Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Implementing Democratic Governance and Ownership: The Interplay of Structure and Culture in Public Service Social Enterprises

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examine the implementation of governance arrangements to extend ownership and control to employees and community stakeholders in social enterprises. Evidence from a sample of newly created public service social enterprises in England shows how the realisation of democratic ideals involves a gradual and often challenging process. Different outcomes are explained in terms of an interplay between the legal forms and representational mechanisms adopted and the enabling role of organisational culture. The paper contributes an analytic framework that captures the range of possible outcomes in terms of stakeholder versus stewardship forms of representation, and the cultural–psychological dimension of ownership. Organisations may find themselves at different stages in the journey towards the realisation of democratic ownership and governance. Conclusions are drawn for the field of social enterprise and non-profit research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/public-service-mutuals (Accessed May 2019).

  2. For further details, see: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/community-interest-companies-how-to-form-a-cic; https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-handbook-for-good-governance-in-a-new-mutual (Accessed January 2020).

References

  • Birchall, J., & Simmons, R. (2004). The involvement of members in the governance of large-scale co-operative and mutual businesses: A formative evaluation of the co-operative group. Review of Social Economy,62(4), 487–515.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: How is it done? Qualitative Research,6, 97–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byers, T., Anagnostopoulos, C., & Brooke-Holmes, G. (2015). Understanding control in nonprofit organizations: Moving governance research forward? Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society,15(1), 134–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabinet Office. (2010). Modern commissioning: Increasing the role of charities, social enterprises, mutuals and co-operatives in public service delivery. London: Cabinet Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabinet Office. (2011). Open public services. White Paper, London: Cabinet Office.

  • Carberry, E. (2011). Employee ownership and shared capitalism: Assessing the experience, research, and policy implications. In E. Carberry (Ed.), Employee ownership and shared capitalism: New directions in research. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, T. (2005). Accounting for Enron: Shareholder value and shareholder interest. Corporate Governance,13(5), 598–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornforth, C. (2003). The governance of public and non-profit organisations: What do boards do?. Oxon: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornforth, C. (2004). The governance of co-operatives and mutual associations: A paradox perspective. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics,75(1), 11–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cox, A., Zagelmeyer, S., & Marchington, M. (2006). Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. Human Resource Management Journal,16(3), 250–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. H., Schoorman, F. D., & Donaldson, L. (1997). Towards a stewardship theory of management. The Academy of Management Review,22, 20–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2017). Fundamentals for an international typology of social enterprise models. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,28(6), 2469–2497.

    Google Scholar 

  • DH (Department of Health). (2008). Social enterprise—Making a difference: A guide to the right to request. http://www.dhcarenetworks.org.uk. Accessed May 2019.

  • DH (Department of Health). (2009). Transforming community services: Enabling new patterns of provision. London: The Stationary Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diochon, M. (2010). Governance, entrepreneurship and effectiveness: Exploring the link. Social Enterprise Journal,6(2), 93–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews,16(4), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, L., & Davis, J. (1991). Stewardship theory of agency theory. Australian Journal of Management,16(1), 49–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dundon, T., Wilkinson, A., Marchington, M., & Ackers, P. (2004). The meanings and purpose of employee voice. International Journal of Human Resource Management,15, 1149–1170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fazzi, L. (2012). Social enterprises, models of governance and the production of welfare services. Public Management Review,14(3), 359–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, E., & Reed, D. I. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review,25(3), 93–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal,59(6), 1880–1895.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, K., Miller, R., & Millar, R. (2012). Jumped or pushed: What motivates NHS staff to set up a social enterprise? Social Enterprise Journal,8(1), 49–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansmann, H. (1988). Ownership of the firm. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization,4(2), 267–304.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazenberg, R., & Hall, K. (2016). Public service mutual: Towards a theoretical understanding of the spin-out process. Politics & Policy,44(3), 441–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollensbe, E., Wookey, C., Hickey, L., George, G., & Nichols, C. V. (2014). Organizations with purpose. Academy of Management Journal,57, 1227–1234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humborstad, S. I. W. (2014). When industrial democracy and empowerment go hand-in-hand: A co-power approach. Economic and Industrial Democracy,35(3), 391–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kooiman, J. (Ed.). (1993). Modern governance. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kopel, M., & Marini, M. (2016). Organization and governance in social economy enterprises: An introduction. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics,87(3), 309–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruse, D. L., & Blasi, J. (1997). Employee ownership, employee attitudes, and firm performance: A review of the evidence. In D. Lewin, et al. (Eds.), The human resource management handbook, Part 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • L’Huillier, B. (2014). What does ‘corporate governance’ actually mean? Corporate Governance,14(3), 300–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logue, J., & Yates, J. (2006). Cooperatives, worker-owned enterprises, productivity and the international labor organization. Economic and Industrial Democracy,27(4), 686–690.

    Google Scholar 

  • Low, C. (2006). A framework for the governance of social enterprises. International Journal of Social Economics,33, 376–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Low, C. (2015). The role of governmental decision makers in hybridization. International Studies of Management & Organization,45(3), 226–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Low, C., & Chinnock, C. (2008). Governance failure in social enterprise. International Journal of Human Resource Management,2(3), 203–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, C., Kirkbride, J., & Bryde, D. (2007). From stakeholders to institutions: The changing face of social enterprise governance theory. Management Decision,45(2), 284–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayhew, M., Ashkanasy, N., Bramble, T., & Gardner, J. (2007). A study of the antecedents and consequences of psychological ownership in organizational settings. The Journal of Social Psychology,147(5), 477–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, R., Hall, K., & Miller, R. (2012). A story of strategic change: Becoming a social enterprise in English health and social care sector. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship,4(1), 4–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monks, R., & Minow, N. (1995). Corporate governance. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutuals Taskforce. (2011). Our mutual friends: Making the case for public service mutuals. London: Mutuals Taskforce.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutuals Taskforce. (2012). Public service mutual: The next steps. London: Taskforce Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A. (2010). Institutionalizing social entrepreneurship in regulatory space: Reporting and disclosure by Community Interest Companies. Accounting, Organizations and Society,35, 394–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohana, M., Meyer, M., & Swaton, S. (2012). Decision-making in social enterprises: Exploring the link between employee participation and organizational commitment. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,42(6), 1092–1110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development - OECD. (2004). OECD principles of corporate governance. Paris: OECD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V., & Hulgard, L. (2016). Participatory governance in social enterprise. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,27(4), 1742–1759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J. L., Kostova, T., & Dirks, K. (2001). Towards a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review,26, 298–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J., & Rodgers, L. (2004). The psychology of ownership and worker–owner productivity. Group and Organization Management,29(5), 588–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierce, J. L., Rubenfeld, S. A., & Morgan, S. (1991). Employee ownership: A conceptual model of process and effects. Academy of Management Review,16(1), 121–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, M., Gillett, A., & Doherty, B. (2018). Sustainability in social enterprise: Hybrid organizing in public services. Public Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2018.1438504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridley-Duff, R., & Bull, M. (2019). Understanding social enterprise (3rd ed.). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sacchetti, S., & Birchall, J. (2018). The comparative advantage of single and multi-stakeholder cooperatives: Reflections for a research agenda. Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity,7(2), 87–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sepulveda, L. (2015). Social Enterprise—A new phenomenon in the field of economic and social welfare? Social Policy & Administration,49(7), 842–861.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sepulveda, L., Lyon, F., & Vickers, I. (2018). Social enterprise spinouts: An institutional analysis of their emergence and potential. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2018.1431391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuck, B., & Wollard, K. (2009). Employee engagement and HRD: A Seminal review of the foundations. Human Resource Development Review, 9(1), 89–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Social Enterprise UK - SEUK. (2018). Public service mutuals: The state of the sector. London: Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spear, R., Cornforth, C., & Aiken, M. (2009). The governance challenges of social enterprises: Evidence from a UK empirical study. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics,80(2), 247–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Transition Institute. (2011). Social Value Ethos: Lessons from practitioners embedding a social value ethos into public service spin-outs. London: Transition Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Transition Institute. (2013). Public service spin-outs: The state of the third sector. London: Transition Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickers, I., Lyon, F., Sepulveda, L., & McMullin, C. (2017). Public service innovation and multiple institutional logics: The case of hybrid social enterprise providers of health and wellbeing. Research Policy,46(10), 1755–1768.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, A. (1998). Empowerment: Theory and practice. Personnel Review,27(1), 40–56.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support received from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS) and the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA) Grant No. ES/J008435/1. The authors also would like to thanks Rachel Corcoran, Marit Hammond, Ed Mayo, and the reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Enterprise and Economic Development Research, Middlesex University, The Burroughs, London, NW4 4BT, UK

    Leandro Sepulveda, Fergus Lyon & Ian Vickers

Authors
  1. Leandro Sepulveda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fergus Lyon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ian Vickers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leandro Sepulveda.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sepulveda, L., Lyon, F. & Vickers, I. Implementing Democratic Governance and Ownership: The Interplay of Structure and Culture in Public Service Social Enterprises. Voluntas 31, 627–641 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00201-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00201-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation