Next Article in Journal
Repurposing the Built Environment: Emerging Challenges and Key Entry Points for Future Research
Previous Article in Journal
Eco-Industrial Park (EIP) Development in Viet Nam: Results and Key Insights from UNIDO’s EIP Project (2014–2019)
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 11
Issue 17
10.3390/su11174668
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Influence of Marketing Capability in Mexican Social Enterprises

by
Judith Cavazos-Arroyo
1,* and
Rogelio Puente-Diaz
2
1
Interdisciplinary Postgraduate Center, Universidad Popular Autonoma del Estado de Puebla, Puebla 72410, Mexico
2
Department of Business and Economics, Universidad Anahuac, Huixquilucan 52786, Mexico
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2019, 11(17), 4668; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174668
Submission received: 10 July 2019 / Revised: 14 August 2019 / Accepted: 16 August 2019 / Published: 27 August 2019
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Social enterprises need to develop processes that create social value to solve social problems. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effect of marketing capability on social innovation and its effect on social and economic value creation, while controlling for firm size among social enterprises in Mexico. An explanatory and cross-sectional design was used to test the hypotheses: 118 social business managers were interviewed and structural equation modeling was used to test our research hypotheses. The results supported our proposition that marketing capability influenced social innovation, which then had a positive influence on social, though not on economic value creation. An indirect effect from marketing capability to social value was also found. This study validated the relevance of defining and entailing marketing capabilities with social innovation strategies and their effect on the social value of social enterprises. This paper contributes to a better understanding of marketing capability and its effects on social innovation in social enterprises. In addition, it shows social innovation to be a robust predictor of social value, with important implications for social and economic sustainability.

1. Introduction

Social enterprises have been defined as businesses with mainly social objectives whose surpluses are reinvested to achieve business or community goals [1]. Unlike a commercial company, a social enterprise does not seek financial benefits as its main objective, but rather seeks to fulfil a social purpose. However, in order to achieve this, it needs to obtain positive financial results [2]. Hence, financial results are a means to an end and not an end in itself. Thus, most social enterprises are hybrid companies, taking elements from for-profit and non-profit organizations, thus seeking to create public and private value [3].
Resource-based theory (RBT) provides a framework for explaining the basis of an enterprise’s competitive advantage [4]. Capabilities are essential to a social firm´s success and involve organizational processes and activities that are fundamental for value offerings, competitive advantages, and the firm´s growth [5,6,7]. In addition, social enterprises employ bundles of resources and capabilities to develop value, competitive advantage, and improve their organizational performance [8]. Given that marketing capability research has mostly focused on commercial companies, social enterprises researchers have emphasized the need to continue examining dynamic capabilities given their relevance to all firms [9].
Specifically, marketing capability (e.g., product development capability, pricing capability, channel management capability, marketing communication capability, selling capability) plays a critical role in the creation and delivery of customer value [10,11]. However, there is limited knowledge showing the exact paths through which marketing capability influences value creation and the development of competitive advantages [7].
Most social enterprises endorse a hybrid nature that incorporates aspects of for-profit and non-profit organizations [12,13], and seek both social and economic sustainability [14]. However, it is necessary to increase our understanding of the complex relations between innovativeness and value creation [15]. In addition, researchers need to explain the value-creation processes in social enterprises, examining not only the economic output of innovation but also social innovation [16]. Hence, the purpose of the present investigation is to examine the effect of marketing capability on social innovation and its effect on social and economic value creation, while controlling for firm size among social enterprises in Mexico. To reach our research objective, we first discuss marketing capability and its effects on social innovation, followed by a discussion on the effects of social innovation on social and economic value creation.
A resource-based view (RBV) defines resources and capabilities as bundles of tangible and intangible assets, skills, processes, and organizational routines and assumes that resources and capabilities are important antecedents of the sources of a sustained competitive advantage of companies. Given that RBV began to redirect attention within organizations [17,18], it was integrated with other perspectives several decades later, resulting in resource-based theory (RBT), which has been widely used by researchers [19,20]. However, some scholars use both concepts interchangeably in the literature [21].
RBT argues that a sustained competitive advantage is generated when resources are valuable, rare, imperfectly imitable, and non-substitutable [22]. Valuable resources are those that “enable a firm to develop and implement strategies that have the effect of lowering the firm’s net costs and/or increase a firm’s net revenues beyond what would have been the case” [23] p. 138. Rarity implies that resources are scarce when few companies possess them [22], and resources are imperfectly imitable when it is difficult and/or costly for competing companies to obtain or develop them [22].
Capabilities are a fundamental aspect in this perspective because they represent a specific non-transferable resource whose purpose is to improve the productivity of other resources that companies possess [24], have a better overall performance, and create a sustained competitive advantage [25]. However, a capability needs to be dynamic. It needs to have the ability to achieve new competences to develop innovative responses and create value in a changing business environment and turbulent markets [26,27].
Two of the most relevant fields in which RBT has been applied in marketing are strategy and innovation [21], in order to integrate resources and evaluate their effects on performance and on sustained competitive advantage [25]. For commercial companies, investing in resources might generate a greater economic value [25,28,29], while for hybrid companies, it might provide a greater social value [14]. One of the objectives of strategic marketing applied to enterprises is to optimize the valuable, non-substitutable, and inimitable enterprise’s resources and capabilities to sustain the firm´s value with the main goal of keeping and attracting customers [4,26,30,31]. In this sense, marketing capability refers to an integrative process in which companies apply knowledge, skills, and resources to perform a routine or a group of routines that interact between them, transforming them into valuable results [4,32,33]. It involves tangible or intangible organizational processes based on information and developed over time [34] that manifests itself in typical business activities [35] and enhances the creation and delivery of value [10,36].
Some marketing capabilities are specialized because contribute by providing specific tasks and activities (e.g., product development, pricing, channel management, communication, selling). Others are architectural capabilities (e.g., marketing plan) that make their contribution by coordinating resources to achieve marketing strategic objectives [6]. When an enterprise integrates its marketing capability as a core value, it can improve competencies, reduce deficiencies, and generate new applications and external opportunities, thus resulting in a better overall performance [6,37,38].
The marketing conception in social enterprises is complex because it needs to align the marketing capabilities with social mission statements, obtain economic independence, and generate the revenue necessary to survive and grow [5,39,40]. Similar to economic oriented enterprises, social enterprises have to combine and manage their base of valuable resources and capabilities, adapt organizational structures, and dynamically react to challenging situations to optimize their performance and achieve a competitive advantage [5,41].
In terms of the conceptualization and operationalization of marketing capabilities, Liu, Eng, and Takeda [42] validated a scale for social enterprises. They considered eight capabilities: pricing, product development, channel management, marketing communication, selling, market information management, marketing planning, and marketing implementation. Pricing capability refers to the enterprise’s ability to set prices responding to market changes and competition. Whereas some social enterprises need to establish affordable prices [43], others need to persuade consumers to pay a premium price [44]. Product development capability implies the ability of social enterprises to create and launch new products or services that meet the needs of customers to the market effectively and efficiently [45]. Distribution capability implies the development of relationships with the best suppliers and intermediaries [42]. Many non-profit organizations (NPOs) strive to maintain their existing programs while intensifying their distribution efforts [46]. Marketing communication capability refers to the ability to manage communicational and promotional initiatives according to the required characteristics of social offers, while attending to the needs of stakeholders and marketplaces [47].
For social enterprises, selling capability refers to the skills needed to train vendors, build sales plans, control systems, and develop strong relational embeddedness that motivates the exchange of resources and information among parties of a community [42,48], therefore contributing to the efficiency of shared performance [49]. Marketing planning capability implies the ability to integrate, combine, and reconfigure the firm’ resources through the formulation of marketing strategies to pursue firm success in the markets [50]. Similarly, marketing implementation capability in social enterprises refers to the operational execution of marketing strategies including the allocation of resources, which continues to be a challenge for many firms [42]. Finally, marketing information management capability denotes the ability to provide data and information to executives about key stakeholders in the market in response to the needs and directions of the companies [42,51]. We used this conceptualization and operationalization of marketing capabilities for the current investigation.
Social enterprises are expected to deliver social innovation [52]. A definition of social innovation refers to the development and successful implementation of products, services, processes, and models to meet social needs [53,54] and implies a novel, more effective, efficient, and sustainable solution to alleviate a social problem [52]. From RBT, social innovation is developed by applying a combination of resources available, creating new routines, or new ways of doing things [55]. However, it is necessary to creatively combine those resources in new ways to solve communal problems [56], given that social enterprises that lack innovation have a lower probability of surviving in the long term [57].
From research in marketing capability, Calantone et al. [58] found that if a company has enough resources and marketing skills, it is more likely to innovate successfully. In addition, a study conducted in Indonesia found that marketing capability directly affected innovative capability in both small and medium-sized enterprises [59], which coincided with research focused on main manufacturers such as the studies conducted by Lee and Hsieh [60] in Taiwan and by Weerawardena [61] in Australia. Thus, although a commercial enterprise needs to develop these two kinds of capabilities, marketing and innovation [60], based on a competitive strategy and distinctive abilities [61], these principles also apply to social enterprises and non-profit organizations seeking to achieve a greater social impact [62]. Therefore, we put forward the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Marketing capability positively affects social innovation in social enterprises.
The RBT posits that the interrelationships between the bundle of resources or assets create value [63]. However, social and commercial ventures perceive value creation differently. Whereas commercial firms focus mainly on economic value creation, social enterprises emphasize social value creation, or a combination of both [64]. For social enterprises, it implies efforts to engage in high social impact initiatives [61] that satisfy the basic and long-standing needs of certain members of society and create long-term social transformation of the target markets [65,66]. The creation of social value denotes the execution of the mission of social enterprises [67]. It is expected that social enterprises provide maximum social value creation in order to secure resources [68] and engage in direct actions that challenge the status quo and release trapped potential or alleviate the suffering of a target group, thus generating a better future for this group and even for society [69].
From the RBT perspective, innovation plays a central role in value creation [70] and this takes place when capabilities are combined to generate new applications [71]. Social enterprises create social value through social innovation [72], market orientation, and socially focused activities [65]. Even for non-profit organizations, it has been found that technical and social innovations assume significant roles in the creation of social value [62,73] that promote positive human and environmental change [72]. Given that firm size is usually controlled for in social enterprise research as dependent variables such as value or performance might vary significantly according to the average size of firms in each industry [74], the same was done in this research. Hence, based on the discussion above, the following hypothesis was tested:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Social innovation positively affects social value creation in social enterprises, while controlling for firm size.
Porter and Kramer [75] state that a new form of capitalism permeated with a social purpose requires an understanding of competition, new and better ways of innovating, and economic value creation in productive enterprises. Social value creation does not necessarily mean that social enterprises need to sacrifice some level of financial return in exchange, so social ventures need to be prepared to achieve both [68]. Economic value refers to the creation of value in a market environment. It is considered as an essential aspect in the development of business strategies, and represents a valuable source of cash flow and good financial performance that has positive economic consequences for the organization and its shareholders [76].
RBT and dynamic capabilities approaches consider that firms expect to produce new combinations of resources that lead to innovation and economic value creation, thus generating long-term superior economic revenue [77]. However, companies cannot create economic value just by possessing resources, they need to capitalize on new combinations of resources and capabilities, which implies an effective and innovative management to exploit productive opportunities, create innovations, and achieve a sufficient financial performance [77,78,79]. Value offering is created by certain core value-creating capabilities, particularly based on innovation, marketing, and production, which allow a firm to consistently generate both superior value for its customers [80] and economic value [45]. Some of the basic aspects to enhance a firm’s economic value involve the continuous activity of production and the sale of goods and/or services, a certain level of risk chosen by the owners, and an amount of paid work [76].
The innovation of products, services, processes, and technologies supported in innovative business models and focused on profit and customer participation provides greater value to customers [81]. When ecosystems of innovation thrive, they transform value creation into a more open and collaborative process [82]. Thus, the integration of resources and knowledge into innovation capability affects value creation in order to achieve a superior firm performance [22,83,84], thereby displacing some competitors [85]. Consequently, the following hypothesis was proposed:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Social innovation positively affects economic value creation in social enterprises, while controlling for firm size.
In sum, the purpose of our investigation was to examine the effect of marketing capability on social innovation and its effect on social and economic value creation, while controlling for firm size among social enterprises in Mexico. Specifically, we analyzed if marketing capability, understood as an integrative process to achieve social firm success [50], positively affected social innovation and if this had a significant effect on both social value creation to solve social problems and economic value to sustain the company.

2. Materials and Methods

An explanatory and cross-sectional design was used to test the hypotheses. All companies in the directory of social enterprises in Mexico were contacted, which included 324 companies [86]. First, the marketing manager, the general manager, or the owner of the company was contacted by telephone. We provided a brief description of the purpose of the study and the questionnaire was answered by telephone or electronically. Fieldwork was carried out from October 2017 to March 2018. We contacted companies at intervals of three to four weeks and, in some cases, we called the firms that had agreed to respond to it to remind them to answer the questionnaire. A response rate of 36.4% was obtained with 118 complete questionnaires. We did not find significant differences among the initial and last respondents; consequently, the probability of non-response bias was minimal [87].
Measures. To measure the marketing capabilities for social enterprises, we used the scale developed by Liu et al. [42] with eight dimensions (pricing, product development, channel management, marketing communication, selling, market information management, marketing planning, and marketing implementation). The overall total scores showed acceptable levels of internal consistency (α = 0.969). Similarly, scores from individual scales had coefficients of internal consistency above 0.80. In addition, the social innovation scale was adapted from Keskin [88]. These scores also showed acceptable levels of internal consistency (α = 0.848). The social and economic value creation were measured with scales developed by Liu et al. [42]. Scores from both scales showed an acceptable level of internal consistency (α = 0.791, α = 0.805). Appendix A shows the scales used in this study (Table A1). Participants answered all questions using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Finally, we added the size of the social enterprise as a control variable that might affect the social and economic value developed by social enterprises [74]. To measure this, we considered the classification of the employee criteria (Very small = up to ten employees; Small = from 11 to 30; Medium = from 31 to 250; Large = from 251 to 1000, and Very large = more than 1000) used by the Mexican government [89].
Validation and reliability. First, we assessed the possibility of multicollinearity. For marketing capability variables, interdependency among different types of marketing capabilities has been identified by different business scholars [4]. As a result, we would expect the correlation between those variables to be very high. As suggested before, in our sample, there were high correlations between some variables (0.90 or higher). This is the first indication of substantial collinearity [90]. Therefore, we removed highly correlated predictors from the model. Among them, it is worth mentioning that all items of marketing implementation correlated highly with the marketing plan, so marketing implementation was eliminated from the analysis.
Second, given that our data were collected from a single source, the same respondents answered both the dependent and independent variables, so several control actions for common method bias were taken. Hence, participants were informed about the anonymity and confidentiality of their answers. In addition, we emphasized the non-existence of right or wrong answers. Finally, participants first answered the questions assessing the independent variables and then the questions assessing the dependent variables [91].
Third, we evaluated the theoretical structure of the constructs using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We first calculated the adequacy of the sample measured by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value. The sampling is adequate or sufficient if the value of the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) is larger than 0.50 [92]. We considered the CFA as a crucial part for the measurement model in SEM, because it helped to obtain an acceptable model fit before modeling the structural model. Fourth, we conducted a structural equation modeling analysis to test our hypotheses [93].
Model fit was ascertained using the χ2 goodness of fit test (non-significant p-value is desired), the comparative fit index, the Tucker-Lewis fit index (CFI/TLI; values greater than 0.90 indicate good fit) [94,95], and the root-mean-square error of approximation. Lagrange multiplier statistics allowed the achievement of the overall model parsimony. Statistical analyses were conducted using R (version 3.1, Lavaan 0.5–17).

3. Results

The most relevant characteristics of the enterprises showed that 72% produced and traded products/services, while 28% focused only on commercialization. A total of 60.2% sold their products or services via the Internet and 76.2% were between 1 and 10 years old. In terms of size, 36.4% were classified as very small, 38.1% as small, 22.1% as medium size, 1.7% as large, and 1.7% as very large. Finally, 75.4% were located in the central zone of Mexico, 12.8% in the north, and 11.8% in the south (Table 1).
Results for the measurement model of the latent variables social innovation, social value, economic value, and marketing capability showed an acceptable fit (Chi-square = 1273.337, p value < 0.001, CFI = 0.866, TLI = 0.851, RMSEA = 0.05, KMO = 0.93). All standardized factor loadings were significant and in the expected direction (ranging from 0.527 to 0.952, Appendix A Table A2). The latent correlations showed acceptable levels of discriminant validity with the composite reliability index ranging from 0.50 to 0.92 and the average variance extracted (AVE) ranging from 0.57 to 0.73 (Table 2) [93]. For the structural model, the results showed an acceptable model fit (robust chi-square = 824.812 with p value < 0.009, CFI = 0.909, TLI = 0.900, p < 0.001, RMSEA = 0.049). Examination of the parameters revealed that higher levels of marketing capability were positively related to social innovation (β = 0.719, p value < 0.001). Similarly, marketing capability had a significant indirect effect on social value via its influence in social innovation (β = 0.719 × 0.592 = 0.423, p < 0.0001). Conversely, the overall indirect effect of marketing capability on economic value through social innovation was not significant (β = 0.719 × −0.128 = −0.092, p = 0.419). Finally, while social innovation had a significant, positive relationship with social value (β = 0.592, p < 0.0001), the effect on economic value was not significant (β = −0.128, p = 0.430; see Figure 1).

4. Discussion

The purpose of the present investigation was to examine the effect of marketing capability on social innovation and its effect on social and economic value creation, while controlling for firm size among social enterprises from Mexico. In addition, we examined the indirect effects of marketing capability on social and economic value creation. We found support for two of the three hypotheses tested. Our results contribute to enhancing our understanding of the effect marketing capability on social innovation and its effect on social and economic value creation in social enterprises.
Specifically, we found that marketing capability had a significant effect on social innovation, thus supporting hypothesis one. Hence, our results were consistent with previous research [59,60]. Vigorous marketing capability supports the performance of commercial activities more efficiently because it allows the company to cope with market changes and its complexities [35]. In social enterprises, innovation is necessary to not only be better than their competitors, but to also satisfy social needs differently from profit enterprises [54,56] and with greater social impact [62]. In addition, whereas marketing capability had a significant indirect effect on social value creation through social innovation, the effect on economic value creation was not significant.
Social innovation had a positive effect on social value creation, supporting hypothesis two, while controlling for social firm size. Our results provide empirical evidence for what several experts in social enterprises have posited about the impact of social innovation on social value creation [62,72,73]. Consequently, our findings are relevant because one of the main goals of social enterprises is to create social value for their stakeholders.
Contrary to what was expected, social innovation did not have a significant effect on economic value creation, while controlling for social firm size. Hence, hypothesis three was not supported. However, economic value creation is indispensable, not only for the survival of a social enterprise, but also because the economic value created by a company arises from the innovative use of valuable and scarce resources [35]. Given that social enterprises in developing countries face more resource constraints in the economic environment, it is more difficult to attract resources, develop capabilities, and generate innovation [96]. A possible explanation for this result could be related to the tension or conflict that some companies face regarding the social-economic duality [97], thus striving not to sacrifice social value to capture economic value, or not be perceived as users of a social mission as an exploitative opportunity to achieve economic goals [98]. Future investigations should continue exploring the effect of different capabilities of social enterprises on economic value creation.
The results from this study have important applied implications for social enterprise managers. The positive direct effect of marketing capability on social innovation and the indirect effect on social value creation lend credence to the importance of defining and integrating marketing processes, activities, and skills into business strategies. Although marketing capabilities need to respond to the social mission and financial sustainability [99], they previously faced the challenge of being useful for the implementation of novel solutions (with creativity and invention) to social problems. At the same time, many social enterprises need to learn to capitalize their efforts in economic value to obtain returns in a competitive environment and develop future competitive advantages [100].
Our research had several limitations that generate opportunities for future research. First, the research design was cross-sectional, which limited our ability to understand how the effects of marketing capabilities unfold over time. Second, although we used a validated scale to measure marketing capability in social enterprises [42], as suggested in previous marketing capability research [4], we found high levels of interdependence among the items assessing marketing implementation and marketing planning. Consequently, marketing implementation was eliminated from the analysis. Finally, the results were limited to Mexico.
Future research might use longitudinal designs to assess the effects of marketing capability on social innovation in social enterprises across time. In addition, future research could explore the business model of innovation, social value co-creation, and other market capabilities for generating social value and change such as network structure and market practices, and their effects on social enterprise performance. Finally, a future study comparing México with other emerging countries, especially from Latin America, might generate a deeper understanding about the nature of marketing capability and its effect on social impact in the region.
In sum, our results provide evidence of the importance of marketing capability dimensions on social innovation in social enterprises. In addition, social innovation not only offers solutions to social demands, but it is also a robust predictor of social value. However, social enterprises need to develop the ability to capitalize their social innovation in economic value to ensure their survival and long-term performance. Future research should continue examining the role of social innovation on different types of values.

Author Contributions

J.C.-A. is responsible for conceptualization, methodology, validation, formal analysis, and writing. R.P.-D. is responsible for supervision, formal analysis, draft preparation, review and editing.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Scales.
Table A1. Scales.
Marketing CapabilitiesMarketing Capabilities
PricingMarketing Planning
P1. Developing pricing skills and techniques to respond quickly to market changesMP1. Developing marketing planning skills
P2. Developing knowledge of competitors’ pricing tacticsMP2. Developing the ability to effectively segment and target market
P3. Developing an effective job of pricing products/servicesMP3. Developing marketing management skills and processes
P4. Developing a system to monitor competitors’ prices and price changesMP4. Developing creative marketing strategies
Product developmentMP5. Thorough knowledge of marketing planning processes
PD1. Learning to develop new products/servicesMarketing Implementation
PD2. Developing new products/services to exploit current or future production skills and/or technologyMIM1. Knowledgeable about effective allocation of marketing resources
PD3. Acquiring new technology to develop products/servicesMIM2. Developing effective delivery of marketing programs
PD4. Developing knowledge of coordinating new product launchesMIM3. Knowing how to translate marketing strategies into action
PD5. Gaining knowledge of customer needs to match new product developmentMIM4. Knowledgeable about executing marketing strategies effectively
Channel ManagementMIM5. Developing a monitoring system for marketing performance
CM1. Developing good relationships with distributorsSocial innovation
CM2. Attracting and retaining the best distributorsSI1. Our company is often the first to market with new social products and/or services
CM3. Gaining knowledge of distributors’ partnersSI2. Our company frequently tries out new ideas
CM4. Striving to add value to our distributors businessSI3. Our company seeks out new ways to do things
CM5. Developing partnerships with our distributors and their business partnersSI4. Our company is creative in its methods of operation
CM6. Providing high levels of service support to distributorsSI5. Our new social products and/or services introduction has increased over last three or four years
Marketing CommunicationSocial value creation
MC1. Knowledge of developing and executing advertising programsSVC1. This company has bidding for public service contract
MC2. Developing advertising management and creative skillsSVC2. This company has bidding government (or its funding body’s) grants for enterprise activities
MC3. Using public relations skillsSVC3. This company serves more beneficiaries in the community
MC4. Developing brand image skills and positioningSVC4. This company provides more social products and/or services
MC5. Knowledge of nonprofit image and reputation managementSVC5. This company has expanded social products and/or services to different locations
Market Information ManagementEconomic value creation
MI1. Gathering information about customers and competitorsEVC1. Business unit profitability
MI2. Using market research skills to develop effective marketing programsEVC2. Reaching enterprise financial goals
MI3. Tracking customer wants and needsEVC3. Enterprise customer satisfaction
MI4. Making full use of marketing research informationEVC4. Delivering value to your enterprise customer
SellingEVC5. Expand enterprise activities to different locations
S1. Giving salespeople the training they need to be effectiveEVC6. Engage more enterprise activities (different types)
S2. Developing sales management planning and control systemsFirm Size
S3. Developing selling skills of salespeople Number of employees hired
S4. Providing effective sales support to the sales force
Table
Table A2. Robust estimation of the structural sample model standardized factor loadings and variances.
Table A2. Robust estimation of the structural sample model standardized factor loadings and variances.
LatentItemParameterEstimated Modelp Value
Marketing Communication MC1λ110.783
MC2λ210.846<0.001
MC3λ310.843<0.001
MC4λ410.839<0.001
δ10.388
δ20.284
δ30.29
δ40.296
SellingS1λ520.842
S2λ620.895<0.001
S4λ720.942<0.001
δ50.29
δ60.198
δ70.112
Market Information ManagementMI1λ830.656
MI2λ930.892<0.001
MI4λ10,30.903<0.001
δ80.57
δ90.204
δ100.184
Marketing planningMP1λ11,40.891
MP3λ12,40.952<0.001
MP4λ13,40.889<0.001
MP5λ14,40.893<0.001
δ110.206
δ120.094
δ130.209
δ140.203
PricingP1λ15,50.808
P2λ16,50.622<0.001
P3λ17,50.878<0.001
P4λ18,50.619<0.001
δ150.347
δ160.614
δ170.229
δ180.616
Product developmentPD1λ19,60.87
PD2λ20,60.813<0.001
PD3λ21,60.668<0.001
PD4λ22,60.787<0.001
PD5λ23,60.733<0.001
δ190.243
δ200.339
δ210.554
δ220.381
δ230.463
Channel managementCM1λ24,70.63
CM2λ25,70.787<0.001
CM3λ26,70.802<0.001
CM4λ27,70.918<0.001
CM5λ28,70.857<0.001
CM6λ29,70.84<0.001
δ240.603
δ250.38
δ260.356
δ270.156
δ280.266
δ290.295
Social innovationSI2λ30,80.910<0.001
SI3λ31,80.846<0.001
SI4λ32,80.800<0.001
δ300.173
δ310.283
δ320.36
Marketing capabilitiesCommunicationλ33,90.707
Sellingλ34,90.828<0.001
Market Informationλ35,90.746<0.001
Marketing planλ36,90.795<0.001
Pricingλ37,90.811<0.001
Product developmentλ38,90.925<0.001
Channelλ39,90.527<0.001
δ330.500
δ340.314
δ350.443
δ360.367
δ370.343
δ380.144
δ390.723
Social value creationSVC3λ40,100.689
SVC4λ41,100.846<0.001
SVC5λ42,100.726<0.001
δ400.525
δ410.284
δ420.473
Economic value creationEVC1λ43,110.736
EVC2λ44,110.936<0.001
δ430.458
δ440.123

References

  1. Dees, J.G.; Anderson, B.B. Framing a theory of social entrepreneurship: Building on two schools of practice and thought. Res. Soc. Entrep. 2006, 1, 39–66. [Google Scholar]
  2. Alter, K. Social Enterprise Typology, 1st ed.; Virtue Ventures LLC: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; pp. 71–73. [Google Scholar]
  3. Florin, J.; Schmidt, E. Creating Shared Value in the Hybrid Venture Arena: A Business Model Innovation Perspective. J. Soc. Entrep. 2011, 2, 165–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Vorhies, D.W.; Morgan, N.A. Benchmarking Marketing Capabilities for Sustainable Competitive Advantage. J. Mark. 2005, 69, 80–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ince, I.; Hahn, R. How Dynamic Capabilities Facilitate the Survivability of Social Enterprises: A Qualitative Analysis of Sensing and Seizing Capacities. 2018. Available online: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jsbm (accessed on 15 May 2019).
  6. Morgan, N.A.; Slotegraaf, R.J.; Vorhies, D.W. Linking marketing capabilities with profit growth. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2009, 26, 284–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yao, Q.; Gong, S.; Wei, H. Marketing Capabilities Drive Competitive Advantages: Evidence from China’s Agribusinesses. Agric. Res. 2016, 5, 305–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cheah, J.; Amran, A.; Yahya, S. Internal oriented resources and social enterprises’ performance: How can social enterprises help themselves before helping others? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 607–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. McDermott, K.; Kurucz, E.C.; Colbert, B.A. Social entrepreneurial opportunity and active stakeholder participation: Resource mobilization in enterprising conveners of cross-sector social partnerships. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 183, 121–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Newbert, S.L. Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: An assessment and suggestions for future research. Strateg. Manag. J. 2007, 28, 121–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Son, H.; Lee, J.; Chung, Y. Value Creation Mechanism of Social Enterprises in Manufacturing Industry: Empirical Evidence from Korea. Sustainability 2017, 10, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Barraket, J.; Yousefpour, N. Evaluation and Social Impact Measurement amongst Small to Medium Social Enterprises: Process, Purpose and Value. Aust. J. Public Adm. 2013, 72, 447–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dart, R. The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 2004, 14, 411–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Mason, C.; Doherty, B. A fair trade-off? Paradoxes in the governance of fair-trade social enterprises. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 136, 451–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Dyduch, W.; Bratnicki, M. Strategizing corporate entrepreneurship for value creation and value capture. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 17, 7–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Letaifa, S.B. The uneasy transition from supply chains to ecosystems: The value-creation/value-capture dilemma. Manag. Decis. 2014, 52, 278–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wernerfelt, B. A resource-based view of the firm. Strat. Manag. J. 1984, 5, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hoskisson, R.E.; Hitt, M.A.; Wan, W.P.; Yiu, D. Theory and research in strategic management: Swings of a pendulum. J. Manag. 1999, 25, 417–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Barney, J.B. Strategic Factor Markets: Expectations, Luck, and Business Strategy. Manag. Sci. 1986, 32, 1231–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Barney, J.B.; Ketchen, D.J., Jr.; Wright, M. The future of resource-based theory: Revitalization or decline. J. Manag. 2011, 37, 1299–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kozlenkova, I.V.; Samaha, S.A.; Palmatier, R.W. Resource-based theory in marketing. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2014, 42, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Barney, J. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Barney, J.B.; Hesterly, W.S. Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage: Concepts and Cases, 4th ed.; Pearson: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; p. 138. [Google Scholar]
  24. Makadok, R. Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strat. Manag. J. 2001, 22, 387–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Barney, J.B.; Clark, D.N. Resource-based Theory: Creating and Sustaining Competitive Advantage, 1st ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2007; pp. 51–53. [Google Scholar]
  26. Teece, D.J.; Pisano, G.; Shuen, A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strat. Manag. J. 1997, 18, 509–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Eisenhardt, K.M.; Martin, J.A. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strat. Manag. J. 2000, 21, 1105–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fang, E.; Palmatier, R.W.; Grewal, R. Effects of Customer and Innovation Asset Configuration Strategies on Firm Performance. J. Mark. Res. 2011, 48, 587–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Peteraf, M.A.; Barney, J.B. Unraveling the resource-based tangle. Manag. Decis. Econ. 2003, 24, 309–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Vorhies, D.W.; Harker, M.; Rao, C. The capabilities and performance advantages of market-driven firms. Eur. J. Mark. 1999, 33, 1171–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Weerawardena, J.; O’Cass, A. Exploring the characteristics of the market-driven firms and antecedents to sustained competitive advantage. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2004, 33, 419–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Grant, R.M. The Resource-Based Theory of Competitive Advantage: Implications for Strategy Formulation. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1991, 33, 114–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. O’Cass, A.; Ngo, L.V.; Siahtiri, V. Examining the marketing planning–marketing capability interface and customer-centric performance in SMEs. J. Strat. Mark. 2012, 20, 463–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Amit, R.; Schoemaker, P.J.H. Strategic assets and organizational rent. Strat. Manag. J. 1993, 14, 33–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Day, G.S. The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations. J. Mark. 1994, 58, 37–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Feng, H.; Morgan, N.A.; Rego, L.L. Firm capabilities and growth: The moderating role of market conditions. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2017, 45, 76–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Song, M.; Droge, C.; Hanvanich, S.; Calantone, R. Marketing and technology resource complementarity: An analysis of their interaction effect in two environmental contexts. Strat. Manag. J. 2005, 26, 259–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Wu, J. Marketing capabilities, institutional development, and the performance of emerging market firms: A multinational study. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2013, 30, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Spencer, R.; Brueckner, M.; Wise, G.; Marika, B. Australian indigenous social enterprise: Measuring performance. J. Enterp. Commun. People Places Glob. Econ. 2016, 10, 397–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vickers, I.; Lyon, F. Beyond green niches? Growth strategies of environmentally motivated social enterprises. Int. Small Bus. J. 2014, 32, 449–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kim, N.; Shin, S.; Min, S. Strategic marketing capability: Mobilizing technological resources for new product advantage. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 5644–5652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Liu, G.; Eng, T.Y.; Takeda, S. An investigation of marketing capabilities and social enterprise performance in the UK and Japan. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2015, 39, 267–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Santos, F.; Pache, A.C.; Birkholz, C. Making Hybrids Work: Aligning Business Models and Organizational Design for Social Enterprises. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2015, 57, 36–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Thompson, J.L. Social enterprise and social entrepreneurship: Where have we reached? A summary of issues and discussion points. Soc. Enterp. J. 2008, 4, 149–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Huang, Y.T.; Chu, W.; Huang, Y. Enhancement of product development capabilities of OEM suppliers: Inter- and intra-organisational learning. J. Bus. Ind. Mark. 2010, 25, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lefroy, K.; Tsarenko, Y. From receiving to achieving: The role of relationship and dependence for nonprofit organisations in corporate partnerships. Eur. J. Mark. 2013, 10, 1641–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Allan, B. Social enterprise: Through the eyes of the consumer (prepared for the National Consumer Council). Soc. Enterp. J. 2005, 1, 57–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chang, W.W.; Kuo, Y.C.; Chang, W.W.; Huang, C.M.; Kuo, Y.C. Design of Employee Training in Taiwanese Nonprofit Volunt. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. (NVSQ) 2015, 44, 25–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wu, J.J.; Chen, Y.H.; Chien, S.H.; Wu, W.K. Attachment relationship study of trust and trust transfer. J. Serv. Theory Pract. 2016, 26, 681–695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Slotegraaf, R.J.; Dickson, P.R. The Paradox of a Marketing Planning Capability. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2004, 32, 371–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mithas, S.; Ramasubbu, N.; Sambamurthy, V. How Information Management Capability Influences Firm Performance. MIS Q. 2011, 35, 237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Cukier, W.; Trenholm, S.; Carl, D.; Gekas, G. Social entrepreneurship: A content analysis. J. Strateg. Innov. Sustain. 2011, 7, 99–119. [Google Scholar]
  53. Dawson, P.; Daniel, L. Understanding social innovation: A provisional framework. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2010, 51, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Parekh, M.; Lettice, F. The social innovation process: Themes, challenges and implications for practice. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2010, 51, 139–158. [Google Scholar]
  55. Feldman, M.S.; Pentland, B.T. Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change. Adm. Sci. Q. 2003, 48, 94–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Shin, C. How Social Entrepreneurs Affect Performance of Social Enterprises in Korea: The Mediating Effect of Innovativeness. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2643–2658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zainol, N.R.; Zainol, F.A.; Ibrahim, Y.; Afthanorhan, A. Scaling up social innovation for sustainability: The roles of social enterprise capabilities. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2019, 9, 457–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Calantone, R.J.; Cavusgil, S.T.; Zhao, Y. Learning orientation, firm innovation capability, and firm performance. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2002, 31, 515–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sulistyo, H. Siyamtinah Innovation capability of SMEs through entrepreneurship, marketing capability, relational capital and empowerment. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 2016, 21, 196–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lee, J.S.; Hsieh, C.J. A Research in Relating Entrepreneurship, Marketing Capability, Innovative Capability And Sustained Competitive Advantage. J. Bus. Econ. Res. JBER 2010, 8, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Weerawardena, J. The role of marketing capability in innovation-based competitive strategy. J. Strat. Mark. 2003, 11, 15–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Weerawardena, J.; Mort, G.S. Competitive Strategy in Socially Entrepreneurial Nonprofit Organizations: Innovation and Differentiation. J. Public Policy Mark. 2012, 31, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Barney, J.B. Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view. J. Manag. 2001, 27, 643–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Meyskens, M.; Stamp, J.A.; Carsrud, A.L.; Reynolds, P.D.; Robb-Post, C.; Robb-Post, C. Social Ventures from a Resource-Based Perspective: An Exploratory Study Assessing Global Ashoka Fellows. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2010, 34, 661–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Nicholls, A.; Cho, A.H. Social Entrepreneurship: The Structuration of a Field. In Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change, 1st ed.; Kickul, J., Gras, D., Bacq, S., Griffiths, M., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2013; pp. 31–47. [Google Scholar]
  66. Certo, S.T.; Miller, T. Social entrepreneurship: Key issues and concepts. Bus. Horizons 2008, 51, 267–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kong, E. Innovation processes in social enterprises: An IC perspective. J. Hum. Cap. 2010, 11, 158–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Albert, L.S.; Dean, T.J.; Baron, R.A. From Social Value to Social Cognition: How Social Ventures Obtain the Resources They Need for Social Transformation. J. Soc. Entrep. 2016, 7, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Martin, R.J.; Osberg, S. Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for a Definition. 2007. Available online: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/social_entrepreneurship_the_case_for_definition (accessed on 20 May 2019).
  70. Baregheh, A.; Rowley, J.; Sambrook, S. Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Manag. Decis. 2009, 47, 1323–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kogut, B.; Zander, U. Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology. Organ. Sci. 1992, 3, 383–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Choi, N.; Majumdar, S. Social entrepreneurship as an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue for systematic future research. J. Bus. Ventur. 2014, 29, 363–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Van Der Have, R.P.; Rubalcaba, L. Social innovation research: An emerging area of innovation studies? Res. Policy 2016, 45, 1923–1935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Isaksson, L.E.; Woodside, A.G. Modeling firm heterogeneity in corporate social performance and financial performance. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 3285–3314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. Creating shared value. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2011, 89, 62–77. [Google Scholar]
  76. Bellostas, A.J.; López-Arceiz, F.J.; Mateos, L. Social value and economic value in social enterprises: Value creation model of Spanish sheltered workshops. VOLUNTAS 2016, 27, 367–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Kor, Y.Y.; Mahoney, J.T. Edith Penrose’s (1959) contributions to the resource-based view of strategic management. J. Manag. Stud. 2004, 41, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Mahoney, J.T. The management of resources and the resource of management. J. Bus. Res. 1995, 33, 91–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Penrose, E. The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 4th ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 25–27. [Google Scholar]
  80. Ngo, L.V.; O’Cass, A. Creating value offerings via operant resource-based capabilities. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2009, 38, 45–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Nielsen, C. From innovation performance to business performance: Conceptualising a framework and research agenda. Meditari Account. Res. 2019, 27, 2–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Adner, R.; Kapoor, R. Value creation in innovation ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations. Strat. Manag. J. 2010, 31, 306–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Cooper, R.G. Winning at New Products. Creating Value through Innovation, 5th ed.; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 63–71. [Google Scholar]
  84. O’Cass, A.; Sok, P. Exploring innovation driven value creation in B2B service firms: The roles of the manager, employees, and customers in value creation. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1074–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Lieberman, M.B.; Balasubramanian, N.; Garcia-Castro, R. Toward a dynamic notion of value creation and appropriation in firms: The concept and measurement of economic gain. Strateg. Manag. J. 2018, 39, 1546–1572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. RIITS. Directorio de Empresas Sociales en México, 1st ed.; RIITS: Puebla, Mexico, 2017; pp. 6–9. [Google Scholar]
  87. Armstrong, J.S.; Overton, T.S. Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys. J. Mark. Res. 1977, 14, 396–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Keskin, H. Market orientation, learning orientation, and innovation capabilities in SMEs: An extended model. EJIM 2006, 9, 396–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Secretaría de Economía, “Empresas”. Available online: http://www.2006-2012.economia.gob.mx/mexico-emprende/empresas (accessed on 24 April 2019).
  90. Hair, J.F.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling: Rigorous Applications, Better Results and Higher Acceptance. Long Range Plan. 2013, 46, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Janssens, W.; Wijnen, K.; De Pelsmacker, P.; Van Kenhove, P. Marketing Research with SPSS, 1st ed.; Pearson Education: Essex, UK, 2008; pp. 279–312. [Google Scholar]
  93. Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Structural Equations Modeling Overview. In Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderso, R.E., Eds.; Pearson: London, UK, 2014; pp. 541–598. [Google Scholar]
  94. Bentler, P.M. On the fit of models to covariances and methodology to the Bulletin. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112, 400–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Crowley, S.L.; Fan, X. Structural Equation Modeling: Basic Concepts and Applications in Personality Assessment Research. J. Pers. Assess. 1997, 68, 508–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ge, J.; Xu, H.; Pellegrini, M.M. The Effect of Value Co-Creation on Social Enterprise Growth: Moderating Mechanism of Environment Dynamics. Sustainability 2019, 11, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Battilana, J.; Lee, M. Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing–Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2014, 8, 397–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Zahra, S.A.; Gedajlovic, E.; Neubaum, D.O.; Shulman, J.M. A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives, search processes and ethical challenges. J. Bus. Ventur. 2009, 24, 519–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Rasmussen, W. Selling Good: The Big Picture of Marketing for Social Enterprises. In Social Entrepreneurship and Social Business; Springer Gabler: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2012; pp. 133–156. [Google Scholar]
  100. Li, W.; Sadick, M.A.; Ibn Musah, A.-A.; Mustapha, S. The Moderating Effect of Social Innovation in Perspectives of Shared Value Creation in the Educational Sector of Ghana. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 11 04668 g001 550
Figure 1. Social enterprise structural model for social and economic value creation.
Figure 1. Social enterprise structural model for social and economic value creation.
Sustainability 11 04668 g001
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the social enterprises.
Table 1. Characteristics of the social enterprises.
Company ApproachFreq%Selling on InternetFreq%
Producing and trading products/services8572Yes7160.2
Trading products3328No4739.8
Age of companyFreq%SizeFreq%
1–10 years old9076.3Very small4336.4
more than 10 years2823.7Small4538.1
Medium2622.1
Large21.7
Very large21.7
Location zoneFreq%
Central 8975.4
North 1512.8
South1411.8
Table
Table 2. Constructs correlations and reliability.
Table 2. Constructs correlations and reliability.
CR *AVE **Sqrt (AVE)Social InnovationSocial ValueEconomic Value
Social innovation0.920.660.812
Social value0.890.730.8540.586
Economic value0.830.570.7550.3170.518
Marketing capability0.500.710.8430.6770.6170.598
* CR = composite reliability ** AVE = Average variance extracted.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cavazos-Arroyo, J.; Puente-Diaz, R. The Influence of Marketing Capability in Mexican Social Enterprises. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4668. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174668

AMA Style

Cavazos-Arroyo J, Puente-Diaz R. The Influence of Marketing Capability in Mexican Social Enterprises. Sustainability. 2019; 11(17):4668. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174668

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cavazos-Arroyo, Judith, and Rogelio Puente-Diaz. 2019. "The Influence of Marketing Capability in Mexican Social Enterprises" Sustainability 11, no. 17: 4668. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174668

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop