: 1) to explore (the level of) EO of SE organizations in Croatia; 2) to explore their socio-economic performance; 3) to investigate the relationship between (the level of) their EO and socio-economic performance.
Taking into account the size and scope of the entire SE scene in Croatia the sample will try to include managerial staff (N≥100) from all organizations (associations, cooperatives, limited liability companies) (N≥50) that, according to the “requirements” set in the first paragraph, can be labeled as SE organizations. The questionnaire, administered via e-mail, contains: general information about SE organizations (size, number of employees/members, type of industry, organizational age); the instrument for measuring EO created based on Morris and Joyce’s (1998), Helm and Anderson’s (2010), and Hu and Pang’s (2013) questionnaire; the instrument for measuring socio-economic performance i.e. respondents’ perception of it created based on questionnaires used by Caruana et al. (2002), Miles et al. (2013), and Hu and Pang (2013). Both of the instruments have 7-item Likert scale questions. The instruments’ reliability is ≥0,7 (Cronbach's alpha).
The research results intend to a) contribute to academic and professional debate (both internationally and in Croatia) on EO and socio-economic performance of SE organizations, and, preferably, b) encourage practical improvements in the field of SE performance.
REFERENCES:
Andersson, F.O. & Helm, S. (2012). Do Socially Entrepreneurial Nonprofits Perform Better: An Empirical Exploration. Paper presented at New York University’s Stern Conference on Social Entrepreneurship, November 7-8, New York.
Caruana, A., Ewing, M.T., & Ramaseshan, B. (2002). Effects of some Environmental Challenges and Centralization on the Entrepreneurial Orientation and Performance of Public Sector Entities. The Service Industries Journal, 22(2), 43-58.
Chen, H.L. & Hsu, C.H. (2013). Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in non-profit service organizations: contingent effect of market orientation. The Service Industries Journal, 33(5), 445-466.
Coombes, S., Morris, M., Allen, J., & Webb, J.W. (2011). Behavioral Orientations of Non-profit Boards as a Factor in Entrepreneurial Performance: Does Governance Matter? Journal of Management Studies, 48(4), 829-856.
Covin, J.G. & Slevin, D.P. (1989). Strategic Management of Small Firms in Hostile and Benign Environments. Strategic Management Journal, 10(1), 75-87.
Dees J.G. (2001). The Meaning of “Social Entrepreneurship”. (https://centers.fuqua.duke.edu/case/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2015/03/Article_Dees_MeaningofSocialEntrepreneurship_2001.pdf, accessed 8.12.2016).
Helm, S.T. & Andersson, F.O. (2010). Beyond taxonomy: An empirical validation of social entrepreneurship in the nonprofit sector. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(3), 259-276.
Hu, Y. & Pang, X. (2013). Social Entrepreneurial Orientation and Performance of Nonprofit Organizations: An Empirical Study in China. Journal of Applied Sciences, 13(19), 3989-3994.
Miles, M.P., Verreynne, M.-L., Luke, B., Eversole, R., & Barraket, J. (2013). The Relationship of Entrepreneurial Orientation, Vincentian Values, and Economic and Social Performance in Social Enterprise. Review of Business, 33(2), 91-102.
Morris, M. H. & Joyce, M. (1998). On measuring entrepreneurial behavior in not-for-profit organizations: Implications for social marketing. Social Marketing Quarterly, 4(4), 1-23.
Morris, M., Coombes, S., & Schindehutte. M. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of entrepreneurial and market orientations in a non-profit context: Theoretical and empirical insights. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 13(4), 12-39.
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G.T., & Frese, M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation and business performance: An assessment of past research and suggestions for the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(3), 761-787.
5. Social impact, value creation and performance
