Manager-stakelholder interactions between traditional corporations and social enterprises : mapping similarities

(1)

August 31, 2017

0

University of Amsterdam

Graduate School of Social Sciences

Manager-Stakeholder Interactions Between Traditional Corporations and Social Enterprises: Mapping Similarities.

Peter James Viverito. First Reader: Dr. Luc Fransen. Second Reader: Dr. Robin Pistorius.

August, 2017.

(2)

August 31, 2017

1 Background Summarization.

Sustainability studies and the effort by corporate management to apply “greener” technology to reduce, or to consume generally less nonrenewable resources, have now gained prominence in the public and corporate minds. Traditionally, corporations paid little attention to the negative externalities of their day-to-day operations. The use of less

harmful materials- as an example- was overshadowed by the need for faster automation the goods and services they produced, and therefore, greater profits. Gradually, as consumer interests started to center around caring more for the environment and the threats that it faces, corporations had started to become more responsible for the sake of their consumer-driven revenue. The change in the corporate world’s behavior in regards to sustainable enterprise and initiatives had directly resulted in greater oversight by the corporation’s management on what the corporations produced, participated in, and advocated for. Two possibly more influential consequences resulted from this greater oversight. Firstly, this created a more comprehensive business strategy that holistically encompassed the broad category of stakeholders- that included customers, upper management, and employees. Shareholders as defined by Hillman and Keim, are shareholders, customers, suppliers, employees, local communities, and government. (Hillman, Keim, 2001). Secondly, as stakeholders were affected by the decisions being made by upper management in corporations, scholars began to focus on ethical decision-making processes and how to democratize them.

Those wanting to democratize the system, sought to give stakeholders a greater voice in matters that directly affected them. One of these individuals was R. Edward Freeman. Freeman, according to Donaldson and Preston, asserted that anyone who has a “stake” in the corporation- or, those who are affected by the operations of a corporation, should have a right to decide which decisions get made. Therefore, stakeholders may come from either within or outside the corporation. This assumption is rooted in Freeman’s observation that corporations that tend to the needs of those affected by their output, survive longer and perform more effectively (Donaldson, Preston, 1995). Freeman’s observations have in part dictated the way these corporations are managed, by taking into account the constituency involved that they may be affecting with their operations. Thus,

(3)

August 31, 2017

2

modern corporations now have a greater inclination to work towards the “greater good” of society due to the mainstreaming of Freeman’s stakeholder theory.

Given the general history on the need for corporations to join sustainable efforts, it is important to also discuss the background of how corporations internally have came to meet these ends, and the decisions taken to make this change. Szekely and Knirsch had noted in figure 1 below that company culture affects its corporate strategy, business strategy, and overarching business hierarchal structures. Of this, various types of

performance (social, environmental, and economic) affect the company’s end-goals, values, and vision. These performances are then continuously altered depending on legal

constraints and society’s demands at that time. The main takeaway being, that through a linear display starting with the corporation’s individual strategy, corporations can affect people’s behavior, and therefore alter company performance as a result.

Figure 1: “Assessing the Sustainable Performance of a Company.” (Szekely, Knirsch, 2005.)

Corporate identity- a corporation’s values, mission, and vision that is seen by the public eye- plays a large role in its decision making processes. Back onto figure 1, as the corporation develops its unique ambitions, and end-goals- business strategy and therefore societal expectations of the corporation’s duties are shaped. Looking more introspectively, Sanjay Sharma looked at how the workplace’s norms and general day-to-day procedures create corporate identity. Sharma examined corporate identity in the context of ninety-nine Canadian oil firms on the matter of sustainable enterprise. Questionnaires were issued to both internal and external stakeholders, tailoring specific inquiries to each cohort. The

(4)

August 31, 2017

3

inquiries ranged from managerial interpretation of certain ecological issues, to the issue legitimization of sustainability problems answered through employees themselves, onto the overall environmental-oriented strategy of the corporation. Sharma had found that

corporate identity does not only impact how stakeholders from outside the corporation perceive their identity. Internal stakeholders- such as managers and their employees- are affected by corporate identity. For instance, Sharma’s work has also shown that by relaxing certain minor practical regulations surrounding its daily operations– its possible to impact the interpretation of the corporate identity. This in turn, would alter the means that this corporation manages its interactions with the ecological and social systems it works around (Sharma, 2000). Sharma’s work is relevant in that it supports the idea that corporate culture and identity is formed both by inside and outside forces, and also affects internal culture and the external perceptions of the corporation itself. Her work also began to highlight stakeholder and upper management’s complex relationship, and denotes how dependent upper management is on the approval of stakeholders.

(5)

August 31, 2017

4

Table of Contents. 4

Background Summary 1

1. Introduction of Objective and Topic of Thesis. 5

2. Methodology and Method Used. 8

2.i. Case Selection of Social Enterprises and Respondents. 9

2.ii. Methods of Data Collection. 12

2.iii. Analysis of Methods. 13

3. Theoretical Framework. 16

3.i. Literature-Based Theories. 17

3.ii. Gaps in Literature-Based Theories. 24

3.iii. Theory-Based Hypotheses. 25

4. Reporting and Analysis of Research Results. 29

4.i. Framing the Responses. 30

4.ii. Interpretation of Research Results in Reference to Hypotheses. 30

5. Conclusion 36

6. Discussion. 39

6.i. Limitations From the Research. 40

6.ii. Proposals for Further Research. 40

6.iii. Societal Relevance. 41

7. Literature and Reference Sources. 43

8. Appendix. 48

(6)

Enterprises: Mapping Similarities.

5 1. Introduction of Objective and Topic of Thesis.

It is clear that different types of stakeholders can affect and are affected by changes within the organizational structure of their workplace. The internal culture of the corporation itself also affects and is affected by managers within them. This information helps shed new light on the interactions that occur between those making decisions and those being affected by these decisions. Numerous articles detail in charts and diagrams which actors in the corporation have influence over whom, and how the decision making processes work between the two or more actors. However, previous academic research has only began to uncover how alternative forms of entities operate under less usual circumstances.

Other than traditional corporations, entities such as social enterprises also focus on supporting sustainability oriented causes, operate in the private sector, and seek profit as a means to meet their goals. The similarities however, end there. Social enterprises’ main goal is to support the advancement of broader society, or specific communities within society that may seem disadvantaged. Most social enterprises focus on restoring rural communities that may not have access to certain non-renewables which larger districts or cities may easily enjoy access to. Lyon and Sepulveda give the best definition of a social enterprises’ main objective; “A social enterprise is a business with primarily social objectives, whose surpluses are principally reinvested for that purpose in the business or in the community, rather than being driven by the need to maximize profits for shareholders” (Lyon, Sepulveda, 2009). In doing so, they garner great support from state grants or general government support through subsidies for their operating costs. Unlike corporations, which generate funds directly from profiteering. Social enterprises also do not answer to a larger board of shareholders like corporations do, as these enterprises do not engage in acquiring shares, or other profiteering means.

Similarly to Lyon and Sepulveda, Evers and Lavalle mention that social enterprises have defining features, which made them indispensible. Upper management of social enterprises also does not answer to any type of shareholder board, as workers themselves usually manage them on a labor-owned and operated basis. The ability to not solely be interested in revenue uptake as a main driving factor, as it is only seen as a means to an end, unlike traditional corporations. The end stated, is to further social equity

and equality. Therefore, it becomes necessary to garner the “social capital” of the state, through support networks, economic partnerships, and trade associations within communities

(7)

6

to facilitate the needs of their own citizens (Evers, A., Lavalle, J. 2004). By facilitating social capital, social enterprises can create a more informed community about sustainable issues. To uncover more about how moving parts in social enterprises interact with each other and operate, it is important to understand how social enterprises interact with external stakeholders. For example, such as a representative from government looking to invest funding in the social enterprise in hopes that the returns will supply a community without access to renewables, more of that access. Interactions between managers and external stakeholders are already meaningful to study, because managerial staff are generally at the apex of the workplace hierarchy and command most of what goes on in the day-to-day operations of a corporation or enterprise. Notwithstanding, Czarniawska-Joerges and Wolff posit the idea that managerial staff may not be the most important variables to study.

Czarniawska-Joerges and Wolff explain that those affecting the decisions of managerial staff, are the external forces acting upon them with financial incentives or publicity-related support. The pair discuss the possibility of actors such as stakeholder actually control the means of operations in corporations, as managers do not have the final say on what occurs.

(Czarniawska-Joerges, Wolff, 1991). With this in mind, external stakeholders are prime candidates in studies alongside managers, due to managers being workplace leaders and dictate more or less of what their employees do.

Moreover, studying certain types of interactions are more integral to uncovering how or why managers interact with external stakeholders in the manner that they do, over other types of interactions. For instance, viewing persuasion or coercion as a means to attain resources through the stakeholder, grants a clearer picture as to why managers engage with external stakeholders. This is especially true for those in government offering funds through grants, and local or regional vocal support through unions or associations. Through Boster and Levine’s experiments on the power of persuasion involving participants in a bargaining experiment with controlled messages, the two assert that persuasive tactics are a type of soft power. Furthermore, Boster and Levine show that persuasion has the greatest chance of succeeding and acquiring resources more than other power-play tactics such as verbal

violence or threats in interactions that involve those in positions above the persuader (Boster, Levine, 2003).

Research on how persuasive and coercive tactics can be used to acquire resources from external stakeholders, such has those in government, must be collected and deciphered.

(8)

7

It is important to know how these enterprises gain resources since their long-term goals are different from those of traditional corporations. Secondly, the similarities between social enterprises and traditional corporations also need to be discussed, considering that most scholarly work focuses on the differences between the two entities. Thus, the following research question is presented;

“What are the similarities between managerial-external stakeholder interactions within traditional corporations and social enterprises?”.

Social enterprises are therefore necessary and crucial to research, due to their previously stated novel and revolutionary means of operation, that seek to mitigate the gap between more developed urban centers and rural, less advantaged communities and regions. In studying social enterprises, new insight is found on the interactions that go on internally between managers and external stakeholders. This itself is beneficial to the business and academic world, because it derails historical anecdotes that upper management’s main duty is to secure profits.

The argument that this research question seeks to put forward is that there are in fact more intricate similarities between the interaction styles of managers and stakeholders in social enterprises, as within traditional corporations. It is no doubt that the two entities have stark differences in the way individuals in them discuss matters of finances, peer-to-peer interactions, and matters involving teamwork, and other forms of socialization with other managers (internal stakeholders). Although, as proven by the aforementioned scholars, there is to a degree more similarities that have yet to be determined when management in social enterprises or traditional corporations interact with those working in local or regional government, from outside the entity (external stakeholders).

To decipher these similarities in the interactions between managers and external government stakeholders in social enterprises and traditional corporations, it is necessary to evaluate the specific methods used to answer the question. Methods such as reviewing prior corporation-based theories in literature (in the theoretical framework section), then applying the theories to real-life scenarios and situations in social enterprises, will be used. By forming hypotheses based off of these literature reviews, it is possible to answer the main research question and subsequent hypotheses by examining accounts by those who work in social enterprises. This will be done by questioning those who manage social enterprises specific scenarios based on their personal accounts on teamwork, funding issues, and peer-to-peer

(9)

8

interactions in their places of work. Then, it will be easier to see whether or not academic literature and theoretical frameworks may carry over from one entity to another. In the reporting chapter of this thesis, answers posited by social enterprise managers will be examined and analyzed to see which measures used by corporate managers in the literature are similar to ones used by enterprise managers via accounts. In the next chapter, the reported and analyzed research results will be used to answer the hypotheses from the chapter prior. Depending on the similarities between the interactions in social enterprises and traditional corporations, the hypotheses (that were set using grounded theories in the literature review) will be confirmed or denied based off of the accounts given by social enterprise managers. Lastly, a conclusion and a following discussion in two chapters will be given. The former of which answers the main research question in its totality. The latter of which clarifies the limitations of the study, and gives recommendations for further research. This paragraph has outlined the remainder of this thesis chapter by chapter.

2. Methodology and Method Used.

Through answering the main research question, “What are the similarities between managerial-external stakeholder interactions within traditional corporations and social enterprises?”, there lies new challenges not dealt with in prior research on solely traditional corporations. These challenges were not addressed in the pervious chapter, and will be addressed in this current one. Austin et. al. asserts that it is possible to discern differences between the two entities by comparing their end-goals and their theoretical contributions. Austin et. al. also suggest that by analyzing entrepreneurship

from a solely business (revenue-generating) perspective, it is possible to gather transferrable common features to a social (social capital- generating) perspective. This is because the model for social entrepreneurship was based off of a model for traditional business

entrepreneurship, one borne from revenue-generating means. (Austin, Stevenson, Skillern-Wei, 2006). The stark difference that made the former and the latter entities different from one another was that social enterprises added the element of working towards greater social inclusion and prosperity. Therefore, to answer the main research question and questions on the inner workings of social enterprises, it is imperative to look introspectively to traditional corporations’ inner workings.

(10)

9

seeks to answer, is needed. Proper qualitative research on inner workings of entities is

lacking, in explaining their actions through a lens of operationalization, first and foremost. To display an example of the challenges to performing qualitative research on social enterprises, Arnaudo et al. have developed a personalized methodology for measuring social impact of social enterprises on certain communities. In doing so, they determine that to superimpose a “one size fits all” operationalization of qualitative variables, is impossible to do (Arnaudo et. al., 2009). Arnaudo et. al.’s research has highlighted the difficulty in asserting a standard methodology to working with qualitative data.

2.i. Case Selection of Social Enterprises and Respondents.

Continuing with details on the methods used, the topic of case selection of the different variables in this research must be discussed. The focus of this study rests on various social enterprises’ managers’ perception of the interactions between themselves and external stakeholders who are representatives from local and regional governments. However, the questioning of their perceptions of personal interactions duly relies on traditional corporation-based theories in literature that will be discussed in following chapter(s). Thus, the units of analysis are responses of various social enterprises’ managers off of their own accounts of external stakeholder relations. Four social enterprises are analyzed in this research project: Community Energy Scotland, Low Carbon Hub, Dulas Limited (Ltd.), and Action

Renewables.

These previously mentioned enterprises all have the commonality of working under the administration of similar regional governments in one state- the United Kingdom.

Secondly, these enterprises and the managers within them, all have in common their

receiving of grants and subsidies from their respective governments to support their work in the rural communities they provide aid to. Lastly, said enterprises also have had experience collaborating on large-scale assignments with oil and gas companies (British Gas & Solar, in one instance), and are considered the most dominating and proactive enterprise operating in their respective regions. Finally, out of the many states that host social enterprises, the United Kingdom was chosen. An analysis done by Harding on social enterprises in the United

Kingdom showed their ability to revolutionize the way in which government operates with business interests in mind. In this instance, a remodeled “third sector” of

(11)

10

unlike before. Evidence supports this, as Harding states that the United Kingdom now boasts one of the largest number of social enterprises startups in all of Europe, and that its

government provides one of the highest amounts of funding in the form of grants or subsidies for research, in the western world (Harding, 2004). In the next few anecdotes, descriptions on the social enterprises that will be researched in this study will be presented, as simply

background information for the reader’s knowledge. Dulas Limited (Ltd.)

Delving deeper into the goals of these social enterprises, background information is needed. The first of the four samples is Dulas Limited (Ltd). Dulas Ltd. is a renewables based solar photo-voltaic (PV) instillation enterprise. Dulas Limited (Ltd.) has invested and moved local governments to now rely heavily on photo-voltaic (PV) energy in its constituency of Northern England. Its eventually goal as a social enterprise focusing on solar-based renewables, is to increase the need for alternative electric energies. Dulas Limited (Ltd.) provides supplementary consultancy services, manages projects in neighboring communities and towns for their governments and businesses, supplies products, and engineering-related solutions to photo-voltaic (PV) needs.

Low Carbon Hub

The second enterprise to be researched is Low Carbon Hub. Low Carbon Hub is centered in the region of Oxford-shire, England. This social enterprise is focused on long- term and full-scaled reduction on carbon footprints. It mainly works on projects using photo-voltaics (PV), and hydroelectric. The goal of using these alternative resources is to cut into the stronghold that carbon-usage has on modern day living. Low Carbon Hub tries to reignite the debate around gas and oil usage as a means to create energy- while disavowing

corporations who have not started the push to alternative sources. Low Carbon Hub engages with schools, small and large Oxford-based business and residences, as well as neighboring hydroelectric power plants and facilities. Its long-term mission is to better accommodate the needs of the 21st century in sustainable enterprise.

Action Renewables

Action Renewables, is the third enterprise, and is the provider of solutions to sustainably oriented issues in rural communities in the region, and provides consultations to millions of individuals per year. Action Renewables, is an enterprise that had been placing emphasis on utilizing both the power of both photo-voltaic (PV) and wind-turbine devices to

(12)

11

make the greater Belfast and most of Northern Ireland more sustainably efficient. Action Renewables’ main interest is foreseeing the various small and large businesses that call Northern Ireland home use its consultancy and supplying prowess to revolutionize how the country sees renewables.

Community Energy Scotland

Lastly, Community Energy Scotland is an enterprise that had been focusing on establishing and maintaining community-based wind- and hydro-electric schemes for rural communities. Further, “Community Energy Scotland” is also second to none in providing the most secure and efficient forms of renewable-based energies in greater and rural Scottish communities, and has the broadest history in dealing with the sustainable industry.

Community Energy Scotland has overseen the development and fruition of many high-profile cases and taking initiative to aid large oil and gas based corporations in their goals to

modernize their region.

Now backtracking onto more information on the logistics on the methodology of this research rather than background information; The specific cases in this research are the numerous managers chosen between the four social enterprises. Elaborating, these managers were chosen to represent the range of all social enterprises. The managers consisted of one manager each from Low Carbon Hub, Dulas Limited (Ltd.), Community Energy Scotland, and Action Renewables, respectively. These individual occupations ranged from engineering leader, heads of project development, to managers of financial matters. More specifically, one manager oversaw the operational logistics of projects and assignments, one manager oversaw the conception and enactment of specific projects, one other manager had

jurisdiction over the development of new alternative programs and advances in technology to aid those working on specific projects, and a fourth had managed community assets. These several managers were chosen along with the desired amount, for several practical reasons. Mainly due to the broad range of perspectives that these different types of managers were assumed to have, it seemed appropriate to enlist the help of each of them. This was to get a more holistic picture of the different roles associated with interacting with external

stakeholders. Next, by interviewing four individual managers and not any less or more, allowed an answer to the main research question that fully incorporated the correct amount based on what the research question seeks to answer. With less respondents available, the risk of not allocating enough proper data to answer the research question would have been met.

(13)

12

Alternatively, if any more individuals were to be interviewed, then there is a risk of surpassing the time-sensitive relevance of this research. Finally, the four managers were chosen respectively due to the description of their work duties and job role- because those with higher likelihood of interaction with stakeholders external to their enterprise were more likely to be chosen and interviewed. The appendix in the final section displays the roles of the four respondents alongside their job title and a description of their specific duties more in-depth.

2.ii. Methods of Data Collection.

In detailing methods of data collection and research- the observations noted are the managers’ own accounts in their interactions with external stakeholders. These are based off of already existing literature on persuasive and coercive tactics for resource-acquisition. Considering this, it is therefore important to analyze the perceptions of those interacting with these external-government stakeholders. This is done through analyzing literature that is concerned with grounded theories on resource acquisition in traditional corporations, alongside conducting interviews based off of these theories and comparing accounts from these interviews. These two aforementioned sources are the most reliable ways in which the main research question will be answered.

In respect to gathering of information that is relevant to the research, qualitative data collection methods were necessary. In the choice to conduct interviews mentioned prior, Patton had argued that means such as offering interviews to those the research sought to gather information from, allowed easier and more reliable data to be collected. Patton

continued, explaining that as primary data, questions that were to be used in interviews by the interviewer should be open-ended enough for the individual answering to give their own account (Patton, 1990). With Patton’s work on qualitative data, it was necessary that

scheduling interviews for the social enterprises’ managers was the most appropriate route to collect data. The questions that were later posed to those interviewed were not leading into a specified answer- possibly an answer that was posited in the theoretical framework of the literature. Yet said questions were also open-ended enough that the individual interviewed could retell their personal account- as long as the answer stayed within the parameters set by academic literature’s theoretical groundwork. Therefore, collecting qualitative data and measuring said data was simplistic, in that it required a comparison to key words and phrases

(14)

13

that would have also appeared in the theories regarding resource acquisition by managers, in the literature review.

Notwithstanding the information on the qualitative data used already given, it is significant to mention that the goal of this research and the interviews was not to determine the perceptions of managers and their interactions with external stakeholders working in government in a standalone manner. The goal of this research and the interviews completed was to compare them with grounded theories of resource acquisition whether through

persuasion or other means. The similarities that may have been found between interactions in social enterprises and traditional corporations, is the primary objective. The thesis aims to decipher the commonalities between the two entities, and in doing so, does not address why these commonalities occur, only whether or not they do occur similarly. In the next sub-section, an analysis of the methods used is displayed, as well as threats to using such methods.

2.iii. Analysis of Methods.

Following the case selection of the research and the subsequent data collection methods, an analysis of the methods used is necessary to include. In order, it is important to detail information regarding the specifics of how the responses of the respondents will be assessed within the context of the literature. Next, is to discuss the limitations in this study as they present themselves. Then, onto threats of reliability and validity, and how either affects the research completed.

The analysis of the data presented by this research was collected based on each response’s similarity to a theoretical framework, or a key phrase-usage that was proposed in the academic literature. For instance- in using the example of resource acquisition, it could be surmised that if the phrase “foot in the door technique”, or a concept defining the term, were to appear in respondent’s accounts as well as in theory-based literature, it would be apparent that this theory would apply to both traditional corporations and social enterprises. By giving meaning to certain words or phrases, it becomes possible to find similar characteristics between the tactics used for resource acquisition between social enterprise managers and managers of traditional corporations. Although asking open-ended and non-leading questions to these respondents may seem the most reliable methods for data gathering for such

(15)

14 these methods and their analyses.

Reliability and validity threats in the choice to use the academic literature used, and the theories housed in the literature, are clear. Firstly, as with all academic writings, it would be too time consuming and almost impossible to contact the authors of these pieces, assuming clarification was needed. Therefore, the only resources to use are contextually given by the data or research around the topic, and nothing more. Secondly, at this point in time, the literature used as well as the theoretical frameworks that they espouse may be outdated, and be decades old in their findings before the advent of social enterprises’ dominance in the political and economic realms. Considering these reasons, the literature itself is not a wholly impervious-to-faults resource.

As far as reliability concerns go within interviewing, transcribing the interviews, and collecting the necessary data- there is still a risk of errors. Firstly, an interview with an Action Renewables-based project manager was done via telephone call, and not video-chat method that the research initially called for. Unfortunately, the telephone call interview was scheduled instead of a video-chat due to the broadband service at the individual’s place of work being updated within the time frame that the interview was to take place. This may have affected the reproducibility of the interviews, because the circumstances were simply less than ideal. This is because video-chatting offers face-to-face capabilities. Secondly, interview respondents might not give their most truthful answers, representative of their actual

experiences, due to fears of backlash or just generally wanting their enterprise to be seen in a better light.

Moving from reliability wise to validity wise, the main concern that respondents being aware of the nature of the study, also has implications. Some respondents had inquired about seeing interview questions beforehand, yet- by doing so, interview respondents risk giving untruthful answers. As stated by Bruner, this is due to the possibility of having certain terms or ideas put into their mindsets, prior to the interviews. (Bruner, 1991). Secondly, in terms of data analysis- specific terms chosen by the researcher may be subjective, and not valid across different studies and different researchers. This threatens validity because it decreases the probability that the study could be reproduced directly. Thirdly, the interview respondent may misconstrue sentences that were not understood in the manner intended by the researcher, due to a lack of understanding. Fowler asserts this, and found that this results from ambiguities over actual (dictionary) and prescribed (personal, respondent-dependent)

(16)

15

definitions of said terms or phrases used in interviews (Fowler, 1992). This decreases validity because it threatens the ability of the researcher to accurately create interview questions that cannot be taken incorrectly by respondents.

This methodology section discussed the operationalization of cases, units of analyses, and means of data gathering. This section has allowed readers a better

understanding on the collection and analyzing of interview responses, as well as some of the reliability and validity concerns presented by such research. In the following chapter, theory-based contributions are discussed through the literature review. In doing so, the academic literature that gives the research a framework to base the interviews on is delved into. The literature review sub-section lies in the segment just before the piece on hypotheses. Furthermore, the sub-section on hypotheses focuses on educated assumptions on the inner-workings of social enterprises, based on what can be determined from the aforementioned literature on traditional corporations.

3. Theoretical Framework.

After acknowledging the logistics behind choosing which methodologies were appropriate for this research, a discussion on the literature review should follow. It is

however, to first note that these theories are based solely on manager interactions with other peers or general shareholders in their corporation. Unlike the focus of this research, no theory mentioned in this sub-section deals with social enterprises or stakeholders of any kind- except for employees. The following literature is focused on the subject of resource acquisition, behavioral psychological methods, sociology of power-sensitive interactions, and persuasive tactics in the workplace. This chapter on theoretical framework will start with a sub-section on the most elemental theories found in the literature used. These basic theories will give the more comprehensive and overarching theories greater ease to understand, when later creating interview questions. In essence, this sub-section will focus on generalizable and ground level theories on manager-peer relations, for instance, first. Then, the discussion will move into theories with more specific connections between them based on the main research question stated above- such as resource-acquisition means and tactics on persuasion.

Before moving forward, it is important to mention that it becomes reasonable to address the gaps in the literature and their theories. In addressing the literature that posits more abstract theories on resource acquisition and methods of persuasion, there must be

(17)

16

discussion that explains how this literature can and must be expanded upon. The discussion in that next sub-section following the literature review, and will detail how the research done in this study will enhance some of the more abstract and complex theories stated in the sub-section.

The subsequent sub-section of the theoretical framework chapter is to use the theories mentioned in the prior sub-section to pose meaningful hypotheses. The point behind these hypotheses, is to demonstrate an argument that there are similarities in

manager-external stakeholder interactions between traditional corporations and social enterprises. The hypotheses that will have been presented added scientific inquiry to the qualitative research, and further the theories on paper, into observable data through the interviews conducted in practice.

3.i. Literature-Based Theories.

Finishing with qualitative data based methodology, and starting onto literature based theories and the contributions to this research thesis it had brought, is now meaningful. Beginning with theories based in academic literature, it is best to start with Michael B. Goodman. Goodman’s work is mentioned first, as it is the most basic of the theory to be discussed. Goodman in his analysis of communication found that direct and indirect

communication in an entity such a corporation is hierarchical. Meaning, that there is defined structure on which individuals command content being communicated, and which receive the information being communicated. Being a hierarchy, the route of communication is directed downward from managers or shareholders at the apex. He argued to look introspectively to view how decision-making is ran under the discretion of the managers or shareholders inside of the corporation, barring any interference from outside the corporation. (Goodman, 1994). Goodman’s work is important because it confirms the notion that managers are the

gatekeepers of information, and control the means of informing others through

communication with peers and other managers. Goodman’s theory here lays the groundwork for more detailed theories. Advancing Goodman’s theories on communication, Geert

Hofstede notes that amongst these interactions, culturally based connotations exist. These connotations may not be the most sensitive to alternative cultures, so there must be some oversight on the content and the interpretation of these messages. The need to control and filter certain words, sayings, or body positions that may imply something negative is

(18)

17

meaningful in that it shows complexity in communication, she explained after analyzing individuals from non-western backgrounds in corporate communication techniques (Hofstede 1993). Hofstede had also mentioned the theory of impression management. Impression management is the concept wherein individuals try to maintain a conceived notion about themselves in order to appear more appealing to other. In this case, the concept was in reference to altering one’s communication styles to effectively interact with others more favorably. Hofstede had further this by confirming in field-based studies and interviews, that as each individual’s ascribed culture became more distant to another’s, the more careful both individuals had to be in communicating with intent. As in the cases with peer-to-peer

interactions, these interactions would also apply in situations where persuasion was a means of resource acquisition.

Concerning more abstract theories rather than theories that create framework for this research, the following scholars look more introspectively than prior scholars such as

Goodman and Hofstede. The following scholars mentioned regard the altering of managerial styles to fit the situation at hand. Basal and Clelland posit the theory of risk management in the workplace. According to Basal and Clelland, risk management refers to the maintenance of a threat to an individual’s public image. In a corporation, impression-management from an individual in upper-management takes the form of blame-shifting faults in projects from themselves to others, to highlighting the successes of their own work in the corporation. This would apply both to resource-acquisition, as well as persuasive tactics involved in this interaction. It would apply to both through needing to resort to impression management tactics in order to have a greater chance of success in acquiring the resource in question. (Basal, Clelland, 1994) The ability to influence how shareholders perceive the successes and failures of the corporation, is itself a form of persuasion.

Dealing with theories that now regard the identity management rather than what has been considered thus far, Basal and Clelland’s input on risk management and the

maintenance of identity, is similar to Barr et. al.’s analysis. Barr et. Al had looked at identity tensions between those within the corporation, and the invested public. In corporate

management, organizational-impression tactics (OIM) to the shareholders within, interplay with the marketing strategies of the corporation’s identity to the public. Organizational-impression tactics (OIM) detail the difficulty in maneuvering between the public eye to what the consumer needs, to answering to the shareholders above management to what they need.

(19)

18

Barr et. al. stated that an example of an organizational-impression tactics (OIM) would be to highlight their strengths and to misrepresent their failures. This tactic, Barr et. al. mentions, is for marketing purposes to make themselves seem more of an appealing corporation to support and do business with. The authors place emphasis on the differences between marketing for internal and external purposes- with wholly different means and ways to effectively market. The two forms of marketing strategies are mainly dependent on individual that the manager is interacting with. Essentially depending on whether the individual’s role is based internally, as an employee, or externally, as with shareholders (Barr, et. al. 2010). Barr et. al.’s work is meaningful here in that it details the struggle that managers face when trying to attain resources from shareholders, such as funding for an initiative. These issues arise when communication is sensitive enough to be taken incorrectly by shareholders, as managers confront them about attaining monetary, political, or general vocal support for their corporation.

Concluding with the more integral theories on workplace interactions and corporate communication, the more integral of the theories were used to create hypotheses, which appear in the next sub-section. In detailing more specific tactics to persuade individuals in acquiring resources, Wickert and De Bakker are the next scholars to discuss. Wickert and De Bakker had analyzed ninety-nine German multi-national corporations, and isolated common tactics that managers used to interact with shareholders in resource acquisition. Wickert and De Bakker isolated four common tactics that these managers use. These tactics would be used to resolve misunderstandings in communication, as they relate to the manager’s or peer’s aspirations for the future of the corporation’s decisions. These four managerial tactics are then split into two camps, the first being scope-centered, which focuses on expanding the definition of what corporate responsibility is able to accomplish. The second is involvement-centered, which centers around increasing the involvement of those involved with the

corporate responsibility measures, such as shareholders. Regarding the specifics of the tactics on resource acquisition, Wickert and De Bakker focused introspectively on the content and connotation of their messages. Firstly, the two found that parsing their words and analyzing the meaning of what they’re trying to convey, managers could better articulate what they are trying to say. This is relevant because managers seek to convey their information with the greatest accuracy and try to ensure nothing gets minced for the sake of effectiveness. Secondly, relies on using a “foot in the door” technique. Meaning, that by allowing peers to

(20)

19

piece by piece become more accustomed to a greater request, as opposed to an “all or nothing” approach right away, This compliance measure is meaningful because it allows managers to gradually request larger sums or resource-related demands for their corporation. Thirdly, Wickert and De Bakker found through their interviews that creating a sense of unity between what the individual peer’s job title and description entails, and the long-term goals of the entity, is key. Wickert and De Bakker found that peers would be able to understand how their work is intertwined with the end-results of a project or an initiative, and through this, the peer becomes more invested in the entity’s own work. Lastly, by compartmentalizing and assimilating worldviews that differ from their own, managers were more likely to agree to requests or to conform to beliefs. From there, it becomes easier for managers to get shareholders to abide by their recommendations or requests, if necessary. The third figure below shows the differences between the tactics found, which managers use to persuade those above them, such as shareholders- as mentioned before. The figure shows the four tactics mentioned by the pair, but in a comparative chart explaining their similarities and differences in their methods. Specifically, it shows that the first tactic falls in the process-focused section, and deals with strengthening creditability with the shareholder. The second shows supporting other’s endorsements of the request of the manager through focusing on the process of acquiring resources. The third tactic regarded focusing on the content of the

interaction, and strengthening credibility with the shareholder. Finally, the fourth and last tactic dealt with focusing on content matter, and supporting other’s endorsements of the request. (Wickert, De Bakker, 2015).

FIGURE 3: “CSR managers’ tactics in CSR implementation.” (Wickert and De Bakker, 2015).

Emphasizing the scholars’ theory, Wickert and De Bakker’s work is meaningful in that it laid the groundwork for further research in finding commonalities between managers and the tactics they had used. Furthermore, by engaging in common tactics to acquire

(21)

20

resources, it is clear to see that these managers engage in impression management through using their tactics. The impression management technique is similar among managing other’s perceptions of themselves, referencing Sharma’s research in the background summary. Regardless, moving on to figure 4 below, denotes linear correlations linking different

components of each managerial tactic with corresponding traits the shareholder encompasses. Personality-based traits are at the left-most of the chart, because these shareholder-dependent traits are necessary for the managerial tactics to work. For instance, if a shareholder has a personality trait such as trustworthy, it may make the task of internal advocacy easier for the manager trying to get approval. For instance, personality traits such as “modesty” and “focus”, direct into the “inward thinking” characteristic. “Inward thinking” links into the managerial tactic “temporal aspirations”, which then leads into the main “internal advocacy” component. This final component links all four tactics that managers might use (Wickert, De Bakker, 2015). In respect to this research, internal advocacy is important in that managers seek advocacy for purposes of resource acquisition in their corporation. Internal advocacy relies on the shareholder accessing their most vulnerable personality traits, so that managers may exploit them for purposes of resource acquisition.

(22)

21

FIGURE 4: “Inductive Reasoning Process: Tactics of CSR Practice Implementation.” (Wickert and De Bakker, 2015).

Moving on to methods of decision-making by managers as opposed to tactics of strictly resource-acquisition as with Wickert and De Bakker, it is best to start with Teasdale. Simon Teasdale had found that there is a constant struggle between the needs of the manager overseeing their corporation, and the wishes of the possible shareholders the managers were trying to coerce into working with the corporation. This struggle made the ability to decide how the corporation operates very difficult. Teasdale had analyzed three upper management members of the GTP (Global Production Theatre Company), and looked at the impasses faced when these individuals discussed matters of policy positions or decision-making with potential shareholders. In doing so, Teasdale created a list of five steps to resource

acquisition, which in this case, was the possible shareholder’s support. The first step of five was to inquire about the shareholder’s interests and goals for the corporation. By doing this, the manager had created a sense of comfort with the potential shareholder, and therefore made them seem trustworthy to the potential shareholder. The first step was used to ensure that the proposal to acquire more resources later on would occur more smoothly. The second and third steps were more so connected. Respectively, the second and third steps were to meet with the potential shareholder to discuss their wishes and conditions of joining. Thirdly,

(23)

22

the manager was responsible for engaging with the potential shareholder by actively listening to these conditions. The final two steps of the five, were to first acquire the resources

(support, in this instance), from the shareholder after proposing. The final step was to give timely and positive feedback to the possible shareholder. By giving their positive feedback, it ensured that the possible shareholder was to engage more with upper management of the corporation, now that the shareholder had gotten a good review of their support to the cause of the corporation. (Teasdale, 2009). Figure 2 below details the five steps, as stated above, in flowchart form.

FIGURE 5: “The processes of impression management in resource acquisition” (Teasdale, 2009).

Different spheres of influence affect and are affected by the interactions between managers and shareholders. The environment, the economy, and society itself are all

dependent on the interactions between upper management in corporations. The environmental dimension relies on instances where they may affect the ecology and environment around them. This dimension includes corporate responsibility, and consumer demands that the environment be protected. The societal dimension is dependent on the consumers of the corporation, which the corporation relies on for revenue and a base constituency to answer to. The final economic dimension is wholly significant because the economy of a corporation refers to its costs by production or productivity, its utility to its consumers, the profit it brings

(24)

23

in compared to said costs, and its activity on the competitive market- to name a few examples. Therefore, the economic dimension denotes the survival of said corporation. Steuren et Al. had first devised this concept of interacting dimensions with shareholders and corporate managers at the cornerstones. “Stakeholder-Relations Management”, the theory that Steuren et. al. had created, espoused the three dimensions. Alongside the three

dimensions, the different legal aspects were affected by these interactions as well. The legal regulations placed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) enforced environmental and regulatory support, through ethical means. These regulatory means are mentioned because they form the source of where regulatory codes are enforced, to control which aspects shareholders and managers can make decisions on. These codes are a type of “management systems”, which is a regulatory means mentioned above. Management systems comprises to core on the chart, which flows outward in the chart from “management

approach”, to “corporate concept”, to “societal concept”. As the reader can see, the source of management techniques affects the management approach, (such as the tactics being used), to decide which concepts are discussed between managers and shareholders. (Steuren et. al., 2005).

This graph is significant because it outlines how decisions are made. More explicitly, it defines the starting point of conceptual development on decision-making. Management systems is at the core because it is the most direct source that decision making comes from. The outermost is societal concepts, which is the source that gives the most leeway and the more liberal directives to those making decisions. Societal concepts are at the outermost layer because generally, a society can harbor many different sub-groups, and with the sub-groups comes different needs and constituents. Ergo, the outermost layers are not as rigid as the innermost layers. The relevance here lies in the process that decisions are made in

corporations. The routes that dictate which dimensions and approaches are considered over others when deciding policy with shareholders.

(25)

24

FIGURE 6: “Overview of the business-society concepts Sustainable Development, Corporate Sustainability, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Stakeholder-Relations Management.” (Steuren, et. al., 2005).

3.ii. Gaps in Literature-Based Theories.

The aforementioned literature review delivers great expertise on the subject of managerial, shareholder, and stakeholder interactions to the research at hand. Although, this does not mean that the theories mentioned above are without gaps. Three main issues are mentioned within the latter of the researchers work, as examples. First off, the theoretical gaps laid scholars such as Wickert and De Bakker, and Teasdale, relied on a “one size fits all” policy in their work. This did not satisfy other scholars who wanted to distinguish

between the type of industry, or specific entity being researched- such as researchers studying social enterprises and corporations alike. Secondly, Wickert and De Bakker, Teasdale, and Steuren et. al., also failed to separate or create distinction in their number of multinational corporations, and by not establishing enough variety in between their subjects used. These limitations are important to consider, because they place doubt on the applicability of these tactics to other entities, such as social enterprises. Third, there is a problem that only three

(26)

25

managers were interviewed for Teasdale’s work on GTP management and shareholder interactions, for instance, as opposed to more respondents. More respondents would give greater reliability to what is being researched. As a consequence, Teasdale’s five steps for resource acquisition come from the same samples. Therefore, there is no room to deviate onto other individuals or entities, from the same management and the same corporation the study researches. Ergo, the concepts, graphs, and steps towards resource acquisition that were developed by Teasdale and Wickert and De Bakker, are lacking in that they do not accurately give the full picture of integral steps for resource acquisition. It is important to consider that due to their research and data being so specific to their own work, many of the scholars’ studies mentioned lack generalizability. Their studies’ lack of generalizability makes further research on similar topics, challenging to future scholars. Although this is important to keep in mind throughout the literature review and data retrieved from the interviews, their lack of reliability should be taken lightly. All things considered, the research used for this study is still applicable to the main research at hand- deciphering similarities between manager and external stakeholder interactions in social enterprises, due to the aspect of comparison towards corporate interactions.

3.iii. Theory-Based Hypotheses.

After exploring the contributions to this research that the theories from last sub-section had brought, it is time to consider some hypotheses. The hypotheses that will be examined can help give greater insight to the main research question. Through breaking down the main research question into a few literature-based hypotheses, it becomes easier to answer. As a result, three hypotheses based on the aforementioned theories will be discussed. These three hypotheses will be posited, as well as statement on how these hypotheses will directly help answer the main research question at hand.

First Hypothesis.

The first hypothesis of the three explained is referenced from Wickert and De Bakker’s four tactics of resource-acquisition. Among their four tactics, one is salient enough to be noted. Managers from social enterprises may similarly use the fourth tactic, of

compartmentalizing and assimilating the different views of the shareholder to manager’s own views. There could be a difference between the needs of the community that would enjoy the service of government and enterprises working together for their well-being, and the interests

(27)

26

of the government or enterprises working with them. Bourke and Meppem had analyzed different cases of corporations working with government and civil society to create more sustainable-friendly policies for certain townships. The two found that differences were stark between the expectations and wishes of communities seeking aid with their renewables, and the local government’s own personal interests and wishes for their constituency. Semantic issues were apparently the cause of the gap in understanding between the parties involved. Bourke and Meppem had described the communication issues behind not effectively detailing problems that average individuals face by not having ecological friendly outlets. (Bourke, Meppem, 1999). To reiterate, Bourke and Meppem’s research on the differences in the relative definition of “sustainability” and how it impacts the view of how sustainability should be implemented, is relatable to Wickert and De Bakker’s fourth tactic. The fourth tactic is based off of compartmentalizing worldviews and different perspectives, something that Bourke and Meppem had dealt with in their research regarding the meaning of

sustainability. (Wickert, De Bakker, 2015). Consequently, the fourth tactic is hypothesized to be the most similar between managers in social enterprises and those in traditional

corporations.

First Hypothesis: Compartmentalizing perspectives on sustainability, and converging opinions on how to implement sustainable measures, are duties identical to both enterprise and corporate managers.

That said, the first, second, and third tactics may not be applicable as being similarly used between management in traditional corporations and social enterprises. Managers from social enterprises and shareholders on behalf of government, would not need to engage in the other three. Namely, because shareholders would not need to be accustomed to a proposal to change or alter something in manager’s corporation for the support, because both individuals would be working to make any community more sustainably efficient with their services. Therefore, there would not need to be any “foot in the door” style interactions. Nor would such stakeholders need to be coaxed into supporting initiatives by enterprise managers, because the stakeholders and managers would be working towards the same goal, and therefore have similar initiatives and projects planned. Even so, government representatives generally have blueprints or general plans lied out for enterprises to follow for their work in underprivileged communities. These assumptions of which tactics would or would not be relevant in such interactions, is explained in Schwab’s work. Schwab had described the

(28)

27

process on the renewal of communities by sustainability-focused corporations and regional governments, from their attendance to The World Economic Forum, and their adherence the UN Global Contract. Schwab had used case studies to posit that generally speaking, both individuals would have to already focus on the adoption of environmentally friendly policies to be placed in the positions of power they have, as energy or environment specialists. Stating that these eco-conscious individuals also have similar proposals for how engagement should be implement in communities needing aid (Schwab, 2008). This reiterates the point of this paragraph that the other three tactics are not as important in determining the commonalities between corporations and enterprises, as tactic four is. The first hypothesis is imperative in answering the main research question, because it helps note how managers in enterprises persuade external stakeholders from government into supporting their work. By noting how the tactics would aid managers, the hypothesis provides a commonality between enterprise managers and corporate managers working with stakeholders, and their persuasive tactics used to acquire resources.

Second Hypothesis.

The second hypothesis is related of Teasdale’s work on the five steps to resource-acquisition. The similarities between the processes of resource acquisition from social enterprise managers to corporate managers are in the last three steps of the five steps theorized. Namely, the third and fifth steps are specifically targeted. The third step of listening to the response of the resource holder regarding their conditions of engaging with the corporation’s projects, after demonstrating the need to acquire resources, is surmised to be important to managers of both corporations and social enterprises. The fifth step of providing feedback to the resource holder- in this case, the stakeholder- is hypothesized to overlap between managers as well. Hines had recommended after his research concluded, that corporate stakeholders, just as shareholders of did, found it necessary to discussion matters of resource acquisition with managers, similarly to Teasdale’s findings. Specifically, Hines found that by engaging with external stakeholders about their conditions to engage with the corporation, the stakeholders were more likely to work with said corporation. Furthering this, after acquiring resources, the manager would be obligated to give positive feedback. This is to ensure the likelihood of working with the stakeholder again in the future, because of the successful experience this instance (Hines, 2005). Hines work is relatable to Teasdale’s because both authors’ research on resource acquisition, had dealt with giving

(29)

28

positive feedback and focused on active listening on the part of the manager. The overlap between Teasdale’s focus on generic corporations and Hines’ focus on agriculturally based and sustainably oriented corporations, is clear. This leads the second hypothesis to be based on Teasdale’s final three steps to resource acquisition. In that, these steps are identical between corporations’ and enterprises’ managerial steps to resource acquisition. The second hypothesis is important in answering the main research question, because it directly answers how resource acquisition is similar or identical between tactics used by managers in social enterprises and those in traditional corporations.

Second Hypothesis: Providing active listening to the needs of the external stakeholder, and giving positive feedback to the stakeholder after acquiring the necessary resource(s), an integral part of the goal towards resource-acquisition in social enterprises. Third Hypothesis.

Steuren et. al.’s research on the overview of business-society concepts, as described in figure four in the literature review above, pertains to hypothesis number three, which will be explained below. It is first important to give background to the hypothesis. Stueren had discussed the interactions between the economic, environmental, and social dimensions, and how they helped in developing a holistic purpose and objective for social enterprises that works for all actors involved. Keijzers’ had advanced a similar theory regarding the interplay between different stakeholders- such as consumers, civil society, and government contractors. The theory was based on Keijzers’ own theory on how businesses focusing on sustainable enterprise reach develop their mission and goals based on the power of their constituency. Furthering the idea, Keijzers’ implied that demonstrations of hard power, such as monetary support (consumers and government contractors), overpowered soft support, such as vocal support (from civil society). This is now relevant to mention because the power-play

involved in agenda setting for the enterprises researched was based on the dynamic between different actors- and different dimensions. These different dimensions of consumer, civil society, and government advocacy then affected how enterprises managed their development of goals and mission to deliver sustainable goods and services to constituents. (Keijzers, 2002). Keijzers’ literature on the interplay between different actors that influence the goals of the enterprise, and Steuren et. al.’s literature on the dynamic of social, environmental, and economic dimensions on a corporation, is similar. (Steuren et. al., 2005). The similarity arises from the fact that both theories rely on conceptual development. Conceptual development is

(30)

29

dependent on which dimensions enact the greatest influence on the actions of the entity- the social enterprise in this case. As a result, the third hypothesis is the belief that there is an identical interaction of economic, environmental, and social actors on the enterprise, that is directed by a sort of power struggle between the different actors. The third hypothesis is relevant to answering the main research question because it theorizes that both corporations and enterprises rely on the same style of conceptual development, through determining their priorities in decision-making processes.

Third Hypothesis: There exists an interplay or struggle between different economic, environmental, and social forces that affects social enterprises’ managers’ long-term goals. The hypotheses’ importance lies in the fact that they will each help answer the main research question. Again, the main research question; “What are the similarities between managerial-external stakeholder interactions within traditional corporations and social enterprises?” is repeated to emphasize the purpose of the research. To reiterate the three hypotheses posited; the first is the theory that to acquire resources, the manager of an

enterprise must compartmentalize their own, civil society’s, and their stakeholder’s views on sustainability in order to effectively address the issue caused by a lack of sustainability n communities. The second hypothesis is the notion that managers of enterprises normally actively listen to stakeholder’s interests and needs for their support, and then give positive feedback to stakeholders after acquiring necessary resources. Hypothesis three is based on the belief that there is a struggle between different actors that to gain attention from managers, in enterprises. These hypotheses just posited will be explained further in the following chapter in the latter sub-section. The purpose of this is to determine how well these hypotheses hold their validity, after reviewing the interview transcripts. In doing so, the next chapter will focus on answering the main research question in two parts. First, the focus is on the

reporting of transcripts, analyses, and framing of the interview data’s results. Secondly, is the subsequent review of the hypotheses in reference to the interview data’s results.

4. Reporting and Analyses of Research Results.

Explaining theoretical contributions to the research, and adding hypotheses based in said theory, is best to consider now. These explanations will aid the analyses of said results in a framework that is appropriate for this research question. First, the goal of the foremost subsection will be to frame the responses. In doing so, the questions that had been asked

(31)

30

during the interviews, as well as the responses by respondents, are discussed. Alongside the discussion, there will be an explanation on the responses and how they can be clarified by theories mentioned in prior chapters, such as Wickert and De Bakker and Teasdale. Afterwards in the next sub-section, the results will be discussed in reference to the hypotheses put forth in the last chapter. In framing the responses in the hypotheses, the hypotheses will be tested. Thus, the hypotheses posited earlier will help verify the main research question. Within this sub-section, it will be clearer to see how the main research question fits in to expectations of resource-acquisition. Overall in this chapter on the

reporting and analyses of research results, the following research question will be answered: “What are the similarities between managerial-external stakeholder interactions within traditional corporations and social enterprises?” at the conclusion of the last sub-section.

4.i. Framing the Responses.

Framing the responses by those interviewed is necessary before discussing the transcriptions of the interviews conducted. Firstly, it is important to note that only the responses that implied identical or similar tactics to those described in the literature review, out of the many asked and answered. Thus, many interview questions and answers were left out of this sub-section, due to them not being relevant to the main research question. The main research question- “What are the similarities between managerial-external stakeholder interactions within traditional corporations and social enterprises?”- require answers which describe the similarities between the interactions mentioned. Answers to the interview questions that denote differences between how managers in social enterprises interact with external stakeholders, will not be entertained. With this said, the transcripts of the interviews may proceed in the next sub-section, along with an analysis of their meaning as it relates to the research and the hypotheses provided.

4.ii. Interpretation of Research Results in Reference to Hypotheses Surmised.

In interpreting the hypotheses presented in the last sub-section, it is meaningful to frame them in reference to the data collected from the interviews. To reiterate the cases selected to collect data from, four social enterprises were analyzed in this research project: Community Energy Scotland, Low Carbon Hub, Dulas Limited (Ltd.), and Action