Abstract
While the economic and environmental dimensions of the triple bottom line (TBL) have been covered extensively by management theory and practice, the social dimension remains largely underrepresented. The resource-based view (RBV) of the firm and the natural resource-based view (NRBV) of the firm are revisited to lay the theoretical foundation for exploring how the social dimension might be addressed. Social capabilities are then explored by looking at the social entrepreneurship literature and illustrative cases with the purpose of elaborating RBV toward a social resource-based view (SRBV) of the firm. Three illustrative cases, which represent social businesses located in catastrophe-ridden Haiti, show how capabilities are used to overcome challenging constraints. The goal for the social entrepreneur is to employ the appropriate capabilities to ensure economic success, a positive environmental impact, and social benefits that leave the local community in a better position than without the business. Just as NRBV is a previous elaboration of RBV, so can SRBV be an elaborated theoretical foundation for future research. The components of a theory are systematically addressed by extending the range of variables (adding social capabilities), extending the domain (including stakeholders with economic, environmental, and/or social stakes), and offering propositions on variable relationships and outcome predictions (linking social capabilities and shared TBL value creation). By highlighting the social capabilities of social entrepreneurs, this research illuminates the micro-foundations of corporate social responsibility, emphasizing the value of individual level analyses.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
An organizational form is an “archetypal configuration of structures and practices” that is “regarded as appropriate within an institutional context” (Greenwood and Suddaby 2006, p. 30).
The term “social capability” also exists in economics to describe countries’ overall education and technical competence, and the various institutions that shape the economic environment (e.g., Abramovitz 1986). That is not what is meant here.
Although the social entrepreneurship literature more often utilizes the wording “resources” instead of ”capabilities,” we see this nevertheless in the spirit of an SRBV; due to the disparate terminology existing in the literature, these studies might only partly refer to resources and/or capabilities as defined earlier in this paper.
Despite the name, this will feature economic, environmental, and social impact, depending on the respective business model. The cases CHIFA, EPRO, and CLEAPRO covered all three impact dimensions.
That expression is just meant figuratively; the local community does not have equity stakes in the business. What is meant it that they are the ones this business wants to create value for.
References
Abramovitz, M. (1986). Catching up, forging ahead, and falling behind. Journal of Economic History, 46(2), 386–406.
Aguinis, H. (2011). Organizational responsibility: Doing good and doing well. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 855–879). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968.
Ahi, P., & Searcy, C. (2013). A comparative literature analysis of definitions for green and sustainable supply chain management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 52, 329–341.
Barnea, A., & Rubin, A. (2010). Corporate social responsibility as a conflict between shareholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(1), 71–86.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Barney, J., Ketchen, D. J., Jr., & Wright, M. (2011). The future of resource-based theory: Revitalization or decline? Journal of Management, 37(5), 1299–1315.
Barron, D. N., West, E., & Hannan, M. T. (1994). A time to grow and a time to die: Growth and mortality of credit unions in New York City, 1914–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 100(2), 381–421.
Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing-insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.
Battilana, J., Lee, M., Walker, J., & Dorsey, C. (2012). In search of the hybrid ideal. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 10, 51–55.
BCTA (2011). Business call to action 2011. Barriers to inclusive business. http://www.businesscalltoaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Barriers-to-Inclusive-Business-Final-LR.pdf. Accessed December 28, 2014.
Berle, A. A. (1931). Corporate powers as powers in trust. Harvard Law Review, 44(7), 1049–1074.
Boons, F., & Luedeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-the-art and steps toward a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45(April), 9–19.
Borland, H., Ambrosini, V., Lindgreen, A., & Vanhamme, J. (2016). Building theory at the intersection of ecological sustainability and strategic management. Journal of Business Ethics, 135, 293–307.
Bowen, H. R. (1953). Social responsibility of the businessman. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Brandsen, T., & Karré, P. M. (2011). Hybrid organizations: No cause for concern? International Journal of Public Administration, 34(13), 827–836.
Brück, T., Naudé, W., & Verwimp, P. (2011). Small business, entrepreneurship and violent conflict in develo** countries. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship, 24(2), 161–178.
Calton, J. M., Werhane, P. H., Hartman, L. P., & Bevan, D. (2013). Building partnerships to create social and economic value at the base of the global development pyramid. Journal of Business Ethics, 117(4), 721–733.
Carroll, A. B. (1979). A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Academy of Management Review, 4(4), 497–505.
Carroll, A. B. (1999). Corporate social responsibility evolution of a definitional construct. Business and Society, 38(3), 268–295.
Chatain, O. (2011). Value creation, competition, and performance in buyer-supplier relationships. Strategic Management Journal, 32(1), 76–102.
Corner, P., & Ho, M. (2010). How opportunities develop in social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 635–659.
Corner, P., & Wu, S. (2012). Dynamic capability emergence in the venture creation process. International Small Business Journal, 30(2), 138–160.
Crane, A., Palazzo, G., Spence, L. J., & Matten, D. (2014). Contesting the value of ‘‘Creating Shared Value’’. California Management Review, 56(2), 130–151.
D’Aunno, T., Sutton, R. I., & Price, R. H. (1991). Isomorphism and external support in conflicting institutional environments: A study of drug abuse treatment units. Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 636–661.
Davis, K. (1960). Can business afford to ignore social responsibilities? California Management Review, 2(3), 70–76.
Dees, J. G. (1998). Enterprising nonprofits. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), 55–66.
Dembek, K., Singh, P., & Bhakoo, V. (2016). Literature review of shared value: A theoretical concept or a management buzzword? Journal of Business Ethics, 137(2), 231–267.
Dodd, E. M. (1932). For whom are corporate managers trustees? Harvard Law Review, 45, 1145–1163.
Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417–436.
Dubois, A., & Gibbert, M. (2010). From complexity to transparency: Managing the interplay between theory, method and empirical phenomena in IMM case studies. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 129–136.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
Eisenhardt, K., & Martin, J. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.
Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Ellram, L. M. (1996). The use of the case study method in logistics research. Journal of Business Logistics, 17(2), 93–138.
Fallon, N. (2014). What is corporate social responsibility? Business News Daily, February 27, 2014.
Frederick, W. C. (1960). The growing concern over business responsibility. California Management Review, 2(4), 54–61.
Freeman, R., & Reed, D. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), 88–106.
Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970.
Gawell, M. (2013). Social entrepreneurship-innovative challengers or adjustable followers? Social Enterprise Journal, 9(2), 203–220.
Gladwin, T. N., Kennelly, J. J., & Krause, T. S. (1995). Shifting paradigms for sustainable development: Implications for management theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 874–907.
Glavas, A., & Mish, J. (2015). Resources and capabilities of triple bottom line firms: Going over old or breaking new ground? Journal of Business Ethics, 127(3), 623–642.
Global Footprint Network (2016). Earth Overshoot Day. http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/earth_overshoot_day. Accessed October 1, 2016.
Gold, S., Seuring, S., & Beske, P. (2010). Sustainable supply chain management and inter-organizational resources: a literature review. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 17(4), 230–245.
Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 27–48.
Gupta, S., Beninger, S., & Ganesh, J. (2015). A hybrid approach to innovation by social enterprises: Lessons from Africa. Social Enterprise Journal, 11(1), 89–112.
Hahn, R., & Gold, S. (2014). Resources and governance in “base of the pyramid”-partnerships: Assessing collaborations between businesses and non-business actors. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1321–1333.
Hart, S. L. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014.
Hart, S. L., & Dowell, G. (2010). A natural-resource-based view of the firm: Fifteen years after. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1464–1479.
Hart, S., & Milstein, M. B. (2003). Creating sustainable value. Academy of Management Executive, 17(2), 56–69.
Hassini, E., Surti, C., & Searcy, C. (2012). A literature review and a case study of sustainable supply chains with a focus on metrics. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 69–82.
Haugh, H. (2005). A research agenda for social entrepreneurship. Social Enterprise Journal, 1(1), 1–12.
Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition. The Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 1–15.
Hussain, N., Rigoni, U., & Orij, R. P. (2016). Corporate governance and sustainability performance: Analysis of triple bottom line performance. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3099-5
Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 137–159.
Jenkins, B., & Fries, L. (2012). PROJECT NURTURE: Partnering for business opportunity and development impact. Cambridge, MA: The CSR Initiative at the Harvard Kennedy School.
Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602–611.
Jo, H., & Maretno, A. H. (2011). Corporate governance and firm value: The impact of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 103(3), 351–383.
Jones Christensen, L., Siemsen, E., & Balasubramanian, S. (2015). Consumer behavior change at the base of the pyramid: Bridging the gap between for-profit and social responsibility strategies. Strategic Management Journal, 36(2), 307–317.
Juran, J. M. (1995). A history of managing for quality: The evolution, trends, and future directions of managing for quality. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality press.
Ketokivi, M., & Choi, T. (2014). The renaissance of case research as a scientific method. Journal of Operations Management, 32(5), 232–240.
Khanna, T., & Yafeh, Y. (2005). Business groups in emerging markets: Paragons or parasites? ECGI-Finance Working Paper 92.
Klassen, R. D., & Vachon, S. (2003). Collaboration and evaluation in the supply chain: the impact on plant-level environmental investment. Production and Operations Management, 12(3), 336–352.
Klassen, R. D., & Vereecke, A. (2012). Social issues in supply chains: capabilities link responsibility, risk (opportunity), and performance. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1), 103–115.
Kleindorfer, P. R., Singhal, K., & Wassenhove, L. N. (2005). Sustainable operations management. Production and Operations Management, 14(4), 482–492.
Kolk, A., & Lenfant, F. (2015). Cross-sector collaboration, institutional gaps, and fragility: The role of social innovation partnerships in a conflict-affected region. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 34(2), 287–303.
Lavie, D. (2006). The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: An extension of the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 638–658.
Lee, J. L., Mitchell, T. R., & Sablynski, C. J. (1999). Qualitative research in organizational and vocational psychology, 1979–1999. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 55(2), 161–187.
Lepoutre, J., & Aimé, H. (2006). Investigating the impact of firm size on small business social responsibility: a critical review. Journal of Business Ethics, 67(3), 257–273.
Lisi, I. E. (2016). Determinants and Performance Effects of Social Performance Measurement Systems. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3287-3.
London, T., & Hart, S. L. (2011). Creating a fortune with the base of the pyramid. Next generation business strategies for the base of the pyramid, 1–18.
Longoni, A., & Cagliano, R. (2016). Sustainable innovativeness and the triple bottom line: The role of organizational time perspective. Journal of Business Ethics. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3239-y
Lyons, T. (2013). The role of social entrepreneurship in sustainable business. http://www.triplepundit.com/2013/09/role-social-entrepreneurship-sustainable-business. Accessed December 2, 2014.
Mahoney, J. T., & Pandian, J. R. (1992). The resource-based view within the conversation of strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 13(5), 363–380.
Mair, J., & Martí, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44.
Maltz, E., & Schein, S. (2012). Cultivating shared value initiatives: A three Cs approach. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 47, 55–74.
Matos, S., & Silvestre, B. S. (2013). Managing stakeholder relations when develo** sustainable business models: The case of the Brazilian energy sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45(20), 61–73.
Meehan, J., Meehan, K., & Richards, A. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: The 3C-SR model. International Journal of Social Economics, 33(5/6), 386–398.
Minkoff, D. C. (2002). The emergence of hybrid organizational forms: Combining identity-based service provision and political action. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(3), 377–401.
Montabon, F., Pagell, M., & Wu, Z. (2016). Making sustainability sustainable. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 52(2), 11–27.
Moore, D., Cranston, G., Reed, A., & Galli, A. (2012). Projecting future human demand on the Earth’s regenerative capacity. Ecological Indicators, 16, 3–10.
Murphy, P. J., & Coombes, S. M. (2009). A model of social entrepreneurial discovery. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 325–336.
Naude, W., Santos-Paulino, A., & McGillivray, M. (2009). Measuring vulnerability: An overview and introduction, oxford development studies. Taylor & Francis Journals, 37(3), 183–191.
Norman, W., & MacDonald, C. (2004). Getting to the bottom of ‘triple bottom line. Business Ethics Quarterly, 14(2), 243–262.
Normann, R., Ramirez, R. (1993). From value chain to value constellation: Designing interactive strategy. Harvard Business Review, 71(July/Aug), 65–77.
Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2012). Inside the hybrid organization: selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 972–1001.
Pagell, M., & Wu, Z. (2009). Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain management using case studies of 10 exemplars. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 45(2), 37–56.
Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society. The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62–77.
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.
Rotheroe, N. C., & Miller, L. (2008). Innovation in social enterprise: Achieving a user participation model. Social Enterprise Journal, 4(3), 242–260.
Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 335–351.
Searcy, C. (2012). Corporate sustainability performance measurement systems: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(3), 239–253.
Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31(6), 849–873.
Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. (2009). A citation-based ranking of the business ethics scholarly journals. International Journal of Business Governance and Ethics, 4(4), 390–399.
Spear, R., Moreau, C., & Mertens, S. (2013). Managers’ competences in social enterprises: Which specificities? Social Enterprise Journal, 9(2), 164–183.
Tate, W. L., Ellram, L. M., & Kirchoff, J. F. (2010). Corporate social responsibility reports: A thematic analysis related to supply chain management. Journal of Supply Chain Management, 46(1), 19–44.
Teece, D. J., Pisano, A., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
Thake, S., & Zadek, S. (1997). Practical people, noble causes. How to support community based social entrepreneurs. London: New Economics Foundation.
Torugsa, N. A., O’Donohue, W., & Hecker, R. (2012). Capabilities, proactive CSR and financial performance in SMEs: Empirical evidence from an Australian manufacturing industry sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 109(4), 483–500.
Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22, 60–80.
Wacker, J. G. (1998). A definition of theory: Research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management. Journal of Operations Management, 16(4), 361–385.
Wagner, T., Lutz, R. J., & Weitz, B. A. (2009). Corporate hypocrisy: Overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 77–91.
Weerawardena, J., & Mort, G. S. (2006). Investigating social entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model. Journal of World Business, 41, 21–35.
Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.
Wilson, F., & Post, J. E. (2013). Business models for people, planet (& profits): Exploring the phenomena of social business, a market-based approach to social value creation. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 715–737.
World Bank (2015). Poverty overview. http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview#1. Accessed on May 31, 2015.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th edition). New York, NY: Sage.
YSB (2014), Yunus social business investors brochure, 1–16.
Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models: Lessons from the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 308–325.
Zahra, S. A., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D. O., & Shulman, J. M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 519–532.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Cory Searcy and the two JBE reviewers of our manuscript for their very insightful and constructive feedback during the review process. Many thanks also to all colleagues who provided their helpful suggestions on earlier versions during the IPSERA, ERS, AOM and EDSI conferences.
Funding
There is no specific funding to declare for this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
Wendy L. Tate and Lydia Bals declared that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Appendix: Yunus Social Business Profile, Source: YSB (2014, pp. 3–5)
Appendix: Yunus Social Business Profile, Source: YSB (2014, pp. 3–5)
Principles of Social Business
-
1.
Goal: To solve social or environmental problems
-
2.
Financial and economic sustainability
-
3.
Investors repaid; no further private financial return
-
4.
Profit funds expansion, improvements, or seeding other social businesses
-
5.
Environmentally conscious
-
6.
Market wages; better working conditions
-
7.
Do it with joy
YSB applies business approaches to the world of social development. It has developed an innovative incubator fund methodology which bridges the gap between social businesses and social investors and donors. While the incubator searches, coaches, and selects social businesses, the fund provides debt and equity financing to the businesses after a thorough due diligence process. While a traditional investor invests for financial gain, a social investor invests to benefit society. A social investor’s goal is to maximize social return on his or her investment and is thus motivated to support the most effective social businesses. By investing in a social business incubator fund, the social investor benefits from standardized annual and semi-annual reports that detail both financial and social impact performance. The social investor will recoup up to the full nominal value of his or her initial investment. All profits from the social businesses are committed to be recycled into new social businesses.
The Fund receives capital from donors and investors. After a thorough due diligence process, the fund invests this capital into social businesses that have been selected and prepared by the incubator. As the social businesses pay back the capital, the fund reinvests it into other social businesses, and/or returns it to philanthropic investors in proportion to their share of the total capital contributed, up to the nominal value of his or her initial investment.
The incubator is responsible for searching and creating social business opportunities and hel** the social businesses develop a strong and coherent business plan. It also provides coaching and capacity building to social business entrepreneurs, allowing access to useful networks that help them expand their businesses.
-
1.
Searching and Creating Social Business Opportunities
YSB receives hundreds of social business plans on an annual basis. The incubator is responsible for screening the plans and moving forward with a handful that demonstrate the highest potential. In order to attract entrepreneurs, the incubator holds social business plan competitions, public events, and workshops.
-
2.
Develo** Social Business Plans
Once pre-selected, the incubator works with the business to improve the social business plan and prepare the business for investment. At this stage, the incubator will focus on whether the social business will be financially self-sustainable and determine how to maximize its social impact.
-
3.
Training, Coaching, and Capacity Building
Pre- and post-investment, the Incubator continuously seeks to broaden the skill sets and capabilities of its entrepreneurs. This includes personal coaching and courses on topics such as business accounting or technical industry-specific topics. The Incubator is supported by a network of corporate pro-bono partners.
-
4.
Networks
The incubator provides access to its local and international networks of potential buyers, partners, and experts that lend support to the social businesses.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tate, W.L., Bals, L. Achieving Shared Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Value Creation: Toward a Social Resource-Based View (SRBV) of the Firm. J Bus Ethics 152, 803–826 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3344-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3344-y