The Role of Stakeholders in Development of Social Economy Organizations in Poland: An Integrative Approach
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Social Economy Organizations and the Factors of Change: Public Policy, Co-Creation, and Stakeholder Engagement
2.1. State Policy Aimed at Commercializing of Social Economy Organizations
2.2. Co-Creation in Social Economy Organizations
2.3. Stakeholders
3. Methodology
- (1)
- What activities, in comparison to mission-related activities, affected a change in the number of people determining the service implementation?
- (2)
- What was the scale of that change?
- (3)
- What was the reason for the change in the number of people engaged in the decision-making process?
- (1)
- small scale and small scope—a small number of stages in which stakeholders participate combined with a small number of stakeholders involved throughout the process;
- (2)
- large scale and small scope—a small number of participants in a large number of stages;
- (3)
- small scale and large scope—a large number of participants in a small number of stages;
- (4)
- large scale and large scope—a large number of participants in a large number of stages.
4. Results
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Alter, Kim. 2007. Social Enterprise Typology; Virtue Ventures. Available online: https://www.globalcube.net/clients/philippson/content/medias/download/SE_typology.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2019).
- Amin, Ash. 2009. The Social Economy: Alternative Ways of Thinking about Capitalism and Welfare, 1st ed. London and New York: Zed Books. [Google Scholar]
- Beugelsdijk, Sjoerd, and Sjak Smulders. 2009. Bonding and Bridging Social Capital and Economic Growth. SSRN Scholarly Paper. ID 1402697. Rochester: Social Science Research Network. [Google Scholar]
- Bhalla, Gaurav. 2010. Collaboration and Co-Creation: New Platforms for Marketing and Innovation, 2011st ed. Berlin: Springer. [Google Scholar]
- Bitzer, Verena, and Pieter Glasbergen. 2015. Business-NGO Partnerships in Global Value Chains: Part of the Solution or Part of the Problem of Sustainable Change? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 12: 35–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blackburn, William R. 2012. The Sustainability Handbook: The Complete Management Guide to Achieving Social, Economic and Environmental Responsibility. London and New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Bohdziewicz-Lulewicz, Marta, and Anna Rychły-Mierzwa. 2018. Monitoring Kondycji Sektora Ekonomii Społecznej w Małopolsce [Monitoring of Social Economy Condition in Malopolska]. Kraków: Regionalny Ośrodek Polityki Społecznej w Krakowie. [Google Scholar]
- Borzaga, Carlo, and Jacques Defourny. 2004. The Emergence of Social Enterprise. London: Psychology Press, vol. 4. [Google Scholar]
- Borzillo, Stefano, Daniel Schwenger, and Thomas Straub. 2014. Non-Governmental Organizations: Strategic Management for a Competitive World. Journal of Business Strategy 35: 11–19. [Google Scholar]
- Bryson, John M. 2004. What to Do When Stakeholders Matter. Public Management Review 6: 21–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bryson, John, Alessandro Sancino, John Benington, and Eva Sørensen. 2017. Towards a Multi-Actor Theory of Public Value Co-Creation. Public Management Review 19: 640–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chinyio, Ezekiel, and Paul Olomolaiye. 2009. Construction Stakeholder Management. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. [Google Scholar]
- Ćwiklicki, Marek. 2011. Analiza interesariuszy w koncepcji relacji złożonych procesów reakcji. Zeszyty Naukowe, Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w Poznaniu 199: 72–80. [Google Scholar]
- Czapiński, Janusz, and Tomasz Panek. 2015. Diagnoza Społeczna 2015—Warunki i jakość życia Polaków - Biblioteka Cyfrowa. Warszawa: Rada Monitoringu Społecznego. [Google Scholar]
- Dahan, Nicolas M., Jonathan P. Doh, Jennifer Oetzel, and Michael Yaziji. 2010. Corporate-NGO Collaboration: Co-Creating New Business Models for Developing Markets. Long Range Planning 43: 326–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Koning, Jotte, Marcel Crul, and Renee Wever. 2016. Models of Co-Creation. Paper presented at Service Design Geographies 2016 Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, May 24–26; vol. 125. [Google Scholar]
- Defourny, Jacques. 2001. Social Enterprise and the Third Sector. In The Emergence of Social Enterprise. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Evers, Adalbert. 2001. The Significance of Social Capital in the Multiple Goal and Resource Structure of Social Enterprises. Available online: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/rout/c3gab/2001/00000001/00000001/art00019;jsessionid=dr0eeo68f0157.x-ic-live-01 (accessed on 27 August 2019).
- Farazmand, Ali, ed. 2018. Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Berlin: Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar]
- Freeman, R. Edward. 2010. Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Fudaliński, Janusz. 2014. Dysfunctions of NPOs and NGOs in Poland in the Global Context: Some International Comparisons. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review 2: 81–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Galvagno, Marco, and Daniele Dalli. 2014. Theory of Value Co-Creation: A Systematic Literature Review. Managing Service Quality: An International Journal 24: 643–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gouillart, Francis. 2014. The Race to Implement Co-Creation of Value with Stakeholders: Five Approaches to Competitive Advantage. Strategy and Leadership 42: 2–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gummesson, Evert, and Cristina Mele. 2010. Marketing as Value Co-Creation Through Network Interaction and Resource Integration. Journal of Business Market Management 4: 181–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrison, Jeffrey S. 2014. Strategic Management of Healthcare Organizations: A Stakeholder Management Approach. New York: Business Expert Press. [Google Scholar]
- Hatch, Mary, and Majken Schultz. 2010. Toward a Theory of Brand Co-Creation with Implications for Brand Governance. Journal of Brand Management 17: 590–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hausner, Jerzy, and Norbert Laurisz. 2008. Czynniki krytyczne tworzenia przedsiębiorstw społecznych. Przedsiębiorstwo społeczne. Konceptualizacja. In Przedsiębiorstwa Społeczne w Polsce: Teoria i Praktyka. Kraków: Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny, Małopolska Szkoła Administracji Publicznej. [Google Scholar]
- Hausner, Jerzy, Norbert Laurisz, and Stanisław Mazur. 2007. Przedsiębiorstwo Społeczne—Konceptualizacja [The concept of social enterprises]. In Managing Social Economy Institutions, Course Book. Krakow: Małopolska School of Public Administration, Krakow University of Economics. [Google Scholar]
- Helliwell, John F., and Robert D. Putnam. 1995. Economic Growth and Social Capital in Italy. Eastern Economic Journal 21: 295–307. [Google Scholar]
- Kazadi, Kande, Annouk Lievens, and Dominik Mahr. 2016. Stakeholder Co-Creation during the Innovation Process: Identifying Capabilities for Knowledge Creation among Multiple Stakeholders. Journal of Business Research 69: 525–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kopyciński, Piotr. 2017. The neo-Weberian Approach in Innovation Policy. In Public Policy and the Neo-Weberian State. Edited by Stanisław Mazur and Piotr Kopyciński. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 80–94. [Google Scholar]
- Laurisz, Norbert, and Stanisław Mazur. 2008. Kluczowe czynniki rozwoju przedsiębiorczości społecznej. In Ekonomia Społeczna w Polsce: Osiągnięcia, Bariery rozwoju i Potencjał w Świetle Wyników Badań. Warszawa: Fundacja Inicjatyw Społeczno-Ekonomicznych, pp. 315–31. [Google Scholar]
- Laville, Jean-Louis, and Marthe Nyssens. 2001. The Social Enterprise. Available online: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/rout/c3gab/2001/00000001/00000001/art00020 (accessed on 27 August 2019).
- Laville, Jean-Louis, Benoît Lévesque, and Margueritte Mendell. 2005. The Social Economy: Diverse Approaches and Practices in Europe and Canada. Paris: OECD, pp. 125–73. [Google Scholar]
- Leclercq, Thomas, Wafa Hammedi, and Ingrid Poncin. 2016. Ten Years of Value Cocreation: An Integrative Review. Recherche et Applications En Marketing (English Edition) 31: 26–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikołajczak, Paweł. 2017. Importance of Funding Sources to the Scale of Activity of Social Enterprises. Finanse, Rynki Finansowe, Ubezpieczenia 88: 135–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikołajczak, Paweł. 2018. The Impact of the Diversification of Revenues on NGOs’ Commercialization: Evidence from Poland. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy 13: 761–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mikucka, Malgorzata, and Francesco Sarracino. 2014. Making Economic Growth and Well-Being Compatible: The Role of Trust and Income Inequality. Munich: University Library of Munich. [Google Scholar]
- Moulaert, Frank, and Oana Ailenei. 2005. Social Economy, Third Sector and Solidarity Relations: A Conceptual Synthesis from History to Present. Urban Studies 42: 2037–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moulaert, Frank, and Jacques Nussbaumer. 2005. Defining the Social Economy and Its Governance at the Neighbourhood Level: A Methodological Reflection. Urban Studies 42: 2071–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunnenkamp, Peter, and Hannes Öhler. 2010. Funding, Competition and the Efficiency of NGOs: An Empirical Analysis of Non-Charitable Expenditure of US NGOs Engaged in Foreign Aid SSRN Electronic Journal. SSRN Electronic Journal. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Hern, Matthew S., and Aric P. Rindfleisch. 2010. Customer Co-Creation: A Typology and Research Agenda. Review of Marketing Research 6: 84–106. [Google Scholar]
- Olson, David L., Sang M. Lee, and Silvana Trimi. 2012. Co-innovation: Convergenomics, Collaboration, and Co-creation for Organizational Values. Management Decision 50: 817–31. [Google Scholar]
- Pacut, Agnieszka. 2010. Przedsiębiorczość społeczna w Polsce—Problemy i wyzwania [Social entrepreneurship in Poland: Problems and challenges]. Zarządzanie Publiczne 4: 45–58. [Google Scholar]
- Parmar, Bobby, R. Freeman, Jeffrey Harrison, A. Purnell, and Simone De Colle. 2010. Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. The Academy of Management Annals 3: 403–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perrini, Francesco. 2006. The New Social Entrepreneurship: What Awaits Social Entrepreneurial Ventures? Cheltenham: Elgar Publishing. [Google Scholar]
- Phills, James, Kriss Deiglmeier, and Dale Miller. 2008. Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review 6: 34–43. [Google Scholar]
- Pinho, Nelson, Gabriela Beirão, Lia Patrício, and Raymond P. Fisk. 2014. Understanding Value Co-Creation in Complex Services with Many Actors’. Journal of Service Management 25: 470–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Prahalad, C. K., and Venkat Ramaswamy. 2004. Co-Creation Experiences: The next Practice in Value Creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing 18: 5–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramaswamy, Venkat, and Francis Gouillart. 2010. Building the Co-Creative Enterprise. Harvard Business Review 88: 100–9. [Google Scholar]
- Ramaswamy, Venkat, and Kerimcan Ozcan. 2013. Strategy and Co-Creation Thinking. Strategy and Leadership 41: 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ramaswamy, Venkat, and Kerimcan Ozcan. 2014. The Co-Creation Paradigm. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Sarracino, Francesco, and Małgorzata Mikucka. 2017. Social Capital in Europe from 1990 to 2012: Trends and Convergence. Social Indicators Research 131: 407–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwenger, Daniel, Thomas Straub, and Stefano Borzillo. 2013. Competition and Strategy of Non-Governmental Organizations. EMES-SOCENT Conference Selected Papers, no. LG13-, Liège. Available online: https://emes.net/content/uploads/publications/Schwenger_at_al._ECSP-LG13-45.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2019).
- Scott-Kemmis, Don. 2012. Responding to Change and Pursuing Growth: Exploring the Potential of Business Model Innovation in Australia. Sydney: Australian Business Foundation. [Google Scholar]
- Spear, Roger, Jacques Defourny, and Jean-Louis Laville. 2018. Tackling Social Exclusion in Europe: The Contribution of the Social Economy. London and New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Vaceková, Gabriela, and Má Svidroňovária. 2014. Benefits and Risks of Self-Financing of NGOS: Empirical Evidence from the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Austria. E a M: Ekonomie a Management 17: 120–29. [Google Scholar]
- Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert F. Lusch. 2004. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing 68: 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vargo, Stephen L., Paul P. Maglio, and Melissa Archpru Akaka. 2008. On Value and Value Co-Creation: A Service Systems and Service Logic Perspective. European Management Journal 26: 145–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vincent, Fernand. 2006. NGOs, Social Movements, External Funding and Dependency. Development 49: 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Scheel, Henrik, Zakaria Maamar, and Mona von Rosing. 2015. Social Media and Business Process Management. In The Complete Business Process Handbook. Edited by Mark von Rosing, Henrik von Scheel and August-Wilhelm Scheer. Boston: Morgan Kaufmann, pp. 381–98. [Google Scholar]
- Voorberg, William, Victor Bekkers, and Lars Tummers. 2015. A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the Social Innovation Journey. Public Management Review 17: 1333–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Voorberg, William, Victor Bekkers, Krista Timeus, Piret Tonurist, and Lars Tummers. 2017. Changing Public Service Delivery: Learning in Co-Creation. Policy and Society 36: 178–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wells, Rob. 2001. Ensuring NGO Independence in the New Funding Environment. Development in Practice 11: 73–77. [Google Scholar]
- Wygnański, Jakub, and Piotr Frączak. 2008. The Polish Model of the Social Economy Recommendations. Warsaw: Foundation for Social and Economic Initiatives. [Google Scholar]
- Żur, Agnieszka. 2014. Building competitive advantage through social value creation—A comparative case study approach to social entrepreneurship. Problemy Zarządzania 4: 56–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Stakeholders | Number of Indications |
---|---|
Customers | 87 |
Local government | 85 |
Members of associations | 92 |
NGOs—competitive | 78 |
NGOs—cooperative | 81 |
Secondary schools | 75 |
Social enterprises | 76 |
Volunteers | 88 |
Research Questions | Selected Respondents Statements Based on In-Depth Interviews |
---|---|
What kind of activities change the SEO’s mode of operation and what are the directions of changes? | 1. The organization’s activity changes the most when there is some money to be made. |
2. When business and money appear. | |
3. When there is money to be made on the free market | |
4. Business activity | |
5. Business | |
What are the directions of the change? | 1. The way of operating changes when you conduct business activity, this is the market, and here you have to act differently. |
2. When we enter the market, the organization’s activity must be competitive, you must make quick decisions. | |
3. Professionalization takes place. The entities can become independent and provide higher quality services. Professionalization of operations is a smart decision and a good trend. | |
4. The introduction of revenue results in a change in management. We have to professionalize and become more like a company. We are getting market-oriented and professional. That involves gaining skills and experience required on the open market. As a result, the business activity grows, and the organization can generate a profit. | |
5. The introduction of paid services requires changes. The organization cannot any longer be run incompetently—it must become professional, flexible, and make decisions quickly. There is no room for democratic management here. Adaptation to the market requirements can have both positive and negative consequences for the organization. The positive ones being a strong growth in profits, the negative being strong management and possible lay-offs of worse employees. | |
Does the number of people deciding on the shape and manner of the service implementation change? | 1. When there is money to be made, there is no shortage of people. However, when there is no money and we need volunteers, nobody wants to work. That is why when money appears, you have got to rule with an iron fist. |
2. Paid services do not let you earn the same money as business activity. That is why management does not change until you enter the market with an open offer, when you need to compete and manage people. | |
3. When you make money, you cannot let a large group of people make decisions. Then we make decisions on the board. | |
4. Paid services do not change anything, but business activity forces us to act competitively, so we have to hire professional rehabilitation specialists and therapists. That means we talk to our customers and listen to them, but we make decisions without consulting anybody. | |
5. Business activity means responsibility—things change a lot. The consequences are also different. I can look for advice, but I prefer to make decisions in a small group. | |
What is the scale of this change? | 1. We operate like a business, so when we sell services, we decide about everything in our group (the board is four people). When we provide unpaid services, we consult widely. The difference is big. |
2. There cannot be many people responsible for the work of others and results. Statutory activities are simple—you work as you can, here you must be professional, so you act quickly in a small group or you make decisions by yourself. | |
3. Significant. Here (in mission-related activity), we have a big group, but business activity is usually one person responsible for a project. | |
4. Considerable change. Here, you need a person responsible for taking actions—sometimes that person makes decisions in a team, sometimes independently. However, key decisions are made single-handedly or by the board. | |
5. Business activity changes a lot. This is different management, different decisions. | |
What is the reason for the change in the number of people engaged in the decision-making process? | 1. Like I said, professionalization and responsibility, you must control everything. |
2. Control, management, and calculating money. | |
3. In business you can’t make friends—you must lead and manage—if you start negotiating, you cannot manage. | |
4. Responsibility for business and people, it is different than joint, social activities. These are two different worlds. | |
5. You cannot manage effectively when you work like in the parliament. Here you need change and either someone keeps things in order or the business will not work. However, of course, we consult with customers, whether everything is OK and whether we need to change something. We keep monitoring things, but we actually operate differently. Besides, we start to act differently in other areas. |
Type of Activities | Research Scales | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Do Not Participate | Allowed to Participate | Encouraged to Participate | Engagement in the Process | Equal Participation | |
mission-related activity | XX | XXX | X | ||
(53) | (59) | (49) | |||
paid mission-related activity | X | XX | XXX | ||
(55) | (57) | (52) | |||
business activity | XX | XXX | X | ||
(49) | (61) | (51) |
© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Laurisz, N. The Role of Stakeholders in Development of Social Economy Organizations in Poland: An Integrative Approach. Adm. Sci. 2019, 9, 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9040074
Laurisz N. The Role of Stakeholders in Development of Social Economy Organizations in Poland: An Integrative Approach. Administrative Sciences. 2019; 9(4):74. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9040074
Chicago/Turabian StyleLaurisz, Norbert. 2019. "The Role of Stakeholders in Development of Social Economy Organizations in Poland: An Integrative Approach" Administrative Sciences 9, no. 4: 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9040074
APA StyleLaurisz, N. (2019). The Role of Stakeholders in Development of Social Economy Organizations in Poland: An Integrative Approach. Administrative Sciences, 9(4), 74. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9040074