Faculty of Social and
Behavioural Science
Communication Science
Graduate School of Communication
Master: Communication Science: Corporate Communication
Caught Between Two Stools?
How Social Enterprises Construct Organizational Identity and
Manage Identity Tensions in the Context of Mediated Stakeholder
Relationships
Master Thesis
Submitted by:
Hannah Füller 12836680
Tutor dr. J.G.F. (Jeroen) Jonkman Course Thesis Phase III
Date 26/06/2020
ABSTRACT
With the trends for sustainable development, social enterprises emerged on the market. As they combine characteristics of non-profit and for-profit organizations, they feature a hybrid identity. Consequently, they often face identity tensions arising from diverging internal goals or demands of their external stakeholders. Existing research has made first attempts to classify tensions within social enterprises but lacks a focus on identity tensions in particular. Additionally, research in the context of the social enterprise requires further theorizing in how the identity of social enterprises is shaped by, and within, the communicative stakeholder networks in which these organizations operate and conduct their business. By means of qualitative interviews, the paper addresses this gap. Adding stakeholder theory to the context of identity construction, findings introduce an empirically grounded model and show that identity tensions resulting from different stakeholder expectations indeed shape organizational identity and that social enterprises learn from their stakeholders how to manage tensions which is how they consequently construct identity. First, a typology of identity tensions was created categorizing them based on the different stakeholder groups and expectations. Second, it was disclosed how mediated stakeholder relationships affect the management approaches to identity tensions showing that social enterprises vary in their coping strategy, feedback, collaboration, involvement, and willingness to adapt to stakeholder expectations. Summing up, this research proposes a change of perspective claiming that identity tensions are an opportunity for the social enterprise to improve its business. It is suggested to deepen the knowledge about the development of identity tensions, the emergence of tensions at different business stages, and refine the stakeholder functions within the social enterprise.
Keywords: Social enterprise, hybrid organization, organizational identity, identity tension, stakeholder theory, mediated stakeholder relationships
INTRODUCTION
The so-called social enterprise is a new business model that emerged at the back of sustainable development initiatives in economic markets (WCED, 1987), sparked by financial and economic crises, climate change, limited resources as well as social differences (Grimes, 2010). Social enterprises are characterized by the efficiency, innovation, and resources of profit-oriented firms and the vision and values of non-profit organizations (Smith, Gonin, & Besharov, 2013; Battilana, Lee, Walker, & Dorsey, 2012). They “seek to solve social problems through business ventures” (Smith et al., 2013, p. 408). However, emphasizing corporate social responsibility and following a social mission while ensuring economic growth is a challenge (Battilana et al., 2012). This can lead to tensions that represent competing demands and ethical dilemmas (Smith et al., 2013). In light of that, organizations have to enact multiple identities to cope with the divergent opinions of their external stakeholders and internal (sub)groups (Smith et al., 2013; Pratt & Foreman, 2000).
In academia, social enterprises – or hybrid organizations – have mainly been discussed in social entrepreneurship, organization, and management literature, as well as in marketing (Trivedi & Stokols, 2011; Smith, Knapp, Barr, Stevens, & Cannatelli, 2010; Jäger & Schröer, 2014). Since tensions within social enterprises shape and reflect the goals, values, and identity of the organization, organizational identity was identified to be a suitable, and yet relatively unexplored perspective (Smith et al., 2013; Stevens, Moray, & Bruneel, 2014). It can be assumed that uncertainties and ambiguities caused by such identity conflicts allow organizational identity to change over time (Corley & Gioia, 2004; Gioia et al. 2013).
In the field of organizational identity, progress has been made within the last years, but research still lacks a focus on how the organizational identity of social enterprises is shaped by, and within, the communicative stakeholder networks in which these organizations operate and conduct their business (Brickson, 2005). Consequently, it is fruitful to apply a stakeholder
approach in this context, because the identity of a social enterprise is presented and shaped concerning different stakeholder groups. Hence, this is where social-business tensions become visible. Even though the types of social-business tensions and their organizational responses have been categorized (Smith et al., 2013; Hsieh, Weng, & Lin, 2018), it is necessary to examine the factors enabling identity change such as stakeholders (Gioia et al., 2013) and how social enterprises learn to manage identity tensions through the interaction with their stakeholders (Smith et al., 2013).
Furthermore, considering that stakeholder relationships are mediated in the digital environment (Willson, 2017), it is suggested to analyze specific cases for instance social enterprises to provide insights about the choice of channels and design of the message when engaging in communicative relationships with stakeholders (Lock, 2019). Additional value is added proposing that identity tensions influence this mediated communication.
Drawing from Smith et al.’s (2013) suggestion to include stakeholder theory in the management of social-business tensions and to identify linkages between the stakeholder and organizational identity lens, the study builds on different identity-related stakeholder expectations. It examines how social enterprises face identity tensions in communication with different stakeholder groups. And considers how social enterprises use mediated relationships to manage their identities vis-à-vis stakeholders. This qualitative interview study advances the rather conceptual research field of organizational identity by empirically assisting identity tensions in social enterprises. Furthermore, it compares the findings of the social enterprises across cases, making it particularly relevant since much research in this field only involves single cases. The following research question arises:
RQ: (1) How are identity tensions in social enterprises different across stakeholder groups; and (2) how do mediated stakeholder relationships affect and inform the management of these identity tensions?
The report proceeds as follows. To start with, the concept of the social enterprise and its main characteristics are depicted. Then, the paper proceeds with the different types of tensions and management strategies that emerge in social enterprises. Consequently, the underlying frameworks organizational identity and stakeholder theory are introduced and linked to the social enterprise. Proposing that those stakeholder relationships are mediated, dynamic, and construct identity through communication, the method and results of the study will be explained and integrated into a conceptual model. Therefore, the research will (1) focus on the different types of identity tensions as well as (2) how social enterprises learn to manage those in their stakeholder relationships. Finally, the findings will be discussed taking contributions and implications into account.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Social Enterprise as a hybrid organization
Social enterprises blur the line between for-profit and non-profit organizations (Ebrahim, Battilana, & Mair, 2014). Social enterprises don’t fit into the conventional organizational forms (private, public, non-profit; Doherty, Haugh, & Lyon, 2014). Furthermore, nonprofit and for-profit sectors are converging as more businesses become socially conscious and philanthropic whilst non-profits increasingly depend on business methods and commercial sources (Young 2001). Combining characteristics of both, social enterprises follow the main goal to create social value (Ebrahim et al., 2014). However, their main source of revenue is commercial as they are present on the markets which prevents them from having to rely on donations or grants to survive in the industry (Ebrahim et al., 2014). Their commercial operations are used as an instrument to reach their social mission but are not profit-maximizing (Ebrahim et al., 2014; Doherty et al., 2014). For instance, the social enterprise Dopper reinvests a lot of their money
in drinking water projects or teams up with other organizations to create awareness and support education about the plastic crisis in the oceans (Dopper, 2020).
Based on the concept of multiple identities1 by Pratt and Foreman (2000), social enterprises on the one hand have a normative and on the other hand have a utilitarian identity (Moss, Short, Payne, & Lumpkin, 2011). Similarly, Jäger and Schröer (2014) speak of a civil society identity and a market identity. That is why researchers also call them organizations with a “hybrid-identity” (Hsieh, Weng, & Lin, 2018, p. 2880). While multiple identities in an organization exist independently next to each other, organizations with a hybrid-identity systematically try to integrate their competing identities (Jäger & Schröer, 2014; Battilana & Lee, 2014). Such hybrid organizing entails processes of sensemaking and incorporating identities, forms, and rationales that represent the core of the organization (Shepherd, Williams, & Zhao, 2019). Sustaining hybridity of the social enterprise is related to persistent challenges, which are partly resulting from identity conflicts (Smith & Besharov, 2019).
Social enterprises used to be predominant in the education and health care sector, but now increasingly perform in other market sectors, such as financial services, agriculture, information technology, and retail industries (Smith et al., 2013). Their impact goals range from work integration, social services, local development of disadvantaged areas to environmental protection, recycling, culture, historical preservation, science, or consumer protection (European Commission, 2020).
Identity Tensions in organizations with hybrid identities
One research stream in the literature of social enterprises assumes that social enterprises naturally have to face an inherent paradox between social and economic goals which persists
1 The concept of organizational identity and multiple identities is explained in the section of organizational
over time. As that can be a challenge to the organization’s success, facing tensions and trade-offs is a key feature of social enterprises (Siegner, Pinkse, & Panwar, 2018).
Smith and Lewis (2011) identified four types of tensions emerging in organizations – the performing tensions which refer to the organization’s outcomes, the organizing tensions which relate to structures, cultures and practices, the belonging tensions concerning questions of identity and lastly, the learning tensions referring to growth, scale and change over time. The tension of belonging is specifically relevant to this study, as it questions how organizations can manage distinct identity expectations among their subgroups, between different stakeholder groups and how they communicate their hybrid identity to external audiences. Identity fosters tensions between the individual and the collective and between competing values, roles, and memberships (Smith & Lewis, 2011).
When managing identity conflicts, scholars identified various ways (Smith et al., 2013). The management responses developed by Pratt and Foreman (2000) have been used predominantly. They suggest four strategies categorized along the two dimensions of identity plurality and synergy (the relationship between the identities) - compartmentalization, deletion, integration, and aggregation (Pratt & Foreman, 2000). Smith et al. (2010) were the first to investigate identity tensions and the management responses including the dynamic aspect of the timing of conception. The non-profit organizations that added the social enterprise later (before conception) and the ones where non-profit and social enterprise developed at the same time (after conception) indeed differed in their identity tensions and the way how compartmentalization, deletion, integration, and aggregation are implemented (Smith et al., 2010). Smith et al.’s (2010) perspective will be followed up by examining not only the process of how tensions are managed but also how stakeholders play a part. Stakeholder relationships might affect the way identity tensions are managed which might also provide insights into how the organizational identity of social enterprises is constructed.
Organizational identity and its social construction
Organizational identity allows the social enterprise to define its purpose, position itself in society and serves as a guide for its activities and communication with other stakeholders (Smith et al., 2010). Albert and Whetten (1985) were the first to bring up the largely cited self-referential definition of “who we are, as an organization”. They elaborated the central, enduring, and distinctive (CED) features that distinguish an organization from another (Albert & Whetten, 1985). Pratt and Foreman (2000) expanded this construct claiming that organizations can have multiple organizational identities and that they can be managed. According to Hsieh, Weng and Lin (2018), several identities can either enhance an organization’s response flexibility and may be beneficial for different stakeholders’ expectations or can increase identity tensions. When identities conflict “members hold different views about what is central, distinctive, and enduring about the organization. It can also occur when organizations hold the characteristics of more than one organizational form, pursue multiple and inconsistent goals, or make incompatible commitments to different stakeholders” (Hsieh, Weng, & Lin, 2018, p. 2882).
Approaching the identity processes in social enterprises leads back to the proposition that organizational identity is dynamic (Gioia et al., 2013). Since it is a result of shared interpretive schemes and interaction “[…] it should also be malleable and capable of shifting in the short term” (Gioia, 2013, p. 141). Therefore, organizational identity can be understood as a “continuous intersubjective negotiation of claims and understandings” (Gioia, 2013, p. 166). In recent years, organizational identity has been increasingly observed considering two main processes - identity formation and change (Gioia et al., 2013; Van Rekom, Corley, & Ravasi, 2008). Both concepts describe how organizations react and adapt to their environment (Gioia et al., 2013). Besides internal and external influences, discrepancies in the perceptions of identity can be drivers for such identity processes (Gioia et al., 2013). For instance, Kreiner, Hollensbe, Sheep, Smith and Kataria (2015) propose that dialectic tensions underpin the social construction of identity as the management of identity tensions is part of identity work meaning
that people are “continuously engaged in forming, repairing, maintaining, and strengthening or revising identity” (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002, p. 626).
Lastly, having a dynamic perspective also allows to couple organizational identity and external image (Hatch & Schultz, 2002). Identity mirrors images of others and is “socially constructed from the interchange between internal and external definitions of the organization offered by all organizational stakeholders who join in the dance.” (Hatch & Schultz, 2002, p. 1004).
Stakeholder theory
Stakeholders’ perceptions of an organization have a strong impact on organizational identity (Pratt, 2012). First introduced by Freeman (1984), the stakeholder approach considers organizations as being influenced by multiple stakeholders with shareholders only being one among many. A stakeholder is “anything influencing or influenced by the firm” (Freeman, 1984). Donaldson and Preston (1995) then extended the model claiming that firms and stakeholders can each affect each other. Stakeholders are also “defined by their legitimate interest in the corporation, rather than simply by the corporation's interest in them” (Donaldson & Preston, 1995, p. 76). The stakeholder model has continuously been renewed. Building on the categorization by Post, Preston and Sachs2 (2002), which included the operational levels of the stakeholders – the resource base, the industry structure and the social political arena (Figure
1), Fassin (2009) further refined the stakeholder model and differentiated between stakeholders,
stakewatchers and stakekeepers. While stakewatchers have a concrete stake and a real positive and loyal interest in the firm, stakewatchers act as pressure groups and protect the interests of the real stakeholders. Stakekeepers keep the stakes, carry the demands of the interest groups, and provide transparency by imposing external control and regulations on the company (Fassin,
2009). A distinction between the different operational levels and functions of the stakeholders is beneficial because stakeholder expectations of the social enterprise might differ in the resource base, the industry structure and the social political arena resulting in different identity tensions (Post et al., 2002).
The stakeholder approach sees the organization as part of a wider social context and interprets its function (Donaldson & Preston, 1995). Involving stakeholders in the operations of the organization, therefore, implies that the social enterprise adopts and preserves a culture geared to the needs of that group which is a reflection of the democratic and ethical tenets (Mason, Kirkbride, & Bryde, 2007). Numerous interactions at the micro-level between the organization’s stakeholders continuously reproduce and enhance the organizational identity (Gioia et al., 2013). Pratt (2012) constitutes that the identity processes of claiming and granting involve that actors express requests while reflecting stakeholder expectations and consequently accept or refuse them. Such identity processes create an integrated understanding of the organization’s self and shape „the view that both constituents and stakeholders have of the organization” (Gioia et al. 2013, p. 160; Pratt, 2012).
Furthermore, there are stakeholder groups that are more aligned with the social mission entailing foundations, donors, and non-profit organizations and there are stakeholder groups for instance customers, investors, suppliers that are aligned with the economic mission (Smith et al., 2013). “Funders, philanthropies, customers, and employees can fundamentally disagree with one another, yet they are all important for the success of a social enterprise” (Grimes, 2010 as cited in Smith et al., 2013). Regarding the social-business tension of belonging, social enterprises need to decide when to emphasize which identity component and when to communicate both among their stakeholders (Smith et al., 2013). For instance, the social characteristics of the organizational identity could be more important for the media than other stakeholders. Bartel, Baldi and Dukerich (2016) additionally note that external stakeholders are
importantly different from organizational members, which is why social enterprises need to reach them differently.
Even though Smith et al. (2013) assigned stakeholder theory to tensions of performing, stakeholder theory can also help to answer identity-related questions. The characteristics of “who we are” and “what we do” do not only need to be defined within the company, but they also need to be shaped together with relevant audiences.
Mediated relationships with stakeholders
Developments in online media allowed stakeholders to have a greater voice, but also organizations make use of media to get in touch with the stakeholders (Pang, Shin, Lew, & Walther, 2018). Stakeholders can be managed by mediated relationships. Such “[d]igital communicative organization-stakeholder relationships are interactions constituted through communication between organizations and stakeholders in mediated digital environments where all communicating parties are aware of the communication act” (Lock, 2019, p. 9). Next to relationship building, dialogic communication also creates a sense of belonging and builds communities as stakeholders interact with organizational members as well as other stakeholders on organizations’ websites and in Social Media (Pang et al., 2018). Argyris and Monu (2015) present the affordances of presentability, monitorability, reach, self- expression, engagement, connectivity, recordability, and availability and apply them to social media and traditional media. They clarify that traditional mass media and social media have distinct features and capacities supporting the different goals of users (Argyris & Monu, 2015). Based on different stakeholder expectations social enterprises need to decide how to interact with different stakeholder groups. Engaging with the stakeholders in the mediated environment will inform them about how to manage identity tensions and achieve clarification about their own identity. It is yet to examine what those learnings comprise of.
METHOD
Qualitative semi-structured interviews were chosen as a suitable method to answer the research question. The exploratory and descriptive character of this research was useful since prior conceptual work hasn’t developed a consensus on the definitions and distinct characteristics of social enterprises yet (Grimes, 2010; Haugh, 2005). Identity construction itself is “fundamentally qualitative in nature” (Grimes, 2010, p. 767). An inductive procedure was also appropriate as it was aimed at understanding the relationships between the organization and its stakeholders as well as the “deep processes” of organizational identity construction (Gioia et al., 2013). Semi-structured interviews should help to disclose the variety between different stakeholder groups and their expectations and to identify patterns and differences across industries, stakeholder groups, and management practices. Furthermore, it should help to understand how and why identity tensions alter mediated stakeholder relationships. For those types of questions, an inductive theory approach is commonly used. Also, including the time aspect, the research calls for qualitative retrospective insights. Besides, qualitative data ensured flexibility, which allowed the researcher to react and adapt within the research setting and take unexpected aspects and questions into account as they arose during the interview (Lee, 1999).
Sampling
The sample had to meet criteria regarding the type of informants on the one side and regarding the social enterprise on the other. To gather the data for this research, employees working in management or communication positions of social enterprises were interviewed. Particular attention was paid to people in this field of activity, as they also deal with the stakeholder groups of social enterprises in their working lives or have already been involved in important decisions of the company due to their higher position. This also ensured that respondents were sufficiently aware of the identity of the company. Various criteria could also be defined for social
enterprises. Even though most social enterprises are relatively young, they needed to be active on the market for a certain period. They had to be founded at least 5 years ago to ensure the opportunity to investigate the dynamic identity process and development. Another criterion was that the social enterprises needed to operate in different industries as it was of particular interest for this study to compare cases and find patterns across different fields and social projects allowing broader and generalizable propositions. Having the objective to find out where the identity tensions are rooted and how they are dealt with, the social enterprises needed to have a normative identity (resulting from the social mission) and a utilitarian identity (referring to the economic objectives) likely to conflict with each other (Smith et al., 2013; Moss et al., 2011). Companies that are B certified3 fulfill this dual mission and were, thus, chosen for the sample. Lastly, the companies were required to identify themselves as a social enterprise or impact corporation.
The directory of the website bcorporation.net served as a good starting point because the certified B corporations typically represent social enterprises that meet the characteristics of the selection criteria. In the following procedure, the organizations were either reached via the contact forms on their corporate websites, LinkedIn, personal contacts, or snowballing. In the selection process, the contact forms on the company websites have been the most successful tool to reach suitable informants. The sample covered social enterprises working in the food industry, fashion, consumer goods, in the plastic industry, telecommunication, insurances, communications, and recruitment (see Table 1).
All in all, 10 in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted in the time period between April 8th and May 5th 2020. The chosen amount was enough to gain deep insights into
3The label originates from an initiative of the B Lab Foundation. B Corp stands for "Certified Benefit
Corporations" and certifies and connects social enterprises meeting “the highest standards of verified social and environmental performance, public transparency, and legal accountability to balance profit and purpose” (Certified B Corporation, 2020)
the dynamics of organizational identity but prevent saturated information. The respondents were chosen purposefully representing typical cases.
Before conducting the interviews, a light version of the interview guide was sent to every respondent. All interviews were conducted via Zoom, Skype, or Google Hangouts due to the different locations of the social enterprises and the political regulations during the Corona crisis. However, it ensured an interview situation that was relatively similar to a face-to-face interview in which the informants could also see the researcher taking notes and react to the answers naturally. Each interview lasted between 30 and 45 min. Arguing for being as close to reality as possible, the interviewees are more comfortable with their mother language which is why some of the interviews were held in German.
Table 1
Interviewees
Company Founded B-certified Function of the
interviewee Sector Location
New Belgium
Brewing 1991 2013
Community & Communications Ambassador
Food Fort Collins,
Colorado, USA Tony's
chocoloney 2005 2013 Marketing Food
Amsterdam, Netherlands Dopper 2010 2014 Impact Marketing Manager Consumer goods Haarlem, Netherlands
Fibur 2010 2019 Founder and
assistance Insurance Berlin, Germany Edmire 2010 2019 Founder Communicati ons Antwerp, Belgium
UBQ 2012 2018 Sales Plastic
industry Tel-Aviv, Israel
soulbottles 2012 2015
Campaigns, Activism & Editorial
Consumer
goods Berlin, Germany
Vanhulley 2012 2019 Founder Fashion Groningen,
Netherlands
Goood 2016 2019 Founder Telecommuni
cation Vienna, Austria The Sustainable
Recruiter 2017 2019 Founder Recruitment
Amsterdam, Netherlands
Data collection
The semi-structured interview guide (see Appendix) comprised of predetermined questions and follow-up questions that emerged during the interview. Starting with a quick introduction about the research project, the first block dealt with (1) the organizational identity and its status quo in the social enterprise. The questions in the following blocks cover (2) identity expectations across stakeholder groups, (3) management strategies of identity tensions, and (4) the role of mediated relationships in the stakeholder communication. That provided valuable information about the hybrid nature of social enterprises and answered the overall research question of how identity tensions in social enterprises differ across stakeholder groups; and how mediated stakeholder relationships impact and deliver valuable information for the management of these identity tensions.
The introduction and first block shortly referred to the research project and its central topic, the social enterprise, and its hybrid identity. The second topic then analyzed which stakeholder groups are relevant to the social enterprise and what expectations they have. That also covered the question if they desire a social or a utilitarian identity representation. Also, presenting a simplified model of the PPS view by Post et al. (2002) to the informants, made it easier to refer back to certain groups during the interview and ask about their experiences with those. Finding different stakeholder expectations and situations in which the social enterprise had to struggle should help to cluster different types of identity tensions. The third block revealed insights about the management of tensions including separation and integration strategies considering differences within the stakeholder groups. Hereby, interviewees were also asked how the stakeholders influenced the organization over time taking the role of identity dynamics into account. Lastly, the fourth topic showed which role mediated relationships play
and how the different identity tensions influence which channels are used and how the stakeholder relationships are maintained via the media.
Data analysis
After gathering the data, the interviews were transcribed using voice recognition of the online programs Amberscript and F4 and then going through each interview to correct and adjust the text. Already while transcribing, first notes were taken in order to see first patterns in the data and summarized in tables. In an open coding process, the program Atlas.ti was used to add labels to the relevant segments. Therefore, researcher-derived and data-derived codes were assigned in den Interviews. The subject matter was closely related. For example, some segments had to do with stakeholder expectations as well as with an associated identity tension or learnings. For this reason, some passages have been provided with more than one researcher-derived code.
The second step of the evaluation of the data a content indicator model entailing the relevant dimensions of the construct was created. Based on the open coding, the labels were put into groups and categorized in dimensions to identify possible variations within the concepts. This grounded theory approach aimed at adding relevant information to an existing context. That procedure has been popular and influential among researchers (Braun & Clarke, 2013). To ensure transparency (Witzel, 2000), the informants were disclosed the quotations and were contacted if further clarification was needed.
To make the data as transferable, trustworthy, and credible as possible, different measures were taken. Through “peer-debriefing” (Corley & Gioia, 2004) meaning that another qualitative researcher was asked to audit the interview guide and the data structure the possibility of bias was minimized. Additionally, it helped to clarify the relationship between constructs. Another measure taken was “member checking” (Nag, Corley, & Gioia, 2007). To ensure the credibility of the interviews, the respondents were asked to review and verify the
quotations. Furthermore, a detailed description and extensive contact with the object of interest of the participants and the research phenomenon were ensured.
RESULTS
As expected, stakeholder groups vary in their expectations and have different functions in the social enterprise. The importance and closeness of certain stakeholder groups highly depends on the business model of the social enterprise and its impact goals. While some stakeholder groups form a concrete part of the impact projects, other stakeholder groups just enable the social enterprise to sell its product or conduct its services. When stakeholders’ demands do not mirror the organizational identity and when it requires to overthink values, mission, and core activities, social enterprises face identity tensions. Through engaging with stakeholders in mediated and dynamic relationships social enterprises learn how to overcome and manage identity tensions which can be understood as a process of co-constructing their identity. Nevertheless, the management of identity tensions also affects the relationship itself (Figure 1). This section presents the results of the qualitative interview case analysis. Starting a classification of identity tensions across stakeholder groups, it will be proceeded how mediated stakeholder relationships affect and inform the management of those identity tensions.
Identity co-construction through mediated stakeholder relationships4
How are identity tensions in social enterprises different across stakeholder groups?
Even though some identity tensions, are not necessarily perceived as such by the social enterprise, several examples indeed include decisions in which the enterprise questions "who we are and what we do". To answer the question of how expectations differ across stakeholder groups and how these expectations result in identity tensions, Post et al.’s (2002) PPS view is used as a framework. Classifying relevant groups along the resource base, the industry structure, and the social political arena identity tensions vary.
Starting with the stakeholders within the resource base most tensions arise in contact with shareholders, clients, and retailers. The shareholders have profit-oriented expectations and expect to see a return on investment (Int. 8). This is particularly difficult for UBQ investing the capital in research and development but not selling the product yet. The identity tension is characterized by selling the future vs. being expected to sell the present.
“There was pressure to generate sales, generate income for a company and it took time for them to understand that we don't really need to sell this one capacity, that we have today in Israel. We need to use it in order to expand the awareness and allow the industry to test the material ensuring we have a market ready for the new large scale facility and that is what we need to sell, the future and not the present. And that was a
very, very interesting switch because the visionary part, the sustainable part talks always about the future. The profit part talks about the present.” (Int. 8)
Among the employees, explicit identity tensions were not identified. However, social enterprises mentioned that whereas the management team shares the same visionary interest to change art while the other employees expect the social enterprise to pay them salaries (Int. 1, Int. 8). This difference in expectations might, therefore, lead to tensions in terms of efficiency and motivation for instance.
When it comes to the customers and clients, expectations vary. While some stakeholders are only interested in the product others are linked to the mission and aware of the social problem. Goood defines their customers as “system changers” and people who “make purchase decisions with their heart that make a contribution to a world” (Int. 9) and New Belgium Brewing noticed them to “vote with their dollars” (Int. 1). Identity tensions between motivated customers and the social enterprise arise as they express desires and make product suggestions, which are not in line with the organizational identity. At Tony’s Chocolonely the uneven pieces of their chocolate bar are discussed a lot. They explain that for customers it may be harder to share, but “there's a story behind it in the sense that […] [they are] drawing attention to the inequality in the supply chain in the chocolate industry” (Int. 4). Sometimes the demands regarding impact are even too high.
“So we had the experience that we were giving away a non-vegan backpack, for example, and then there were a lot of comments on Instagram. Ehm... although it was produced from the fairest leather ever and so on, so you can see we have a high awareness and on the other hand we also have people who buy from us and who don't care at all” (Int. 7, translated)
In contrast, identity tensions arise as customers are just interested in the product. They either don’t know that a social problem exists like in the case of Tony’s Chocolonely thinking
that slavery is not a topic anymore, they are skeptical (Int. 10) or they or they show a lack of acceptance towards the impact.
“However, that's something we want and not per se something they want. Sometimes they just want the bottle. And... so if you're talking about different expectations, they don't expect us to do that. They just want the bottles” (Int. 6)
Also, B2B clients vary in their expectations, yet tend to be more profit-oriented. “I guess, the least effects on their business and operations et cetera. but the most effect on the environment. That's the balance for them... with the high margins” (Int. 2). When social enterprises collaborate with businesses identity tensions emerge as it sometimes requires certifications and time.
“I can tell you, that in 2017 we tested material for a plastic bottle crate for a leading brand. They said, wow, that's a great idea, let's do it […] and then they said, okay what is the LCA of your material, the lifecycle assessment? We don't have an LCA yet. Oh, then we cannot talk. Let's go, do an LCA, and come back. An LCA takes a year. It's a year that you are on hold and you are spending a lot of money, time and resources into that LCA evaluation so that a brand will say, okay, let's go to the next stage” (Int. 8)
On the other side, other businesses are characterized by skepticism and prejudices. Social enterprises are doubted about their profitability, which is why they often have to prove the success of their existence.
“On the other hand, if we now come to stakeholder businesses, then come on, you are eco, you are quasi ... you can never do that economically, you can't do anything with your model, you won't get it profitable” (Int. 9, translated)
Another relevant stakeholder for social enterprises is retailers. This group is mainly profit-oriented expecting a margin on the product. Social enterprises are limited in their actions as they are dependent on their listing to be able to make an impact (Int. 4). Also, the organization needs to make adjustments when presenting the identity through retailers.
“Well, our color is red. And red is our main color because it's a signal color to say, hey guys, here's a problem, we need to solve it. But in the UK for example, one of the stakeholders, who is a retailer, red for him in the store, it's the color for promotion. And that's where we actually adapted our displays to blue for the first time. Blue-red, to accommodate this and to avoid people thinking that we are a promotion” (Int. 4, translated)
Suppliers are essential for the social enterprise to create their product or service. An identity tension could be identified in the case of soulbottles when making a product extension of a steel bottle. Since the production, machinery, and feasibility in Germany would have been too expensive with a market price of 300 € per bottle they needed to decide to relocate it to Asia. However, with that decision there emerged questions on how to ensure fair and sustainable working conditions (Int. 7).
Moving towards the industry structure institutional investment funds and analysts play a role in stakeholder relations. For instance, Fibur, a social enterprise that invests the capital of its clients mentions that their product is changing continuously which can lead to an identity tension when one of the organizations in their portfolio has a scandal. However, they make clear that through investing in sustainable funds such scandals are unlikely (Int. 10).
“So the investments, stocks are also part of it, the corporations work globally and when a corporation that has been okay, which we invested in, changes, we had that a couple of years ago, keyword Siemens, when Siemens invested in a subsidiary that was a supplier for cluster bombs and when that came out […] then the portfolio manager needs to take that out” (Int. 10, translated)
Expectations of NGO’s vary. While it is important for this stakeholder group to achieve impact (Int. 9), they are also in need of budget. The social enterprise then struggles with actually following their social mission and having a limited budget to give.
“For example, WWF in the Netherlands they would love to partner with us but then also
money but we have, of course, have our... we have other projects already. We used to proceeds of our bottles for other projects. So sometimes that's hard being in a marketing department we want to set up partnerships with these kind of partners”(Int. 6)
Similar to other businesses, another identity tension arises regarding the understanding of the business concept. NGO’s sometimes have a wrong understanding as well as prejudices about the social enterprise.
“So there we have the challenge, also there you are a strange animal in the third organizations. Social entrepreneurship is also not understood in this way, it is often seen as competitor. [...] if you as a social business, because you have the word business in your name, come to a non-profit organization [...] The first reservation is that you do business at the expense of impact. This is often the thinking that you find in non-profit organizations. This then requires a relatively large amount of persuasion” (Int. 9)
In terms of competitors, there is an identity tension as they depend on them to participate to initiate change. Tony’s Chocolonely claims: “there are so many other big ones, I don't know, Nestle, Mars, Mondelez. If they're not on board, it's hard to make a difference” (Int. 4, translated).
Lastly, stakeholders in the social political arena are government, media, civil society, other, or non-stakeholders. Within this category, identity tensions were mainly identified between the government and the social enterprise. The government usually struggles to classify the social enterprise since it blurs the line between business and non-profit organization. While the government usually is needed for the social enterprise to implement laws and regulations, for Vanhulley the government is an important stakeholder as they are financed through the local municipality. However, the organizational identity and the municipality follow divergent goals. For example, Vanhulley was expected to move the contract with Groningen from the department for poverty reduction to the department of reintegration to work. They needed to understand the different mindsets and adapt to their way of thinking centered around getting a
job as fast as possible while actually believing in the need for proper education to reach long term financial independence (Int. 5).
“I think a lot of us have these problems, that we try to change the world or a part of the world in a sense whereas a municipality by definition is aimed at keeping things as they are… the people that work there. They don't... they go for safety. They are not entrepreneurial. So you cannot expect them to come up with the ideas, which means that you have to come up with the ideas.” (Int. 5)
Lastly, the media were only mentioned to be used for news and information (Int. 3). They are interested in the impact of the social enterprise, for instance, the business model or the founder’s story (Int. 6). Tensions with the media were not identified.
Table 2
Identity tensions across stakeholder groups Resource base Tensions Industry
structure Tensions Social political arena
Tensions Shareholders Pressure to generate
sales:
Selling the future vs. selling the present
Institutional investment funds and analysts Dependence: Impact Portfolio vs. unstable situation of the funds Government Missing understan-ding: Keeping things as they are vs. change
Employees Efficiency and Motivation: Visionary management team vs. profit-oriented team members NGOs Budgets: Supporting NGOs vs. investing budget in own social projects
Prejudices:
Actual impact goal vs. image of making business on the cost of impact Media, Civil Society, Other, Non-stakeholders B2C
Customers Feasibility: Product/Service vs. Product desires, too high impact expectations
Acceptance:
Impact goals vs. lack of interest in impact Competitors Customer association, special interest groups, labor unions B2B Customers, Retailers Prejudices: Impact model vs. Profitability Feasibility:
Effort and time vs. Certifications for business Identity communication: Sticking to identity communication vs. adjusting to retailer needs to be listed Suppliers Production: Relocating production due to costs vs. ensuring fair working conditions
Civil Society, Community
How do mediated stakeholder relationships affect and inform the management of these identity tensions?
Coping strategies. Research has categorized the four coping strategies compartmentalization,
aggregation, deletion and integration as reactions to tensions but only integration and compartmentalization were identified among the social enterprises (Pratt & Foreman, 2000). Compartmentalization entails preserving identities without obtaining synergy (Pratt & Foreman, 2000). Within the social enterprise identities are separated depending on different stakeholder needs including differences in industries, different countries, between internal and external stakeholders, existing and new clients et cetera. The data reveal that compartmentalization in the social enterprise occurs for instance in Social Media, via Framing and different messaging strategies.
In Social Media reports on more profit-oriented topics such as updates on the product or the introduction of a new partner can be directly followed again by impact topics without establishing a connection between the identities. “So sometimes it's the nice fabric with a nice print on it. And another time we focus on one of the women, maybe one of the women who have done the program before and then found a job” (Int. 5).
Another example of how compartmentalization was implemented is a variation in the strategy behind the message. The social enterprise Dopper is well known in the Netherlands where it set its focus on change. In the countries where it is still not that visible on the market, like Germany or the UK, the communicated identity emphasizes more on awareness.
“So this is in the Netherlands where awareness of what's in this bottle, people are aware of the problem, so for Bol.com5, this was to change art. And to create awareness we do different things, for example, in the UK, and in Germany, it's mainly focused on creating awareness. So sometimes we have collaboration where with a magazine where we interview the founder our CEO or we just also sometimes just place the bottle there with some mission text, of course, always. But you have to really focus on that awareness.” (Int. 6)
Lastly, compartmentalization is implemented through framing. “In our newsletters we...for example, frame the introduction a little bit differently in the intro, but then we link to the same blog post.” (Int. 6). Another social enterprise emphasizes: “We can speak our own language, but then people won't understand us. We adapt the focus of our messages, also to the specific sector” (Int. 9). Nevertheless, when it comes to compartmentalization social enterprises highlight that “the core of the story is always the same” (Int. 6) and are usually very willing to tell the whole story when the stakeholders show interest.
“We have different languages for the different stakeholders. If we are going to NGOs, that are...the alliance to end plastic waste, then our language is different than when talking with investors about the plants in the US. They all share the same […] commitment to sustainability. And it is a very well defined, strong commitment towards sustainability and social change. But from the other side and the profitability and the profit, the awareness and necessity is there in different degrees depending on the audience” (Int. 8)
However, most social enterprises examined appear to go beyond compartmentalization and communicate an integrated picture of themselves enhancing their hybrid core. Social enterprises usually have very high ambitions and a very clearly defined vision across different industries. This may be the reason why a profit-oriented topic almost always includes impact goals because both components are essential for the survival of the enterprise and both are part of its raison d’être. Social enterprises "would not exist without the mission.” (Int. 6) and sometimes describe it as “a scale, one does not work without the other.” (Int. 9, translated). When examining characteristics determining integration, consistency was found to be a key aspect.
“We want to be very transparent and open. So we communicate in precisely the same way to our stakeholders as to our staff. Not only because it's easier, but also because then we know for sure that our story will always stay the same because both stakeholder groups hear the same story” (Int. 3)
Managing identity tensions, integration is implemented by actually providing the information about the mission in every product sold. This way the enterprise achieves a fusion of its multiple identities. It engages in the dialectical process by clearly defining the purpose of the product.
“And what we are really focussing on now is that no bottle leaves without the mission. So, for example, an event buying bottles for their attendees, we really want to make sure that all attendees know about Dopper and the mission and that we, at least try to have them not buy to single-use plastic water bottles anymore after they received the bottle” (Int. 6)
This also involves being detailed when engaging with stakeholders. Only if the social enterprises present their impact and profit-related topics in context, explain relations and name reasons for their operations one can speak of an integrated representation: “So I think that we are already telling a very congruent story on the different channels, the different groups. Especially when working with the supply chain, it is super important for us to really tell this whole story” (Int. 7, translated). Apart from compartmentalization and integration findings show that social enterprises have developed various other strategies to cope with identity tensions.
Feedback. Another way to deal with identity tensions is to constantly obtain feedback.
That can either be achieved by implementing an open feedback culture in the organizational identity that is characterized by initiating, asking, HR training (Int. 1), and regular meetings to discuss strategic decisions but also by listening to requests of the stakeholders. Feedback rounds within the social enterprise usually take place on a weekly (Int. 4) or quarterly (Int. 2) basis to keep everyone up to date and to answer open questions.
“We have an incredibly transparent and very open conflict culture at soulbottles. This means that anyone can initiate something at any time, ask questions, get feedback, obtain information, and now, for example, in the debate on the steel bottle, people who work in our logistics department […]called a meeting and said that there is a lack of
transparency here, I do not understand why we are doing this, […] I do not know whether I think it is right that we produce something in China. And then we simply arranged a meeting for the whole company where the project leaders in our team sat on a panel to answer questions from other team members in the audience. This way we could have a very open discussion about all issues concerned and get everyone on board with why and how we were approaching our Chinese production” (Int. 7, translated)
A further approach to keep up with the stakeholders is listening. This requires fully understanding the stakeholders’ thinking. The enterprise Vanhulley works closely with the local municipality and explains that “you have to understand that their thinking is different and their aims are different. Their goals, their expectations as well. So, you have to take into account what their thinking is, but then mold it into something that you can still stay true to your mission” (Int. 5). Results show that stakeholders have become more skeptical (Int. 2), ask more questions (Int. 7), or have concrete product suggestions (Int. 4). Social enterprises recognize listening as an approach to steady improvement (Int. 9), but this also requires patience according to UBQ:
“My personal take-away from this process, […] I think (short break) patience. Patience is very important, listening to the team and to the stakeholders, understanding the expectations, and managing the expectations in the right way. It allows you to work together in a synergetic way and without much conflict” (Int. 8)
Collaboration. Most social enterprises have close contact with other organizations. By
cooperating with a lot with NGOs and businesses in projects and being certified by them (Int. 8) or by including them as an essential part in the whole business model (Int. 9), stakeholders and social enterprises get more visibility in the media and have bigger opportunity to achieve their goals (Int. 6). UBQ explains that it “is part of the image and the commitment that [they] have to the environment and to really being part of change-making” (Int. 8). The social enterprises also like to join forces with others, because they can seldomly achieve impact by themselves (Int. 4). They learned that they need the stakeholders to be on board to initiate the
change. Those are mostly innovative and young organizations (Int. 9), ideally intrinsically motivated (Int. 6).
“It starts with Viva con Agua, with Climate Partner, with Sea Rescue, all these things are rather young organizations that benefit. Of course, we also offer animal protection and child protection projects, because it affects a certain target group of affected people, but innovative plastic projects are what our target group rather reflects and what we ourselves also reflect on” (Int. 9, translated)
Furthermore, social enterprises maintain stakeholder relationships by engaging in networks. On the one hand, there is a mutual exchange with other social enterprises, such as the B Corp network helping to overcome identity tensions and help each other as they share the same hurdles (Int. 6). On the other hand, they try to sensitize the concept of a social economy in labor unions and networks like “Gemeinwohl Ökonomie”, “Stiftung Verantwortungseigentum” (Int. 7) or the Social Entrepreneur Network Germany (Int. 10).
“We've also learned a lot from our B corps. The B Corp community is super helpful in a lot of ways for us because we all struggle with the same issues. And the balance between commercial and social and all those things. So that's...there's a lot of contact us for example between us and other B Corps on all different levels” (Int. 6)
Involvement. Another important aspect social enterprises learned through their mediated
stakeholder relationships when managing identity tensions is involvement. Involvement can be achieved by actively defining steps together with stakeholders at eye level (Int. 7) and encouraging them to make an impact themselves and go beyond the purchase of the product. That is also achieved by giving instructions on how to integrate sustainability in daily life (Int. 7).
“I think we tried to involve them more. So, first, there was just Dopper finding this find and trying to have people buy Doppers or join the project, whereas now we are really trying to get them on board on this... as we got a wave of change, the Dopper wave,
where we want them to inspire others to make a change in their behavior. So, I think that's what definitely changed over the years” (Int. 6)
Additionally, Goood speaks of the value proposition that one needs for every stakeholder and that you play out accordingly:
“We need our business partners, we want the business partners to have a benefit, too. That is simply important, [...], that you can activate your target company, have more people who contribute and if you have financing gaps, maybe people who step in […]. This ‘what's in for me’ is relevant for every stakeholder” (Int. 9, translated)
Moreover, social enterprises receive and share knowledge with their stakeholders. Therefore, they conduct research (Int. 6), hold presentations about social entrepreneurship, write scientific articles, take part in conferences (Int. 9). Besides, they engage in projects together with funds providing stakeholders with coachings, expertise, and business contacts (Int. 7).
“What we are doing now is an impact research. We're finalizing it, to.... yeah, see what the impact really is we really make. So we have a test panel in all of our focus countries filling in a lot of questions about awareness about plastic pollution, awareness about brands, water bottle brands, […] to learn from them and to see how we can improve what we do” (Int. 6)
Social enterprises also learned that when involving stakeholders to manage identity tensions, transparency is a key aspect. Therefore, Dopper tries to not only be transparent but also be approachable for its stakeholders (Int. 6). For Tony’s Chocolonely who have the explicit goal to be copied, transparency is a mechanism to inspire their stakeholders to encourage them to participate in the change. In doing so, it is an opportunity to move closer to its impact identity. In a concrete example of an identity tension, soulbottles had to face when relocating the steel bottle production to Asia, the social enterprise encountered positive reactions after being fully transparent. They learned that not being perfect but being transparent creates great authenticity
(Int. 7). Transparency requires anticipating questions that might arise among the stakeholders in the future and answering beforehand them disclosing the pros and cons of a decision (Int. 7). In the case of UBQ, transparency about the whole process is an explicit demand as investors want to be informed where their capital goes.
“And we need to show the process. We need to give complete visibility of the ongoing process. What are exactly their milestones that are ongoing, communicate the difficulties, the new requirements, the processes that will need to be completed, so it's a lot of allowing the investors completely visibility of the process of the stadium process itself”(Int. 8)
Adapting. Regarding the extent the organization is willing to fulfill the stakeholders’
expectations and adapt to their needs, social enterprises have developed contrary approaches. Another approach is to stay close to the organizational identity. Tony’s Chocolonely underlines that they want to call attention to the social problem without euphemizing it.
“We start from our point of view. We don't look what everybody wants to hear, but our identity is so strong that we just say, okay, we stay very close to ourselves and don't really adjust to everyone and what they want to hear and what they don't want to hear. [...] To give you a concrete example, we have received a lot of feedback about one hundred percent slavery-free, that is too hard [...]. But in the end, it is hard, and that is why we want it to sound hard as well” (Int. 4, translated)
One example where the whole decision spectrum is based on the organizational identity is soulbottles.
“You can imagine a scale of super sustainable and everything perfect to we exploit human rights and nature. With us, you can simply delete one half of this scale. Because we don't look at it and we don't engage in projects if they don't fit our values” (Int. 7, translated)
In contrast, other social enterprises developed the willingness to adapt to the stakeholder expectations. Edmire once experienced that moving closer to their identity actually had a negative impact as they lost a client because they were focusing too much on their sustainable
identity. Also, Dopper learned to make compromises because only through the product they can make achieve their impact goals which requires accepting sales and not perceive it in a negative light (Int. 6). In a concrete example, they needed to decide if they should provide the retailer with a poster while actually following a no-waste policy within the organization.
“So what happens then if we don't create a poster, they make something themselves. Maybe without our mission in it. So what we've learned from them is that they want this poster, we don't want waste. So what we do is we create a poster, we share it with them and we say, if you want this print it yourself, because then if you don't want it, we don't create unnecessary waste. So for a lot of years we just said, no, we don't make anything” (Int. 6)
When managing identity tensions and, particularly the extent to which the social enterprise is willing to adapt, social enterprises have learned to set clear criteria. That is why
soulbottles works with communication guidelines (Int. 7), Tony’s Chocolonely decided to not
spend money on paid Public Relations as that money is better invested in favor of the chocolate supply chain (Int. 4), and the insurance company Fibur works with exclusion criteria for their portfolio of capital investment (Int. 10). “But it is only through these tough […] exclusion criteria that customers can be sure that arms or food speculation and not there” (Int. 10, translated). In the case of Goood they would have had the opportunity to pitch a consulting service for the oil company ÖMV. However, they refused to partner with them as the company in its industry did not fit their sustainable mission (Int. 9). Lastly, Dopper diminished the number of resellers drastically because they decided to only accept organizations that sell the bottle with its mission. All these discoveries and criteria have resulted from constant interaction with organizational stakeholders.
DISCUSSION
Social enterprises do not fall into the traditional categories of organizations. Since they need to balance profit and impact, identity tensions are a common phenomenon. Shedding light on how identity tensions vary across stakeholder groups and how stakeholder relationships affect and inform about their management, the study contributed to stakeholder theory and identity theory in various ways.
As proposed by Smith et al. (2013), the research followed a grounded theory approach and linked stakeholder theory with a dynamic perspective of organizational identity theory in the context of the social enterprise. The conceptual model depicts the two-sided reciprocal relationships of the organization and its stakeholders (Scott & Lane, 2000) and adds the construct of identity tensions and management strategies to this interactive process. Literature has shown that discrepancies between stakeholders and the social enterprise regarding organizational identity may lead to identity change (Gioia et al., 2013) which also supports the claim that managing identity tensions is part of identity construction.
The first part of the research question applied identity tensions in social enterprises to stakeholder theory and created a typology of identity tensions across stakeholder groups consequently extending the understanding of the construct identity tensions. Findings revealed that stakeholder groups are highly diverse and do not per se have mere profit or impact expectations. Moreover, stakeholders were found to not only be means to an end in order to conduct business but in most social enterprises stakeholders form an active part of the change-making process. That is why identity tensions ranged from the pressure to generate sales, differences in employee motivation, diverging product and communication expectations, issues in production till a lack in the understanding and acceptance of what social enterprises do.
Identity tensions could be assigned to the resource base, industry structure, and social political arena based on the classification by Post et al. (2002). However, Fassin’s (2009)
understanding of the stakeholder, stakewatcher, and stakekeeper function didn’t fit in the context of the social enterprise. While Fassin (2009) identified different degrees of claim, legitimacy, impact, and responsibility for each stakeholder group, stakeholders, stakewatchers, and stakekeepers, the roles appear to be different in the context of the social enterprise. It became clear that the relationships to particular stakeholder groups are more intense in the social enterprise than in classic businesses which might also depend on the organizational culture and vision. For instance, the government in some cases had more than just a regulator function and the NGOs acted more as partners than as an interest group.
Stakeholder theory has received criticism as it lacks the dynamic component (Fassin, 2009). This dynamic component of the stakeholder theory was covered in the second part of the research question. The question of how mediated stakeholder relationships affect and inform the management identity tensions advanced stakeholder theory concretely identifying the interactions between stakeholders and social enterprise and concluding with the learnings of social enterprises through the relationships. It became visible that the management of identity tensions affects and is affected by mediated stakeholder relationships.
Findings indeed showed that stakeholder relationships are dynamic and shape the management of tensions which also forms part of identity co-construction. The results suggest that the continuous exchange with relevant stakeholders and management of identity tensions ultimately forms the basis for permanent adaptions of business practices that change and construct identity over time (Gioia, 2013). Managing the identity tensions requires to clarify the perception of the self and deciding to what extent impact and profit play a role within the social enterprise. In other words, social enterprises learn how to manage identity tensions through engaging with their stakeholders and in doing so, to constantly construct their identity. Therefore, the organizational responses to tensions, deletion, aggregation, compartmentalization, and integration, have been cited in many studies (Pratt & Foreman, 2000) but represent a rather, strategic, and one-sided approach when it comes to managing
tensions. The findings of the study add further dimensions to the construct of managing identity tensions and recognize that it requires reflecting stakeholder expectations and reacting to them instead of solely communicating identity in front of different audiences. Collaboration, feedback, involvement, and adaptation all form part of constant interactions with the stakeholders. In doing so, stakeholder relationships affect the management of tensions as social enterprises need to mirror the image stakeholders have of the organization (Hatch & Schultz, 2002) which is how they continuously learn.
Additionally, it was recognized that tensions also come with opportunities and are not solely regarded as a paradox (Smith & Lewis, 2011). Instead of being seen as a challenge, this paper proposes to regard identity tensions as an opportunity to learn and a way to improve corporate behavior.
Stakeholder relationships were indeed dynamic and mediated. Notably, social enterprises make use of digital media in the same way as for-profit businesses in their identity communication. In contrast to regular businesses, social enterprises enhanced being responsive, approachable, open, and allowing stakeholders to discuss and participate. The digital environment and its affordances (Argyris & Monu, 2015) can, therefore, be understood as a general condition enabling the dialogue-oriented communication management of identity tensions and consequently identity construction.
CONCLUSION
Every study comes with limitations. During the investigation of the data ideas and recognized patterns were continuously noted down, however, a useful procedure that could have improved the coding process is “memo writing”. Additionally, even though the chosen qualitative approach has many advantages, the transferability to wider domains is limited. To date, social enterprise studies have been mainly conducted with a few cases and small samples. Collecting
