Isomorphism, Social Enterprise and the Pressure to Maximise Social Benefit

Journal of Social Entrepreneurship

Volumn 3, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 74-95

  Mason, Chris ^a  

^a SWINBURNE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Australia)

Author keywords

corporate governance; isomorphism; legitimacy; Social enterprise

Indexed keywords

EID: 84861013360     PISSN: 19420676     EISSN: 19420684     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/19420676.2012.665382     Document Type: Article

References (58)

1. Amin, A., Cameron, A. and Hudson, R. 1999. Welfare as work? The potential of the UK social economy. Environment and planning A, 31: 2033-2052.
2. Ashworth, R., Boyne, G. and Delbridge, R. 2007. Escape from the Iron Cage? Organizational change and isomorphic pressures in the public sector. Journal of public administration research and theory, 19, 165-187
3. Barman, E. 2001. Asserting difference: the strategic response of nonprofit organizations to competition. Social forces, 80: 1191-1222
4. Battilana, J. 2006. Agency and institutions: the enabling role of individuals' social position. Organization, 13: 653-676
5. Battilana, J. and Dorado, S. 2010. Building sustainable hybrid organizations: the case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of management journal, 53, 1419-1440
6. Battilana, J., Leca, B. and Boxenbaum, E. 2009. How actors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. The academy of management annals, 3: 65-107.
7. Bowerman, M. 2002. Isomorphism without legitimacy? The case of the business excellence model in local government. Public money and management, 22: 47-52.
8. Bull, M. 2008. Challenging tensions: critical, theoretical and empirical perspectives on social enterprise. International journal of entrepreneurial behaviour & research, 14, 268-275
9. Cabinet Office. 2008. "Is social enterprise at a crossroads?". In Office of the third sector, London: HMSO. 1-81
10. Carmel, E. and Harlock, J. 2008. Instituting the 'third sector' as a governable terrain: partnership, procurement and performance in the UK. Policy & politics, 36: 155-171.
11. D'Aunno, T., Sutton, R. and Price, R. 1991. Isomorphism and external support in conflicting institutional environments: a study of drug abuse treatment units. Academy of management journal, 34 (3): 636-661.
12. Dacin, M. T. 1997. Isomorphism in context: the power and prescription of institutional norms. The academy of management journal, 40: 46-81.
13. Dart, R. 2004. The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit management & leadership, 14: 411-424.
14. Deephouse, D. L. 1996. Does isomorphism legitimate?. The academy of management journal, 39: 1024-1039.
15. Di Domenico, M., Tracey, P. and Haugh, H. 2009. The dialectic of social exchange: theorizing corporate - social enterprise collaboration. Organization studies, 30: 887-907
16. DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organisational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147-160.
17. Dunleavy, P. and Hood, C. 1994. From old public administration to new public management. Public money & management, 14: 9-16.
18. Dunn, A. and Riley, C. A. 2004. Supporting the not-for profit sector: the government's review of charitable and social enterprise. The modern law review, 67: 632-657.
19. Farndale, E. and Paauwe, J. 2007. Uncovering competitive and institutional drivers of HRM practices in multinational corporations. Human resource management journal, 17: 355-375.
20. Frumkin, P. and Galaskiewicz, J. 2004. Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of public administration research and theory, 14: 283-307.
21. Gibbon, J. and Affleck, A. 2008. Social enterprise resisting social accounting: reflecting on lived experiences. Social enterprise journal, 4, 41-56
22. Glynn, M. and Abzug, R. 2002. Institutionalizing identity: symbolic isomorphism and organizational names. Academy of management journal, 45(1): 267-280.
23. Golden-Biddle, K. and Rao, H. 1997. Breaches in the boardroom: organizational identity and conflicts of commitment in a nonprofit organization. Organization science, 8: 593-611.
24. Greenwood, R. and Meyer, R. 2008. Influencing ideas: a celebration of DiMaggio and Powell (1983). Journal of management inquiry, 17: 258-264
25. Hannan, M. and Freeman, J. 1977. The population ecology of organizations. American journal of sociology, 82: 929-964
26. Haveman, H. 1993. Follow the leader: mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets. Administrative science quarterly,: 38 (4), 593-627.
27. Hawley, A. 1944. Ecology and human ecology. Social forces, 22: 398
28. Hernes, G. 1976. Structural change in social processes. American journal of sociology, 82 (3): 513-547.
29. Hood, C. 1995. The 'new public management' in the 1980s: variations on a theme. Accounting, organizations and society, 20: 93-109.
30. Irvine, H. 2007. Corporate creep: an institutional view of consultancies in a non-profit organisation. Australian accounting review, 17: 13-25.
31. Kendall, J. 2000. The mainstreaming of the third sector into public policy in England in the late 1990s: whys and wherefores. Policy & politics, 28: 541-562.
32. Leiter, J. 2005. Structural isomorphism in Australian nonprofit organizations. Voluntas: international journal of voluntary and nonprofit organizations, 16: 1-31.
33. Leiter, J. 2008. Nonprofit isomorphism: an Australia-United States comparison. Voluntas: international journal of voluntary and nonprofit organizations, 19: 67-91.
34. Lewis, J. 2005. New Labour's approach to the voluntary sector: independence and the meaning of partnership. Social policy and society, 4: 121-131.
35. Lyons, M. and Passey, A. 2006. Need public policy ignore the Third Sector? Government policy in Australia and the United Kingdom. Australian journal of public administration, 65: 90-102.
36. Mason, C. and Royce, M. 2007. Fit for purpose - board development for social enterprise. Journal of finance and management in public services, 6, 57-67
37. Meyer, J. W. and Rowan, B. 1977. Institutionalised organisations: formal structure as myth and ceremony. The American journal of sociology, 83: 340-363.
38. Mizruchi, M. and Fein, L. 1999. The social construction of organizational knowledge: a study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Administrative science quarterly, 44 (4): 653-683
39. Morrill, C. and McKee, C. 1993. Institutional isomorphism and informal social control: evidence from a community mediation center. Social problems, 40 (4): 445-463.
40. Nicholls, A. 2010. The legitimacy of social entrepreneurship: reflexive isomorphism in a pre-paradigmatic field. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 34: 611-633.
41. Pearce, J. 2003. Social enterprise in Anytown, London: Calouste Golbenkian Foundation.
42. Peattie, K. and Morley, A. 2008. Eight paradoxes of the social enterprise research agenda. Social enterprise journal, 4
43. Pedersen, J. and Dobbin, F. 2006. In search of identity and legitimation: bridging organizational culture and neoinstitutionalism. American behavioral scientist, 49: 897-907
44. Reid, K. and Griffith, J. 2006. Social enterprise mythology: critiquing some assumptions. Social enterprise journal, 2: 1-11.
45. Royce, M. Managing people in a social enterprise environment. 4th Annual Conference in Social Enterprise. June 2006. London South Bank University.
46. Scheid, T. and Suchman, M. 2001. Ritual conformity to the Americans with disabilities act: coercive and normative isomorphism. The organizational response to social problems, 8: 105-140.
47. Scott, W. R. 2007. Institutions and organisations, Thousand Oaks: Sage.
48. Slack, T. and Hinings, B. 1994. Institutional pressures and isomorphic change: an empirical test. Organization studies, 15: 803
49. Social Enterprise Ambassadors. 2009. The social enterprise ambassador programme Available from: http://socialenterpriseambassadors.org/index.php [accessed 15 July 2009]
50. Social Firms UK. 2009. About social firms Available from: http://www.socialfirms.co.uk/index.php/Section2.html [accessed 15 April 2009]
51. Spear, R., Cornforth, C. and Aiken, M. 2009. The governance challenges of social enterprises: evidence from a UK empirical study. Annals of public and cooperative economics, 80: 247-273.
52. Strang, D. and Meyer, J. 1993. Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and society, 22: 487-511.
53. Suchman, M. C. 1995. Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. The academy of management review, 20: 571-610.
54. Taylor, M. and Bassi, A. 1998. Unpacking the state: the implications for the third sector of changing relationships between national and local government. Voluntas: international journal of voluntary and nonprofit organizations, 9: 113-136.
55. Townsend, S. and Campbell, R. 2007. Homogeneity in community-based rape prevention programs: empirical evidence of institutional isomorphism. Journal of community psychology, 35: 367-382.
56. Urbano, D., Toledano, N. and Soriano, D. R. 2010. Analyzing social entrepreneurship from an institutional perspective: evidence from Spain. Journal of social entrepreneurship, 1: 54-69.
57. Young, D. R. 2001. Organizational identity in nonprofit organizations: strategic and structural implications. Nonprofit management and leadership, 12: 139-157.
58. Zucker, L. G. 1987. Institutional theories of organisation. Annual review of sociology, 13: 443-464.