Even though ‘governance’ embraces topics as different ‘as new ways of ruling ‘ and ‘network based deliberation’ (Enjolras 2011), it has to a large extent been used as a slightly extended meaning of management in which the aim to fulfil given missions when related to different types of nonprofits or social enterprises (Lambert & Lapsley 2010; Maier & Meyer 2011; Steen-Johnsen, Eynaud & Wijkdström 2011). Organizations and their missions are then often, especially through the institutional approach influencing the field, more or less taken as given (DiMaggio & Anheier 1990; Dimaggio & Powell 1991; Ahrne 1994; Ahrne & Papakostas 2002). But the mission, is not only there to “pick” and not stable over time. New entrepreneurial initiatives for instance can not rely on established constructions and/or structures but has to construct the bases for the organization through a dynamic interplay in which ideas are articulated, organized and practised (Gawell 2013).
In different types of social enterprises, ideas of what to do and how are often reasons for engagement and resource mobilization. Ideas, coloured by norms and values, ‘travel’ (Czarniawska & Sevon 2005), but are also specifically expressed in different settings. Subsequently ideas and organizational missions are many times supported and contextualized by narratives giving further meaning, strength and guidelines to the articulated mission and discussions on priorities etc (Czarniawska 2004). Social enterprises in the Nordic countries have been influenced by norms and values recognized and at times driven by the development of the Nordic welfare society and thereby follows the ‘logic’ of the grand narrative (Andersen, Gawell & Spear 2016; Gawell, 2017).
Empirical studies of social enterprises in show however that the governance of social enterprises, in spite of the strong engagement of the ideas and support in grand narratives, can be much more frustrating than portrayed in public debate and/or literature. Even if there many times is an intertexual consensus cherishing these types of ventures, different interests compete and relationships are negotiated (Gawell 2014; Gawell, Pierre & von Friedrichs 2015).
The aim of this paper is to elaborate and analyse governance in practice in selected social enterprises with a special focus on relation to human resources in the form of people participating through employment, internship or volunteer assignments. The selection of cases is related to the Swedish contributions of the International Comparative Social Enterprise Model (ICSEM) project (Gawell 2015).
References
Andersen, L., Gawell, M. & Spear, R. (2016).Social Entrepreneurship and Social Enterprises: Nordic Perspectives. Routledge.
Ahrne,G. (1994). Social Organizations. Interaction inside, outside and between organizations. SAGE Publications.
Ahrne,G. & Papakostas,A. (2002). Organisationer, samhälle och globalisering. Studentlitteratur.
Czarniawska,B. (2004). Narratives in Social Science Research. Sage Publications.
Czarniawska,B & Sevon,G (2005). Global Ideas. How Ideas, Objects and Practices Travel in the Global Economy. Liber&CopenhagenBusinessSchoolPress.
DiMaggio,P. & Anheier,H. (1990). A Sociological Conceptualization of the Nonprofit Organizations and Sectors. Annual Review of Sociology, 16,137-159.
DiMaggio,P. & Powell,W. (1991). Introduction, in Powell,W. and DiMaggio,P. (Eds.) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. University of Chicago Press.
Enjolras,B. (2011). Editorial. VOLUNTAS, 22:553-554.
Gawell, M. (2014).Social Entrepreneurship and the Negotiation of Emerging Social Enterprise Markets. International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol 27 No 3, 251-266.
Gawell, M. 2015, Social Enterprise in Sweden: Intertextual Consensus and Hidden Paradoxes. ICSEM Working Paper No. 08. Liege: The International Comparative Social Enterprise Models (ICSEM) Project (http://www.iap-socent.be/sites/default/files/Sweden%20-%20Gawell.pdf).
Gawell, M., Pierre, A. & von Friedrichs, Y. (2015). Societal Entrepreneurship – A Cross-Boundary Force for Regional and Local Development Cherished for Multiple Reasons. Scandinavian Journal for Public Administration, Vol 18 No 4, 109-130.
Hyndman,N. & McDonnell,P. (2009). Governance and Charities: An Exploration of Key Themes and the Development of a Research Agenda. Financial Accountability and Management, 25(1),5-31.
Lambert,V. & Lapsley,I. (2010). Leadership and Governance, in Taylor, R. (Ed.) The Thirds Sector Research. Springer.
Maier,F. & Meyer,M. (2011). Managerialism and Beyond: Discourses of Civil Society Organization and Their Governance Implications. VOLUNTAS,22:731-756.
Steen-Johnsen,K., Eynaud,P. & Wijkdström,F. (2011). On Civil Society Governance: An Emergent Research Field. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,22:555-565.
3. Governance, employment and human resource management
