Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Social Enterprises pp 198–221Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Mission Control: Examining the Institutionalization of New Legal Forms of Social Enterprise in Different Strategic Action Fields

  • Chapter

Abstract

During the first decade of the 21st century, new legal forms for socially motivated business enterprises have emerged in the UK and in the US creating new options for businesses active in social enterprise activities. In this chapter I examine three efforts to create new platforms for social business: the community interest company or CIC (UK), the low profit limited liability company or L3C (US) and the B Corporation (US) through the lens of social movement theory, exploring the efforts to institutionalize these new legal forms as social movements occurring in different strategic fields of action (Fligstein and McAdam, 2011). Building on recent efforts to bridge social movement analysis with organizational theory (Davis et al., 2005), this chapter includes a stakeholder analysis of each new model to sharpen the comparative focus of the investigation of the early efforts to institutionalize these new legal forms for social enterprise. Such an approach assumes that the institutionalization process is shaped both by specific characteristics of organizational form and by the larger environmental conditions surrounding the efforts to codify new legal forms and promote their use.

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Alter, S. K. (2006). “Social Enterprise Models and their Mission and Money Relationships.” In A. Nicholls (ed.), Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable Social Change. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 205–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Americans for Community Development. (2011). www.americansforcommunityde-velopment.org/

  • B Corporation. (2010). www.bcorporation.net/.

  • Ball, S. J. (2010). “Social and Education Policy, Social Enterprise, Hybridity and New Discourse Communities.” Paper presented at the Social Policy Association Conference, University of Lincoln, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bode, I., Evers, A., and Schulz, A. (2006). “Work Integration Social Enterprises in Europe: Can Hybridization Be Sustainable?” In M. Nyssens (Ed.), Social Enterprise: At the Crossroads of Market, Public Policies and Civil Society. London: Routledge, pp. 237–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, E. (2010). Maryland”s Benefit Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clemens, E. S. (2005). “Two Kinds of Stuff: The Current Encounter of Social Movements and Organizations”. In G. F. Davis, D. Mcadam, W. R. Scott & M. N. Zald (eds), Social Movements and Organizational Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 351–365.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, R. (2009). “L3C: Pot of Gold or Space Invader”, web log post, www.blueavocado.org/content/l3c-pot-gold-or-space-invader.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooney, K., and Williams Shanks, T. (2010). “New Approaches to Old Problems: Market-based Strategies for Poverty Alleviation.” Social Service Review 84(1): 29–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dart, R. (2004). “The Legitimacy of Social Enterprise.” Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14(4), 411–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, W. (2004). “How to Tame Capitalism.” New Statesman, September 13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. F., McAdam, D., Scott, W. R., and Zald, M. N. (eds). (2005). Social Movements and Organizational Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dees, J. G., and Anderson, B. B. (2003). “Blurring Lines between Nonprofit and for-Profit.” Society, May/June.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., and Preston, L. E. (1995). “The Stakeholder Theory of the Corporation: Concepts, Evidence and Implications.” Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eikenberry, A. M., and Kluver, J. D. (2004). The Marketization of the Nonprofit Sector: Civil Society at Risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2): 132–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fligstein, N., and McAdam, D. (2011). “Toward a General Theory of Strategic Action Fields.” Sociological Theory, 29(1): 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, W., and Bradach, J. (2005). “Should Nonprofits Seek Profits?” Harvard Business Review, 83(February): 92–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, J. C. (2011). “Can I Get a Witness?! The Evolution of Capitalism.” Huffington Post, September 27. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-coen-gilbert/benefit-corporation-legislation-_b_976650.html

  • Glaister, D. (2011). “Community Delays Gloucestershire’s NHS Community Interest Company.” The Guardian, October 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hrywna, M. (2009). “The LC3 Status: Groups Explore Structure that Limits Liability for Program-related Investing.” The Non-profit Times, September 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R. A., and Page, A. (2010). “The Role of Social Enterprise.” Vermont Law Review, 35: 59–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, B. G. (2008). “a Social Movement Perspective of Stakeholder Collective Action and Influence.” Business and Society, 47(1): 21–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korosec, R. L., and Berman, E. M. (2006). “Municipal Support for Social Entrepreneurship.” Public Administration Review (May/June): 448–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinberger, D. S. (2010). A Myth Deconstructed: The “Emperor’s New Clothes” on the Low Profit Limited Liability Company. Legal Studies Research Paper Series Working Paper No. 2010-03. William Mitchell College of Law. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1554045

    Google Scholar 

  • Maguire, S., and Phillips, N. (2010). “Theorizing Risk and Organization.” Paper presented at the 26th Annual EGOS Conference, Lisbon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, J., and Walsh, J. (2003). “Misery Loves Companies: Rethinking Social Initiatives by Businesses.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 268–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., and Davis, G. F. (2007). “Community Isomorphism and Corporate Social Action.” Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 925–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAdam, D., McCarthy, J. D., and Zald, M. N. (1996). “Introduction: Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Framing Processes Toward a Synthetic Comparative Perspective on Social Movements.” In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy and M. N. Zald (Eds.), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., and Wood, D. J. (1997). “Toward a Theory for Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts.” Academy of Management Review, 22(4): 853–886.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moneybox. (2000). “The Scoop on Ben & Jerry’s Sellout.” Slate, April 12. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2000/04/the_scoop_on_ben_jerrys_sellout.html.

  • Neck, H., Brush, C., and Allen, E. (2009). “The Landscape of Social Entrepreneurship.” Business Horizons, 52: 13–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orlistzky, M., Schmidt, F., and Rynes, S. (2003). “Corporate Social and Financial Performance: a Meta-Analysis.” Organization Studies, 24: 241–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orts, E., and Strudler, A. (2009). “Putting a Stake in Stakeholder Theory.” Journal of Business Ethics, 88 (Supplement 4): 605–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., and Wicks, A. C. (2003). “What Stakeholder Theory Is Not.” Business Ethics Quarterly, 13(4): 479–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M. (1993). The Marketization of Welfare: Changing Nonprofit and for-Profit Roles in the American Welfare State. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, E. (2010). “Vermont’s Social Hybrid Pioneers: Early Observations and Questions to Ponder.” Research Paper no. 10–49, Vermont Law School Legal Studies Research Paper Series. South Royalton, VT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scully, M. A., and Creed, W. E. D. (2005). Subverting Our Stories of Subversion. In D. McAdam, J. D. McCarthy, W. R. Scott and M. N. Zald (Eds.), Social Movement and Organization Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 310–332.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, J. (2004). “Managing in the Post-Managerialist Era: towards Socially Responsible Coreporate Governance.” Management Decision, 42(3/4): 601–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1988). “Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization”. In B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi, & S. Tarrow (eds), International Social Movement Research. Vol 1: From Structure on Action: Comparing Social Movement Research across Cultures. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 197–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Social Enterprise. (2009). “The LC3: A Complete Backgrounder”, http://socialenter-priseblog.com

    Google Scholar 

  • Social Enterprise UK. (2011). www.socialenterprise.org.uk/.

  • Spear, R., Cornforth, C., and Aiken, M. (2007). For Love and Money: Governance and Social Enterprise. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University.

    Google Scholar 

  • ****The Regulator of Community Interest Companies (2009). “Community Interest Companies: Frequently Asked Questions”, Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Retrieved from http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/cicregulator/docs/leaflets/09-1648-community-interest-companies-frequently-asked-questions-leaflet

    Google Scholar 

  • The Regulator of Community Interest Companies. (2010, July). Annual Report. Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Retrieved from http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/cicregulator/docs/annual-reports/10-p117-community-interest-companies-annual-report-2009-2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Regulator of Community Interest Companies. (2011, September). Annual Report 2010–2011. Department for Business Innovation and Skills. Retrieved from http://www.bis.gov.uk/assets/cicregulator/docs/annual-reports/11-p117-community-interest-companies-annual-report-2010-2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Tuckman, H. P. (1998). “Competition, Commercialization, and the Evolution of Nonprofit Organizational Structures.” In B. A. Weisbrod (Ed.), To Profit or Not to Profit. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 25–45.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, J. (2010). “‘Impact Investing’ Teeters on the Edge of Explosive Growth.” The New York Times, October 9, www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/us/10bcweber.html?_r=1

  • Weisbrod, B. A. (2004). “The Pitfalls of Profits.” Stanford Social Innovation Review (Winter): 40–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, D., and Sillanpää, M. (1998). “Including the Stakeholders: the Business Case.” Long Range Planning, 31(2): 201–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Social Forum. (2011). http://fsm2011.org/en/wsf-2011.

  • Young, D. R., and Salamon, L. M. (2002). “Commercialization, Social Ventures, and for-Profit Competition.” In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The State of Nonprofit America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, pp. 423–446.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zetetist. (2011). “Peninsula Community Health: What Point?” October 5. Retrieved from http://cornishzetetics.blogspot.com/2011/10/peninsula-community-health-what-point.html

    Google Scholar 

  • Zouhali-Worrall, M. (2010). “For LC3 Companies, Profit Isn’t the Point”, http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/08/smallbusiness/l3c_low_profit_companies/

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwetsch, R. (2009). “How-to: An Insider’s Look at the LC3 and What it Could Mean for You and Your Social Enterprise.” Social Earth, www.socialearth.org/how-to-an-insider%E2%80%99s-look-at-the-l3c-and-what-it-could-mean-for-you-and-your-social-enterprise

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Kate Cooney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Israeli Social Enterprise Research Center, Beit Berl Academic College, Israel

    Benjamin Gidron

  2. UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, USA

    Yeheskel Hasenfeld

Copyright information

© 2012 Kate Cooney

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Cooney, K. (2012). Mission Control: Examining the Institutionalization of New Legal Forms of Social Enterprise in Different Strategic Action Fields. In: Gidron, B., Hasenfeld, Y. (eds) Social Enterprises. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137035301_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation