A multi-level framework for SE governance
| Main | Scientific | Practical | Policy | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level | Findings | Contribution | Implications | Implications | Key theoretical lenses and illustrative studies |
| Macro-dimension | - Variation in SE governance models across national regulatory frameworks | - Influence of institutional frameworks on hybridisation dynamics | - Consideration of legal diversity in SE governance planning | - Regulatory balance between investment openness and mission protection | Institutional and comparative perspectives on SE models (e.g., Defourny and Nyssens, 2010, 2017; Lindsay and Hems, 2004; Liptrap, 2021; Vakkuri et al., 2021) |
| - EU emphasis on multi-stakeholder governance and asset locks | - Tensions from regulation-driven multi-stakeholder governance | - Strategic legal form selection based on flexibility and mission safeguarding | - Policy design informed by diversity in SE organisational forms | ||
| - US preference for flexible legal forms (e.g. B-Corps, L3Cs) with limited redistributive constraints | - Underrepresentation of Global South and Eastern Europe in empirical studies | ||||
| - High heterogeneity in SE classification across empirical studies | - Legal framework evolution and implications for mission drift | ||||
| Micro-dimension | - Tensions between social mission and economic sustainability | - Impact of governance structure on social–economic goal balance | - Board composition with social and economic expertise | - Capacity-building initiatives for hybrid governance and board effectiveness | Stakeholder, agency and hybrid governance perspectives (e.g., Ebrahim et al., 2014; Mair et al., 2015; Wolf and Mair, 2019; Mason, 2012; Spear et al., 2014; Pestoff and Hulgård, 2016; Savall Morera et al., 2024; Lee et al., 2024) |
| - Enhanced legitimacy through multi-stakeholder governance, with increased decision-making complexity | - Comparative assessments of hybrid governance effectiveness | - Participatory structures for strategic alignment and transparency | - Support for inclusive and mission-aligned governance models | ||
| - Limited research on board–mission alignment | - Stakeholder participation and organisational performance | - Skill development in hybrid governance | |||
| - Board–management alignment in mission fulfilment | |||||
| Meso-dimension | - Role of SEs as strategic coordinators in inter-sectoral partnerships | - Governance design in cross-sector partnerships | - Development of collaborative governance skills | - Institutional support for co-governance in multi-actor contexts | Resource dependence, collaborative governance and hybridity/institutional logics perspectives (e.g., Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff, 2011; Quélin et al., 2017; Doherty and Kittipanya-Ngam, 2021; Longoni et al., 2019; Gillett et al., 2019; Henry et al., 2022; Hatak et al., 2016) |
| - Value-based tensions and divergent logics in SE–for-profit collaborations | - Effects of power asymmetries on partnership sustainability | - Conflict management mechanisms in partnership settings | - Incentives for transparent and durable collaborative models | ||
| - Trust-building through inclusive governance practices | - Governance configurations for long-term collaboration |
| Main | Scientific | Practical | Policy | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Level | Findings | Contribution | Implications | Implications | Key theoretical lenses and illustrative studies |
| Macro-dimension | - Variation in | - Influence of institutional frameworks on hybridisation dynamics | - Consideration of legal diversity in | - Regulatory balance between investment openness and mission protection | Institutional and comparative perspectives on |
| - | - Tensions from regulation-driven multi-stakeholder governance | - Strategic legal form selection based on flexibility and mission safeguarding | - Policy design informed by diversity in | ||
| - | - Underrepresentation of Global South and Eastern Europe in empirical studies | ||||
| - High heterogeneity in | - Legal framework evolution and implications for mission drift | ||||
| Micro-dimension | - Tensions between social mission and economic sustainability | - Impact of governance structure on social–economic goal balance | - Board composition with social and economic expertise | - Capacity-building initiatives for hybrid governance and board effectiveness | Stakeholder, agency and hybrid governance perspectives (e.g., |
| - Enhanced legitimacy through multi-stakeholder governance, with increased decision-making complexity | - Comparative assessments of hybrid governance effectiveness | - Participatory structures for strategic alignment and transparency | - Support for inclusive and mission-aligned governance models | ||
| - Limited research on board–mission alignment | - Stakeholder participation and organisational performance | - Skill development in hybrid governance | |||
| - Board–management alignment in mission fulfilment | |||||
| Meso-dimension | - Role of SEs as strategic coordinators in inter-sectoral partnerships | - Governance design in cross-sector partnerships | - Development of collaborative governance skills | - Institutional support for co-governance in multi-actor contexts | Resource dependence, collaborative governance and hybridity/institutional logics perspectives (e.g., |
| - Value-based tensions and divergent logics in SE–for-profit collaborations | - Effects of power asymmetries on partnership sustainability | - Conflict management mechanisms in partnership settings | - Incentives for transparent and durable collaborative models | ||
| - Trust-building through inclusive governance practices | - Governance configurations for long-term collaboration |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.