Social innovation, goal orientation, and openness: insights from social enterprise hybrids

Abstract

Plain English Summary
Headline: The more social enterprises focus on both commercial and social goals, the more successful they are in improving their social innovation performance.
Social innovation refers to new products, processes, and services that respond to a range of social challenges such as poverty, inequality, homelessness, health, and environmental issues.
Our study suggests that the more social enterprises focus on both commercial and social goals, the higher their social innovation performance. In addition, the more open innovation-oriented social enterprises are, that is, the more they use external sources of knowledge and ideas, the more they can benefit from their commercial and social goals to improve their social innovation performance.
Implications of our research for practice: social enterprises are encouraged not only to focus on both commercial and social goals but also to build relationships with external stakeholders. These external stakeholders can provide information on entrepreneurial opportunities, how to respond to problems and market and government failures, and how to remain successful while collaborating with a range of partners.

Full text

Vol.: (0123456789)
1 3
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-022-00643-4
Social innovation, goal orientation, andopenness: insights
fromsocial enterprise hybrids
JohnHagedoorn · HelenHaugh· PaulRobson·
KateSugar
Accepted: 8 May 2022
© The Author(s) 2022
positive and significant relationships between com-
mercial and social goal orientation and social inno-
vation performance, but no relationship with envi-
ronmental goal orientation. In addition, the use of
external sources of knowledge and ideas positively
strengthens these relationships for both commercial
and social goal orientation but not for environmental
goal orientation. Our results reveal some important
influences on social innovation, openness, and hybrid
organizing.
Plain English Summary Headline: The more
social enterprises focus on both commercial and
social goals, the more successful they are in improv-
ing their social innovation performance.
Social innovation refers to new products, processes,
and services that respond to a range of social chal-
lenges such as poverty, inequality, homelessness,
health, and environmental issues.
Our study suggests that the more social enterprises
focus on both commercial and social goals, the higher
their social innovation performance. In addition, the
more open innovation-oriented social enterprises are,
that is, the more they use external sources of knowl-
edge and ideas, the more they can benefit from their
commercial and social goals to improve their social
innovation performance.
Implications of our research for practice: social enter-
prises are encouraged not only to focus on both com-
mercial and social goals but also to build relationships
Abstract We empirically examine social innovation
and openness through a survey of social enterprise
hybrids in the United Kingdom (UK). Social innova-
tion refers to new products, processes, and services
that respond to grand challenges. Social enterprises
pursue economic, social, and environmental goals
but vary in their goal orientation, namely the relative
importance ascribed to such goals. We first explore
the relationships between commercial, social, and
environmental goal orientation and social innova-
tion performance. Next, we consider the moderating
impact of openness to external knowledge and ideas
on social innovation performance. Our analysis finds
J.Hagedoorn(*)· P.Robson
School ofBusiness andManagement, Royal Holloway
University ofLondon, EghamTW200EX, UK
e-mail: John.Hagedoorn@rhul.ac.uk; j.hagedoorn@
maastrichtuniversity.nl
P. Robson
e-mail: Paul.Robson@rhul.ac.uk
J.Hagedoorn
UNU-MERIT, Maastricht University, Maastricht,
theNetherlands
H.Haugh
Judge Business School, University ofCambridge,
Trumpington Street, CambridgeCB21AG, UK
e-mail: h.haugh@jbs.cam.ac.uk
K.Sugar
Bath, UK
e-mail: katethirlaway@googlemail.com
/ Published online: 1 July 2022
Small Bus Econ (2023) 60:173–198
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

J. Hagedoorn et al.
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
with external stakeholders. These external stakehold-
ers can provide information on entrepreneurial oppor-
tunities, how to respond to problems and market and
government failures, and how to remain successful
while collaborating with a range of partners.
Keywords Social innovation performance·
Openness· Social enterprise hybrids· Social
enterprise goals
JEL Classification L31· O35· O36· L39· D29·
C12· C33
1 Introduction
Social innovation has emerged as a new variant of
innovation in which the aim is to generate new prod-
ucts, processes, or services to address the grand chal-
lenges of poverty and inequality and community
issues such as homelessness and health deficien-
cies, as well as environmental issues related to cli-
mate change and pollution, and the use of recycling
and reusing, and green energy production (Adams &
Hess, 2010; Bogers etal., 2017; Choi & Majumdar,
2014; Eichler & Schwartz, 2019; Kickul etal., 2013;
Moulaert et al., 2013; Mulgan, 2006; Phills et al.,
2008; Tracey & Stott, 2017; van der Have & Rubul-
caba, 2016; van Wijk etal., 2018). Despite some defi-
nitional ambiguity (Adams & Hess, 2010; Edwards-
Schachter & Wallace, 2017; Eichler & Schwartz,
2019; Lawrence etal., 2015), the potential of social
innovation to resolve social and environmental prob-
lems has been widely celebrated (Baskaran & Mehta,
2016; Molecke & Pinkse, 2017; Parrish, 2010; Phills
et al., 2008; The Young Foundation 2012). Prior
analyses of social innovation have been dominated
by case studies (e.g. Bhatt etal., 2016; Datta, 2011;
Eichler & Schwartz, 2019) and qualitative field stud-
ies that analyse data gathered via direct observation
and interviews (Giudici etal., 2020), complemented
by insights from practitioners and policy makers
(The Young Foundation 2012). Reviews of social
innovation have brought together this diversity of lit-
erature and identified important areas where empiri-
cal research would be most valuable (Eichler &
Schwartz, 2019; Foroudi etal., 2021; Lawrence etal.,
2015; Phillips et al., 2015; Tracey & Stott, 2017;
van der Have & Rubulcaba, 2016). In this paper, we
build on these recommendations and focus on the
links between social innovation performance, social
enterprise goal orientation, and openness to external
sources of knowledge and ideas.
The concept of openness describes how exter-
nal knowledge and ideas are employed by firms to
improve their performance (McCartt & Rohrbaugh,
1995) and promote innovation (Chesbrough &
Bogers, 2014; Love et al., 2014). Previous empiri-
cal investigations have operationalized openness in
a variety of ways, however, most scholars agree that
openness is a measure of the extent of an organiza-
tion’s use of external sources of information to ena-
ble innovation (Chesbrough etal., 2006; Dahlander
& Gann, 2010; Lazzarotti etal., 2011). Openness is
defined as the breadth and depth of external sources
of information for innovation in which breadth refers
to the diversity and depth the importance of sources
(Leiponen & Helfat, 2010; Zobel et al., 2017). In
our paper, we conceptualize openness as an inbound
measure of the extent to which the use of external
knowledge and ideas is related to impacts on social
innovation performance. Our conceptualization of
openness thus aligns with how organizations use “a
wide range of external actors and sources to help
them achieve and sustain innovation” (Laursen &
Salter, 2006, p. 131).
Research has investigated the influence of open-
ness in private sector firms (e.g. Laursen & Salter,
2006) and non-profit sector organizations (e.g. Hol-
mes & Smart, 2009). While prior research suggests
that relationships with stakeholders influence social
innovation (Phillips etal., 2015, 2019), we have yet to
fully understand how openness influences innovation
in hybrid organizations that blend characteristics of
both commercial and non-profit organizations (Batti-
lana & Lee, 2014; Doherty etal., 2014). This context
is intriguing because the firm-level blending of logics
from different economic sectors suggests that social
enterprise hybrids may be uniquely positioned to
capitalize on openness to knowledge and ideas from
external sources in different domains.
Prior research has empirically examined the
relationship between openness and innovation in
manufacturing firms (e.g. Amara & Landry, 2005;
Drechsler & Natter, 2012; Laursen & Salter, 2006)
and service organizations (e.g. Hidalgo & D’Alvano,
2014; Mina etal., 2014; Rubulcaba etal., 2012). The
results endorse the importance of external sources
174
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Social innovation, goal orientation, and openness: insights from social enterprise hybrids
1 3
Vol.: (0123456789)
of knowledge and ideas, and networks in particu-
lar (Nieto & Santamaría, 2007; Zeng et al., 2010).
Studies of organizations in the non-profit sector have
examined innovation in universities (Perkmann &
Walsh, 2007) and charities (Holmes & Smart, 2009;
McDonald, 2007) and further endorse the impor-
tance of inbound knowledge and ideas on innovation.
By responding to calls for more research to better
understand innovation in non-profit (Chesbrough &
Minin, 2014; West etal., 2014) and hybrid organi-
zations (Battilana & Lee, 2014; Eichler & Schwartz,
2019; Wilson & Post, 2013), and social innovation
implementation (Phillips et al., 2019), our research
advances knowledge on external influences on social
innovation performance.
In our study, we analyse data gathered from com-
munity interest companies (CICs)—a novel type
of social enterprise hybrid introduced in the United
Kingdom (UK) in 2005 (Haugh, 2021; Haugh etal.,
2022). Social enterprise hybrids are organizations
where the social logic of non-profit organizations is
blended with the commercial logic of for-profit enter-
prises (Battilana & Lee, 2014; Doherty et al., 2014;
Martin & Osberg, 2007; Stevens et al., 2015). In
other words, social enterprise hybrids are a distinct
category of organizations because they combine the
features of both for-profit enterprises and non-profit
organizations. In contrast to the private sector mis-
sion to create and capture personal or shareholder
wealth (Phillips etal., 2015; Phills etal., 2008; San-
tos, 2012), the mission of social enterprise hybrids is
to achieve financial sustainability, social and environ-
mental impact, and advance social change (Battilana
& Lee, 2014; Bhatt etal., 2016; Doherty etal., 2014;
Mair & Martì, 2006; Stevens et al., 2015). Social
enterprise hybrids, however, vary in goal orientation,
namely the relative importance ascribed to commer-
cial, social, and environmental goals (Mair & Martì,
2006).
There are approximately 70,000 social enterprise
hybrids in the UK (Villeneuve-Smith & Temple,
2015) and the continuing increase in their numbers
(Amin etal., 2002; Defourny & Nyssens, 2010) has
attracted the attention of scholars, practitioners, and
policy makers keen to explain how such organizations
concurrently pursue multiple goals (Cukier et al.,
2011; Dacin etal., 2011; Lepoutre etal., 2013; Phil-
lips etal., 2019; Stevens etal., 2015). Explanations
for this increase in the population of social enterprise
hybrids comprise both supply and demand factors.
Financial austerity has created opportunities for the
establishment of new social enterprise hybrids to bid
for contracts to deliver out-sourced public services
(Brandsen et al., 2005; Chell, 2007; Doherty et al.,
2014; Evers, 2005; Fawcett & Hanlon, 2009; Graddy-
Reed & Feldman, 2015; Haugh & Kitson, 2007; Per-
rini et al., 2010; Uyarra etal., 2014; Vickers etal.,
2017; Voorberg etal., 2015). At the same time, entre-
preneurs have responded to deficiencies in economic
justice and rising societal inequality by turning to the
establishment of social enterprise hybrids to address
market and government policy failures and transform
society (Alvord etal., 2004; Austin et al., 2006; Di
Domenico et al., 2010; Doherty et al., 2014; Van
Sandt etal., 2009; Van Wijk et al., 2018). Much of
the social entrepreneurship literature has praised the
innovativeness of social enterprise hybrids (Chalmers
& Balan-Vnuk, 2012; Zahra etal., 2009) but there has
been little theorization and theory-driven empirical
research to substantiate this claim (Liu etal., 2015;
Phillips etal., 2019).
Situating our research in the social innovation and
openness literatures, we first develop hypotheses on
the relationships between commercial, social, and
environmental goal orientation and social innovation
performance, in terms of the extent to which social
innovation activities affect societal transformation.
Next, we hypothesize the moderating effect of open-
ness to external sources of knowledge and ideas on
these relationships. Our hypotheses are tested on data
gathered from a proprietary survey of social enter-
prise hybrids. Our results indicate that both commer-
cial and social goal orientation are positively related
to social innovation performance and that openness to
external sources of knowledge and ideas strengthens
these relationships. The relationship between environ-
mental goal orientation and social innovation perfor-
mance, however, is negative and not strengthened by
openness to external sources of knowledge and ideas.
The paper makes three contributions to the lit-
erature. First, in the context of the social innovation
literature, our findings suggest that commercial and
social goal orientation are positively and significantly
related to social innovation performance. Thus, social
enterprise hybrids that have developed strategies
to become commercially successful and, as such, to
achieve financial sustainability as well as to create
social impact are also successful social innovators.
175
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

J. Hagedoorn et al.
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
Social enterprise hybrids that pursue a broader set
of environmental goals, however, are not successful
social innovators and are, due to their technologically
more complex nature, more likely to be social innova-
tion imitators.
Second, our research contributes to the openness
literature as we find that social enterprise hybrids’
use of external sources of knowledge and ideas mod-
erates social innovation performance. Prior descrip-
tions have emphasized the participation of users in
social innovation idea generation and implementa-
tion (Phillips et al., 2019; Rodin, 2010; Voorberg
et al., 2015) since beneficiaries are argued to have
first-hand knowledge of a social problem (Lawrence
et al., 2015; Svensson & Bengtsson, 2010), and
accrued greater legitimacy (Dart, 2004), and this
helps to achieve customer loyalty, satisfaction, and, in
turn, competitive advantage (Voorberg etal., 2015).
For example, citizens are involved in co-creation, re-
design, and transformation of health care and educa-
tion services in the public sector (Brandsen & Pestoff,
2006; Voorberg et al., 2015), and the homeless are
involved in contributing to content and selling the Big
Issue newspaper (Hibbert etal., 2002). Our analysis
finds that openness to external sources of knowledge
and ideas strengthens the relationship between com-
mercial and social goal orientation and social innova-
tion performance.
Third, taken together, the results also shed new
light on the current conception of hybrid organizing
which to date has predominantly focussed on inter-
nal management processes (Battilana & Lee, 2014)
and neglected the influence of external relationships
on organizational processes, specifically social inno-
vation (Phillips et al., 2019). Openness to external
sources of information and knowledge broadens the
horizon of organizations and increases the likeli-
hood of greater social innovation by social enterprise
hybrids.
2 Theory development andhypotheses
2.1 Social innovation
Social innovation describes the adoption of “new
solutions to social problems” (Tracey & Stott, 2017,
p. 51) or to environmental problems (Dawson & Dan-
iel, 2010) that impact on society (Grieco etal., 2015)
and social innovation practice has happened ahead
of research and theory development (Mulgan, 2015).
The two key constructs are the development of a new
solution and that the benefits are shared beyond the
innovating organization to impact, or transform, soci-
ety (Bhatt etal., 2016; Foroudi et al., 2021; Tracey
& Stott, 2017; van Wijk etal., 2018). Social innova-
tion, for example, includes new products, processes,
and services that respond to grand challenges of pov-
erty and inequality, as well as community issues such
as homelessness and health deficiencies (Christensen
etal., 2009; Graddy-Reed & Feldman, 2015; Jensen
& Fersch, 2019; Mair etal., 2012; van der Have &
Rubulcaba, 2016). Social innovation also includes
finding new solutions to environmental problems,
such as the development of new products, processes,
and services to address climate change and pollu-
tion, fostering eco-behaviour such as recycling and
reusing and green energy production (Berrone etal.,
2013; Brunnermeier & Cohen, 2003; Ongondo etal.,
2013; Vickers & Lyon, 2014; Voorberg etal., 2015).
Social innovation is “good for society and enhances
society’s capacity to act” (Eichler & Schwartz, 2019,
p. 533; see also Murray etal., 2010) and thus offers
a new perspective to mainstream innovation stud-
ies by bringing social and environmental impact into
consideration (Alvord etal., 2004; Bhatt etal., 2016;
Foroudi etal., 2021; Voorberg etal., 2015). Further-
more, innovating to address market and government
policy failures (Lettice & Parekh, 2010; Mulgan,
2006; Phillips etal., 2019) and creating social trans-
formation (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014) substantially dis-
tinguish social innovation from conventional business
innovation (Foroudi etal., 2021). For example, Huq’s
(2019) review of the social innovation literature found
that the majority of the research takes place in either
a setting of political, economic, and/or social turmoil;
or, where market institutions are weak or absent.1 For
example, the Jensen and Fersch (2019) study of novel
forms of elder care in Denmark, and Tracey etal.
(2011) examined how employment creation helped
the homeless to earn income.
The demand for social innovation may be derived
from market failures when organizations do not
satisfy demand for specific products and services
1 See Liket and Maas (2016) for a review of the measurement
of philanthropic impacts in corporations.
176
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Social innovation, goal orientation, and openness: insights from social enterprise hybrids
1 3
Vol.: (0123456789)
(Domenico et al., 2010Santos, 2012), such as cus-
tomer demand for products that create positive social
and environmental impacts, e.g. fair trade (Doherty
etal., 2013). Demand for social innovation may also
be derived from opportunities created when the public
sector does not satisfy demand for social and welfare
services (Santos, 2012), e.g. social housing (Bless-
ing, 2012). By implementing public procurement of
social and welfare services, public policy provides a
mandate to encourage social innovation (Volkmann
etal., 2021). Moreover, employees may be attracted
to employers with pro-social and environmental cre-
dentials (Radoynovska & Ruttan, 2022).
The supply of social innovation may also be influ-
enced by several factors, such as when organizations
respond to societal expectations that prioritize sus-
tainability and expect their products and services to
create social value (Haigh etal., 2015) and not harm
the environment (Bansal & Roth, 2000), for exam-
ple to provide socially innovative access routes into
meaningful employment in work integration (Bat-
tilana et al., 2015) and financial inclusion through
access to microfinance (Battilana & Dorado, 2010).
In addition, personal factors, such as life experi-
ence (Corner & Ho, 2010), emotions (Katre & Sali-
pante, 2012), pro-social motivation (Bacq & Alt,
2018; Munoz et al., 2020), and compassion (Miller
etal., 2012) encourage the establishment of prosocial
organizational forms (Bastida et al., 2022) and the
supply of social innovation.
Although not the sole preserve of social enterprise
hybrids (Dietrich et al., 2016; Eichler & Schwartz,
2019; Tracey & Stott, 2017), social innovations are
developed and implemented by organizations moti-
vated by social mission (Mulgan, 2006). The range
of organizational forms that pursue social innovation
includes corporations (Herrera, 2015; Mirvis et al.,
2016), public institutions (Carrie & Seddon, 2014;
Rana et al., 2014), nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs), and civil society organizations (Franklin
etal., 2017). Our study investigates the Community
Interest Company, an organizational form for locally-
embedded social enterprises in the UK.
Many claims have been asserted concerning the
innovativeness of social enterprise hybrids (Chell
et al., 2010; Phills et al., 2008) much of which is
derived from case studies of social innovations (e.g.
Hibbert etal., 2002; Neumeier, 2012; Phillips etal.,
2019; Phills et al., 2008; Seyfang, 2004; Have and
Rubulcaba, 2016; Vickers etal., 2017) and descrip-
tions of high profile social innovators (Dacin etal.,
2011), such as Muhammad Yunus, the inventor of
microfinance (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014), and John Bird,
the founder of the Big Issue street newspaper (Hib-
bert etal., 2002). In contrast to a profit maximization
goal, social innovation describes the impact of novel
products, services, and processes that respond to
social needs that would otherwise not be met (Phills
etal., 2008) and that create social value beyond the
capability of existing systems (Adams & Hess, 2010;
Cajaiba-Santana, 2014; Phills et al., 2008; Westley
& Antadze, 2010). Thus, it is the additional commu-
nity and societal impacts and societal transformation
potential of social innovation performance which
is driving opportunity recognition and exploita-
tion (Adams & Hess, 2010; Pol & Ville, 2009) and
not commercial success per se (Phillips etal., 2019).
Establishing the assumed innovation performance of
social enterprise hybrids makes a useful contribu-
tion to theory and practice because in the increas-
ingly competitive market for organizational funding,
successful social innovators shed light on how to best
secure and allocate scarce resources. We argue that
social innovation performance is at the vanguard of
the measures available to capture social and environ-
mental impact and could be associated with greater
efficiency, value creation, and societal transformation.
2.2 Openness
Openness describes the organizational shift from
investing internally, such as in research and devel-
opment, to sourcing external knowledge and ideas
to sustain innovation (Chesbrough, 2003; Fey &
Birkinshaw, 2005; Laursen & Salter, 2006; Rodri-
guez etal., 2017). The openness paradigm has gained
traction as the importance of external networks to
firm-level innovation has been recognized (Freel,
2005; Laursen & Salter, 2006; Love & Roper, 2001;
Nieto & Santamaría, 2007; Rothwell etal., 1974; von
Hippel, 1988; Zeng et al., 2010). The acquisition of
external knowledge and ideas from interactions with
stakeholders such as relatives, suppliers, custom-
ers, and other organizations are key variables in the
design of strategic innovation policies (Chesbrough,
2003; 2006a, 2006b). External knowledge and ideas
are noted to be critical for private sector firm innova-
tion (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990) in different national
177
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

J. Hagedoorn et al.
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
contexts, such as Canada (Amara & Landry, 2005),
China (Zeng etal., 2010), Finland (Leiponen, 2000,
2005), Spain (Nieto & Santamaría, 2007), and Taiwan
(Chiang & Hung, 2010). While there is an expanding
literature that links together openness, innovation,
and SMEs (Drechsler & Natter, 2012; Laursen &
Salter, 2006), our knowledge of such connections in
a social enterprise context is limited (Phillips et al.,
2019). The focus of prior research has primarily been
on private sector organizations, but how does the rela-
tionship between openness and innovation play out in
social enterprise hybrids where the mission is to pur-
sue commercial, social, and environmental goals?
For firms steeped in a paradigm of closed innova-
tion, the transition to adopting an openness perspec-
tive on innovation is undoubtedly challenging (Alexy
et al., 2013; Henkel et al., 2014). Yet, openness to
external knowledge and ideas has many advantages
over internally-focused innovating (West & Bogers,
2014, 2017). For social enterprises with an ethos of
either a non-profit maximizing approach or a down-
played focus upon profits compared to other goals,
openness may not necessarily be as disruptive as for
commercial firms (Dahlander & Gann, 2010).
Also, for social innovation, important questions
to ask concern where ideas originate from and why
some ideas flourish while others fall by the way-
side (Mulgan, 2015). Van der Have and Rubulcaba
(2016) in their review of 172 publications conclude
that social innovation is grounded in a broad range of
community and social settings. Relatedly, and in line
with the current openness literature, prior commen-
taries of social innovation noted openness to knowl-
edge flows from networks and close engagement with
external stakeholders as important causal factors
of social innovation success (Adams & Hess, 2010;
Chesbrough & Minin, 2014; Mulgan, 2006).
2.3 Hypotheses
Social enterprise hybrids’ mission is to create social
value simultaneously with being commercially ori-
ented (Choi & Majumdar, 2014; Santos, 2012).
The context of social enterprise hybrids is gener-
ally described as resource-constrained (Chalmers &
Balan-Vnuk, 2012) and characterized by market and
government policy failures (Doherty et al., 2014).
Such conditions foster the creative search for new
solutions to social and environmental problems. To
be commercially sustainable, social enterprises need
to stay competitive and invest in continuous innova-
tive capability development (Weerawardena & Mort,
2006). Moreover, social enterprise funding sources
comprise a blend of unrestricted income, e.g. earned
income and donations, and restricted income, e.g.
grants and public sector contracts (Doherty et al.,
2014). The generation of income from trading pro-
vides a flow of unrestricted funds into the organiza-
tion, the surplus of which can be invested in social
innovation.
By also focusing on commercial goals, social
enterprise hybrids enact the market logic of entre-
preneurial organizations—they innovate goods and
services that meet the needs of customers. This ena-
bles social enterprise hybrids to both generate trad-
ing income and achieve their mission to serve com-
munities. Thus, we would expect that the stronger the
commitment to generating commercial income, the
more financial resources are available for investing
in social innovation and improving social innovation
performance.
H1. In social enterprise hybrids, commercial
goal orientation is positively related to social
innovation performance.
Previous work indicates that social enterprise
hybrids are established to serve markets where the
private sector either cannot make a profit or lacks
sufficient knowledge to design products, processes,
and services to meet user needs (Austin etal., 2006;
Moizer & Tracey, 2010). Similarly, the failure of pub-
lic sector organizations to meet the needs of custom-
ers and beneficiaries has been attributed to govern-
ment failure (Kerlin, 2006; Moizer & Tracey, 2010;
Teasdale, 2012). To respond to failures in product,
process, and service provision, social enterprise
hybrids work closely with stakeholders to understand
the types of products and services demanded by the
market and to determine the best way of directing
limited resources to and designing products, pro-
cesses, and services that are sensitive to the operating
context and responsive to the needs of beneficiaries
(Chesbrough & Minin, 2014; Mulgan, 2006; Pache
& Santos, 2012). Commitment to social mission may
also be employed to leverage the flow of commercial
income from trading, as in the case of fair trade cer-
tified producers and manufacturers (Doherty et al.,
2014).
178
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Social innovation, goal orientation, and openness: insights from social enterprise hybrids
1 3
Vol.: (0123456789)
Social enterprise hybrids are expected to engage
in developing innovative and creative solutions to
social needs (Weerawardena & Mort, 2006) and the
legitimacy of social enterprise hybrids is tied to their
societal impact (Dart, 2004; Luke & Chu, 2013).
Thus, we would expect that social enterprise hybrids
that understand how social needs can be effectively
and creatively responded to will design new ways to
respond to social needs and increase social innovation
performance.
H2: In social enterprise hybrids, social goal ori-
entation is positively related to social innova-
tion performance.
In addition to commercial and social goal orienta-
tion, social enterprise hybrids also respond to envi-
ronmental market failure (Mair & Martì, 2006) and
commit to environmental goal orientation (Doherty
et al., 2014; Seyfang etal., 2014). For some social
enterprise hybrids, the new products, processes, and
services sold to commercial markets are directly
related to the environmental mission, e.g. ICT reuse
(Ongondo et al., 2013), green energy production
(Huybrechts & Haugh, 2017; Seyfang etal., 2014)
and eco-living communities (Kunze, 2012). In other
organizations, the environmental mission is pursued
indirectly, e.g. supporting environmental initiatives
in the workplace and communities (Thompson &
Doherty, 2006).
Governments have played an enabling role in
shaping the regulatory environment and encourag-
ing investment in the technologies for responding
to environmental market failures (Vickers & Lyon,
2014). Financial incentives for renewable energy,
waste management, and low-carbon technologies
have stimulated interest in and adoption of green
technologies. For example, government subsi-
dies have supported the establishment of renew-
able energy cooperatives in Europe (Huybrechts &
Haugh, 2017) and adoption of renewable energy
sources in off-grid rural communities (Sengupta
etal., 2020). Given these developments, we expect
that the extent of environmental goal orientation of
social enterprise hybrids is related to their social
innovation performance.
H3: In social enterprise hybrids, environmental
goal orientation is positively related to social
innovation performance.
Social enterprise hybrids are embedded in wider
networks of stakeholders when compared to com-
mercial organizations (Low, 2006). For example, in
addition to employees, suppliers, customers, and gov-
ernment agencies, social enterprise hybrids also build
relationships with beneficiaries, volunteers, donors,
philanthropists, and the wider community in which
they operate (Lyon, 2012). Such diversity of stake-
holder groups is reflected in goal plurality, and the
adoption of trading to provide funds and resources
to meet commercial, social, and environmental goals
(Battilana et al., 2015; Dacin et al., 2011; Mair &
Martì, 2006). While collaboration with stakeholders
is fundamental to social enterprise hybrids, the extent
to which stakeholder relationships and collaborations
are related to social innovation performance is less
clear (Phillips etal., 2015; van Wijk etal., 2018).
The relationships with external stakeholders pro-
vide conduits for the flow of external knowledge and
ideas into the organization (Hostick-Boakye & Hothi,
2011; von Hippel, 1976, 1988). For example, exter-
nal knowledge is sought by social enterprise hybrids
to access resources, recruit employees and volun-
teers, and identify opportunities for trading and col-
laboration with intra-sector and cross-sector partners
(Cooney, 2011; Le Ber & Branzei, 2010; Lyon, 2012).
We would thus expect that the inflow of knowledge
and ideas from relationships between a social enter-
prise hybrid and a wide range of stakeholders would
raise awareness of market and government policy
failures and, in turn, opportunities for social inno-
vation (Lettice and Paraekh 2010). The moderation
effect is such that the more social enterprise hybrids
access external knowledge and ideas, the more they
learn about opportunities for social innovation and
the stronger the impact of commercial, social, and
environmental goal orientation on social innovation
performance. For example, stakeholder relationships
were noted to be important for enhancing social inno-
vations to assist the unemployed (Lyon, 2012), and
to learn about how stakeholder energy needs could
be served by implementing novel renewable energy
technologies (Huybrechts & Haugh, 2017; Sengupta
et al., 2020). The greater social enterprise hybrid
openness to sources of knowledge and ideas, the
greater the influence on goal orientation and social
innovation performance.
179
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

J. Hagedoorn et al.
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
H4a–c: Social enterprise hybrid openness to
external sources of knowledge and ideas will
positively moderate the relationship between
commercial goal orientation (H4a), social goal
orientation (H4b), environmental goal orienta-
tion (H4c), and social innovation performance.
3 Methods anddata
3.1 Survey and data collection
To test our hypotheses, we developed a new survey
to investigate social innovation and collected data
from 380 social enterprise hybrids in the UK. The
sample was selected from the population (Villeneuve-
Smith & Temple, 2015) of 11,000 community inter-
est companies (CICs). The CIC organizational form
was established in 2005 to provide a company format
that would enable, for the first time, the simultaneous
pursuit of commercial activity and social and envi-
ronmental mission.2 The CIC was initially created
specifically for social enterprise hybrids that emerged
during the period of government interest in the mar-
ketization of the social sector and the bottom-up
revitalization of local communities (Low, 2006). The
sample was derived from the register compiled by the
CIC Registrar which lists every active CIC that has
satisfied the requirements stipulated for this organi-
zational form, i.e. incorporation and commitment to
a specified community of interest. The sample was
drawn from CICs across all regions of the UK, indus-
trial sectors, and age of organization (2005–2015).
Survey development, research process, and quantita-
tive analysis used to test our hypotheses are discussed
in detail in the following section.
To improve the reliability of the survey, we opera-
tionalized the measures using variables that had been
successfully applied in previous social entrepreneur-
ship and innovation empirical research. Validated
questions were employed to measure commercial,
social (Rao & Holt, 2005; Weber etal., 2015), envi-
ronmental performance (Melnyk et al., 2003), and
innovation (BIS, 2015). Where no comparable studies
were found, the research team created variables and
verified them in pre-testing and piloting.
The survey was pre-tested in two phases prior to
data collection. First, in September 2014, the survey
was submitted to a panel of 3 social entrepreneurs and
the questions were then adjusted for clarity. Second,
in October 2014, the survey was pilot tested online
with a sample of 12 CICs to ensure that the questions
were understood by the respondents, to check the
feasibility and content validity of the survey and that
empirical data would satisfy the research objectives.
The results from the pilot survey are not included in
the data analysis.
A statistically random sample was created in
which a key respondent (Kumar etal., 1993), either
the founder or managing director, was invited to
complete the survey. The survey included questions
to verify that the respondent was the key decision
maker. We received a list of 9275 CICs from the CIC
Regulator. One in four of the CICs, plus 200 CICs,
were randomly selected. A total of 1259 invitations
to complete the survey were sent to CICs in Novem-
ber 2014 and followed up with three reminders over
a 1-month period. A further 1260 CICs were sent
invitations in March 2015, again with three remind-
ers following. Ninety-nine CICs had outdated con-
tact information and could not be contacted. Four
hundred thirty-one CICs completed the question-
naire but 51 questionnaires were unusable, leading
to an initial sample of 380. Due to various missing
values, the number of observations used in the actual
econometric analysis was reduced to 288. A 15.7%
response rate was achieved which compares well with
other social enterprise surveys of 19% (Weber etal.,
2015). Parametric and non-parametric tests found no
evidence of response bias with regard to geographical
2 The legislation to establish the CIC organizational form was
introduced in the UK in the 2005 Companies (Audit, Investiga-
tions and Community Enterprise) Act. The government’s aim
in creating the CIC was to establish a corporate form for social
enterprise that could be set up quickly and easily and that
would “combine the flexibility and familiarity of the company
form” with a strong brand for social enterprise (DTI 2005,
Sect.7.1). CICs combine aspects of company law i.e. limited
liability, the capacity to issue shares to raise capital and dis-
tribute dividends to shareholders (within limits specified by the
Regulator of CICs) with characteristics of non-profit organiza-
tions i.e., social and environmental purpose. The community
benefit requirement is that at the point of registration the CIC
must generate benefits (directly or indirectly) to a client base
wider than its membership (BIS 2015, p. 16). CIC organiza-
tions are thus akin to hybrid structures in that they bridge the
private and the non-profit sectors. By the end of 2005, 83 CICs
had been registered in England and this rose to about 11,000
in 2015.
180
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Social innovation, goal orientation, and openness: insights from social enterprise hybrids
1 3
Vol.: (0123456789)
location, industrial activity, and age of the social
enterprises between respondents and non-respond-
ents. Repeating the parametric and non-parametric
tests between the 380 in the initial sample of replies
and the 288 observations included in our models also
found no evidence of response bias relating to geo-
graphical location, industrial activity, and age of the
social enterprises.
Summary statistics are presented in Table 1. In
Table 3 in the Appendix, we present a list of ques-
tions that were used in the construction of the vari-
ables. The demographic composition of the respond-
ents was 56% female. Respondents were more likely
to be the founder (68%) and/or the director (39%)
of the CIC. Social enterprise hybrids with zero full-
time employees were coded as 0.1 prior to the trans-
formation to avoid the problem of lost observations
(full-time). The log of zero is an undefined value so
coding the zero values to 0.1 ensured that defined
values could be obtained for all values when the log
transformation was applied. Fifty-three percent of the
social enterprises had zero full-time employees. Nine-
teen percent of the social enterprises had 1 full-time
employee. The most full-time employees employed
by a social enterprise was 60. Forty-four percent of
the social enterprises had zero part-time employees.
Ninety percent of the social enterprises had up to 6
part-time employees. Many social enterprises benefit
from the work of volunteers and approximately 78%
of the social enterprises had one or more volunteers.
Sixty percent of the social enterprises had up to 5 vol-
unteers. CIC’s main areas of activity according to the
Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 2007 code
were most likely to be arts, entertainment and rec-
reation (25%), education (20%), other service activi-
ties (18%), and human health and social work (15%).
Accounting and financial services (4%), information
and communication (4%), agriculture, forestry and
fishing (4%), professional, scientific and technical
(3%), real estate (2%), and advertising and support
services (2%) were less mentioned activities.3
3.2 Measures
Dependent variable We looked to the innovation
literature for guidance in question design (BIS, 2015).
Measures employed to quantify innovation perfor-
mance in commercial firms include formal indicators,
such as patent registration, trademark and copyright
protection, and informal indicators (Dahlander &
Gann, 2010; West etal., 2014). Dziallas and Blind
(2019) reviewed the range of innovation indicators
throughout the innovation process. Bareghed et al.
(2009) reviewed the difficulties in providing a multi-
disciplinary definition of innovation. Reliable formal
measures are not (yet) available for social innovation.
The respondents were asked if they had introduced
new products or new services. Further, social innova-
tion seeks its impact on social transformation, namely
the impact of the social innovation on the social prob-
lem (Westley & Antadze, 2010). We therefore asked
respondents to assess social innovation performance
in terms of a measure that went from ‘0’ no new
products or services; and for those respondents who
had introduced a new product or service, the degree
of impact of their social innovation activities using
a five-point scale of ‘1’ (very low) to ‘5’ (very high)
(Innovation).
Independent variables To be categorized as a
social enterprise hybrid, an organization must be
more than financially sustainable; they need also to
aim to create at least some social and environmental
impact. Pursuing multiple goals thus defines their
mission and is separate from measures of impact.
Rawhouser etal. (2019) recently reviewed the variety
of different definitions and approaches that have been
used to measure social impact. Prior studies, such as
the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (http:// www.
gemco nsort ium. org), take on trust that self-defining
as a social enterprise hybrid is sufficient guarantee of
multiple goal orientation, or use an attention alloca-
tion scale originally devised for private-sector corpo-
rations (Stevens etal., 2015). In our study, we vali-
dated our sample by asking respondents to indicate
the level of their commercial, social, and environ-
mental goal orientation using a five-point scale from
‘1’ (not important) to ‘5’ (crucially important). Our
measure thus captures practice rather than cognition.
3 Wholesale and retail trade; water supply, sewage, and waste
management; manufacturing; financial and insurance; and con-
struction together accounted for approximately 3% of social
enterprises.
181
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

J. Hagedoorn et al.
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
Table 1 Summary information and correlation matrix (N = 288)
c p < 0.10; bp < 0.05; ap < 0.01
Mean S.D VIF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
1. Innova-
tion
2.26 1.90 1.00
2. Full-time − 0.89 1.61 1.89 0.17a1.00
3. Part-time − 0.42 1.81 1.62 0.06 0.27a1.00
4. Volun-
teers
0.93 1.99 2.03 0.14b − 0.10c0.00 1.00
5. Members − 1.73 1.90 1.55 − 0.05 − 0.06 − 0.05 0.06 1.00
6. CIC age 7.34 2.28 1.19 0.15a − 0.12b − 0.07 − 0.12b − 0.05 1.00
7. Founder 0.72 0.45 1.68 0.17a − 0.01 0.06 0.01 − 0.13b0.15a1.00
8. Gender 0.47 0.49 1.36 0.11c0.04 − 0.03 − 0.06 0.03 − 0.06 − 0.03 1.00
9. Young 0.21 0.41 1.49 0.17a0.02 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.24a0.08 − 0.03 1.00
10. Middle 0.57 0.49 1.52 0.19a − 0.01 0.07 − 0.11c − 0.06 0.02 0.05 − 0.04 − 0.39a1.00
11. Older 0.22 0.41 1.50 0.17a − 0.02 − 0.14b0.06 0.07 − 0.27a − 0.15a0.08 − 0.28a − 0.41a1.00
12. Compul-
sory
0.06 0.23 1.77 0.04 0.05 − 0.07 0.02 0.12b0.05 0.08 0.05 − 0.05 − 0.01 0.06 1.00
13.
Advanced
0.12 0.32 1.73 0.15a0.03 0.03 − 0.06 0.01 0.01 − 0.02 0.06 − 0.05 0.05 − 0.01 − 0.09 1.00
14. Degree 0.36 0.48 1.89 0.17a − 0.09 − 0.07 0.01 − 0.04 − 0.03 0.01 0.02 − 0.02 0.05 0.08 − 0.18a − 0.27a1.00
15. Postgrad 0.45 0.49 1.94 0.19a0.04 0.10c0.03 0.04 − 0.02 0.11c − 0.06 0.08 0.00 0.08 − 0.22a − 0.32a − 0.37a1.00
16. Finan-
cial
3.36 1.14 1.87 0.19a0.23a − 0.12b0.02 0.08 − 0.12b0.12b − 0.09 − 0.14b0.16a0.12b0.14b0.03 0.07 − 0.06 1.00
17. Social 4.68 0.53 1.68 0.18a0.11c0.06 − 0.09 − 0.12b0.03 0.03 − 0.13b0.16a − 0.11c0.15a0.16a − 0.14b − 0.04 0.12b0.03 1.00
18. Environ 3.36 1.16 1.84 0.11c0.08 − 0.04 0.18a0.03 − 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.02 − 0.14b0.14b0.12b0.06 − 0.05 − 0.02 0.12b0.11c1.00
19. Open-
ness
29.82 9.48 1.75 0.22a0.15a0.15a0.14b − 0.09 0.10 0.05 − 0.05 0.16a0.19a − 0.15a − 0.12b0.15a0.17a0.24a0.18a0.16a0.15a1.00
182
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Social innovation, goal orientation, and openness: insights from social enterprise hybrids
1 3
Vol.: (0123456789)
Openness has been measured in different ways con-
cerning the use of sources of external knowledge and
ideas (Dahlander & Gann, 2010; Kostopoulos etal.,
2011; Laursen & Salter, 2006). Since the extent of
openness is generally assumed to be a continuous var-
iable (Dahlander & Gann, 2010; Drechsler & Natter,
2012) we distinguish between the relative importance
of sources of external knowledge and ideas on a scale
of 1–5.
External sources of knowledge and ideas are
defined as originating from organizations and indi-
viduals that are not employed by the responding firm
(Dahlander & Gann, 2010). There is a large body of
work which draws upon questions relating to the use
and importance of a wide variety of sources of knowl-
edge and ideas and firm innovation (e.g. Leiponen &
Helfat, 2010; Love etal., 2014; Vivas & Barge-Gil,
2015). The specific external sources of knowledge
and ideas were derived from previous literature and
include informal networks, friends and relatives (Töd-
tling et al., 2009); customers, clients, and suppliers
(Leiponen, 2000; von Hippel, 1988); users (Von Hip-
pel, 1976; Voorberg et al., 2015); universities, col-
leges, and other educational institutions (Mina etal.,
2014; Rodriguez et al., 2016); and consultants and
providers of professional and financial services (Rod-
riguez et al., 2016). To these, we added sources for
social innovation, namely beneficiaries, other third-
sector organizations, social enterprises, and chari-
ties; and UK business information services, e.g. local,
national, the CIC Regulator, and Her Majesty’s Rev-
enue and Customs (HMRC). In addition, respond-
ents were invited to specify and evaluate any sources
of information not listed. The number of external
sources of information where the respondents indi-
cated that the impact was crucially important was
calculated and gives a breadth-depth measure. We
then multiplied openness by commercial goal orien-
tation to create the first variable to test the moderat-
ing role of openness. This procedure was repeated for
social goal orientation and then environmental goal
orientation.
Control variables The selection of control vari-
ables was guided by previous social entrepreneur-
ship, innovation, and social innovation research.
Innovation is associated with organization size (Mina
et al., 2014), and specifically larger firms (Ches-
brough, 2003). Our survey employs a logarithmic
transformation of the total number of full-time
employees. As social enterprise hybrids typically
also supplement the full-time workforce with part-
time employees and volunteers (Doherty etal., 2014;
Farny etal., 2018), we adopted the same procedure
to measure for part-time employees and volunteers.
We also requested information on members who pay
a regular membership fee. Older social enterprise
hybrids have had more time to build relationships
with sources of external knowledge and ideas and we
calculated CIC age from the year of incorporation to
the date of the survey.
Demographic information was also gathered from
the respondents. Organizational founders, in our case
social entrepreneurs, have been imbued with heroic
qualities concerning social innovation and change
(Cajaiba-Santana, 2014; Hibbert et al., 2002). We
distinguish between founder (code ‘1’) and otherwise
(code ‘0’). For gender, the male respondents were
coded as ‘1’ and the female respondents were coded
as ‘0’. The age of the respondents was used to cre-
ate three dummy variables as follows. Respondents
aged 21–39years old were coded as ‘1’ and otherwise
‘0’ (young)4; 40–60years old were coded as ‘1’ and
otherwise ‘0’ (middle); and 61years and older were
coded as ‘1’ and otherwise ‘0’ (older).
Finally, innovating firms need to have the compe-
tencies to take on board the value of new information
from external sources and simultaneously assimilate
and apply the new knowledge and ideas to develop
new products, services, and processes (Dahlander &
Gann, 2010; Drechsler & Natter, 2012; Kostopou-
los etal., 2011). Since openness has been linked to
employee human capital (Harison & Koski, 2010),
respondents were asked to indicate their highest level
of education. Respondents who left school aged 16
with a compulsory level of education were coded
‘1’ and otherwise ‘0’); respondents with ‘A’ levels
were coded as ‘1’ and otherwise ‘0’; respondents
with a degree were coded ‘1’ and otherwise ‘0’; and
respondents with postgraduate university qualifica-
tions were coded ‘1’ and otherwise ‘0’. The compari-
son group in the models is postgraduate university
qualifications.
4 The youngest age of the respondents was 21years old.
183
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

J. Hagedoorn et al.
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
Common methods variance bias tests In order to
test for common methods variance bias (CMB), we
used Harmon’s one-factor test (Podsakoff & Organ,
1986) and also the marker variable technique (Jar-
venpaa & Majchrzak, 2008; Pavlou et al., 2007).
Harmon’s one-factor test has been applied by Love
etal. (2014) and thus there is precedent for its use.
We included all independent and control variables
in Harmon’s one-factor test. If the un-rotated fac-
tor accounts for a substantial proportion, 50% plus,
of the total variance, then CMB is a problem (Love
etal., 2014). We found that the first un-rotated fac-
tor accounted for approximately one-fifth of the total
variance and thus interpreted this result as evidence
that CMB is not a problem in our models.
Harmon’s test has, however, been argued to be
insufficient to test for potential CMB (Podsakoff
etal., 2003), and so, we also employed a marker test
(Lindell & Whitney, 2001). In essence, there are two
possible procedures with a marker test. First, the
researchers need to identify a variable which is not
theoretically related to at least one variable in a study
(Jarvenpaa & Majchrzak, 2008; Pavlou etal., 2007).
Second, if the former option is not possible, then
researchers need to use the variable with the lowest
correlation with other variables to become the marker
variable. We followed the second route and found
that there is no evidence of CMB (Lindell & Whit-
ney, 2001). Podsakoff etal. (2003) have provided an
extensive review of techniques available to control
for the effects of CMB, and we acknowledge that the
marker test is not without problems (see Richardson
etal., 2009). Notwithstanding these points, we have
applied several tests to validate our use of CMB, and
as indicated below, the correlation matrix also pro-
vides further evidence that the results reported in the
next section are appropriate.
3.3 Model specification
The dependent variable Innovation is a categorical
variable and this suggests that an ordered logit or pro-
bit regression technique should be utilized (Greene,
2012; Long, 1997). Below we report the ordered logit
regression models which have been estimated using
STATA (StataCorp, 2013).
4 Results
Examination of the correlation matrix (see Table1)
showed no evidence of multicollinearity. Table2 pre-
sents the results of the ordered logit models which
test the relationships between commercial, social, and
environmental goal orientation and social innovation
performance, and the moderating role of openness to
external sources of knowledge and ideas. Our model
specifications are based upon controlling for variables
which have been found to be important in the litera-
ture on innovation and openness. Model 1 includes
the control variables. In model 2, we augment model
1 with commercial goal orientation. In model 3,
social goal orientation is added to the control varia-
bles. In model 4, the control variables are augmented
with environmental goal orientation. In model 5, the
openness variable and the openness variable times
commercial goal orientation is added. The openness
variable and the openness variable times social goal
orientation is added in model 6. Lastly, the openness
variable and the openness variable times environmen-
tal goal orientation is added in model 7. The likeli-
hood ratio chi-squared test is statistically significant
at the 0.01 level in all 7 models (Greene, 2012).
There are many ways to calculate the goodness of
fit, an R2 measure in logistic regression and amongst
ordered logit applications. Mittlbock and Schemper
(1996) reviewed 12 different measures and Menard
(2000) assessed further measures. All the measures of
goodness of fit have their weaknesses (Allison, 2013;
Greene, 2012; Liu, 2015; Long & Freese, 2014) but
the most widely used measures are the McFadden
(1974) and Cox and Snell (1989) goodness of fit. Fol-
lowing precedent, we have reported the McFadden
measure of goodness of fit. Given the way that the
McFadden (1974) measure is calculated, the values
in an ordered logit context are typically much lower
than an R2 measure in an OLS application. Louviere
etal. (2000) indicate that a McFadden (1974) meas-
ure of between 0.2 and 0.4 is considered a very good
fit of the model and that the aforementioned values
have equivalence of 0.7 to 0.9 in a linear context.
The McFadden’s R2 is 0.1511 in Model 1 (StataCorp,
2013). The McFadden’s R2 is 0.2199 in model 5,
0.2322 in model 6, and 0.2249 in model 7.
184
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Social innovation, goal orientation, and openness: insights from social enterprise hybrids
1 3
Vol.: (0123456789)
Table 2 Ordered Logit models of the social innovation of the social enterprise hybrids (N = 288)
Postgraduate is the comparison level of education. Young is the comparison age of the key decision maker. cp < 0.10; bp < 0.05; ap < 0.01
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7
Coef S. E Coef S. E Coef S. E Coef S. E Coef S. E Coef S. E Coef S. E
Full-time 0.18b0.07 0.16b0.07 0.19b0.07 0.18b0.07 0.18b0.07 0.17b0.07 0.18b0.08
Part-time 0.06 0.08 0.04 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Volunteers 0.12b0.06 0.12b0.06 0.12b0.06 0.12b0.06 0.12b0.06 0.12b0.06 0.12b0.06
Members − 0.01 0.05 − 0.01 0.05 − 0.01 0.05 − 0.01 0.05 − 0.01 0.05 − 0.02 0.06 − 0.01 0.06
CIC age 0.05b0.02 0.07b0.03 0.05b0.02 0.05b0.02 0.05b0.02 0.07b0.03 0.06b0.03
Founder 0.37b0.17 0.34b0.17 0.37b0.18 0.36b0.18 0.36b0.18 0.35b0.18 0.34b0.17
Gender 0.36c0.21 0.38c0.21 0.35 0.21 0.36c0.21 0.36c0.21 0.34 0.22 0.36c0.22
Middle 0.21 0.28 0.26 0.28 0.23 0.29 0.20 0.28 0.20 0.28 0.23 0.29 0.22 0.29
Older 0.19 0.35 0.23 0.35 0.20 0.35 0.21 0.35 0.20 0.35 0.22 0.35 0.21 0.35
Compulsory − 0.05 0.46 − 0.07 0.46 − 0.05 0.46 − 0.08 0.46 − 0.08 0.46 − 0.08 0.46 − 0.06 0.47
Advanced − 1.12a0.35 − 1.16a0.34 − 1.13a0.35 − 1.15a0.35 − 1.15a0.35 − 1.15a0.36 − 1.19a0.36
Degree − 0.54b0.24 − 0.58b0.24 − 0.54b0.24 − 0.53b0.24 − 0.53b0.24 − 0.48b0.24 − 0.48b0.24
Commercial – – 0.15b0.07 – – – – 0.16b0.07 – – – –
Social – – – – 0.19b0.09 – – – – 0.20b0.09 – –
Environ – – – – – – − 0.10 0.10 – – – – -0.09 0.20
Openness – – – – – – – – 0.18b0.08 0.17b0.08 0.20b0.09
Commercial*Openness – – – – – – – – 0.15a0.04 – – – –
Social*Openness – – – – – – – – – – 0.12b0.06 – –
Environ*Openness – – – – – – – – – – – – -0.03 0.03
Log likelihood − 478.82 − 477.70 − 477.79 − 478.33 − 474.33 − 470.12 − 472.03
Likelihood ratio 31.65a33.90a32.72a32.63a34.63a36.84a35.23a
McFadden’s R20.1511 0.1614 0.1683 0.1632 0.2199 0.2322 0.2249
185
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

J. Hagedoorn et al.
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
In models 2 and 5, commercial goal orientation is
statistically significant at the 0.05 level. Commercial
goal orientation of social enterprise hybrids is posi-
tively related to social innovation performance. The
empirical data thus supports hypothesis H1. In mod-
els 3 and 6, social goal orientation is positively statis-
tically significant at the 0.05 level. Thus, the level of
social goal orientation of social enterprise hybrids is
systematically statistically related to social innovation
performance. The empirical data provides support for
hypothesis H2. In models 4 and 7, environmental goal
orientation is negatively related to social innovation,
but it is not statistically significant at the 0.10 level,
or better. Thus, there is no systematic relationship
between environmental goal orientation and social
innovation performance; therefore, hypothesis H3 is
not supported by the empirical data.
In model 5, we see that the interaction of the open-
ness and commercial goal orientation variables is sta-
tistically significant at the 0.05 level. Thus, there is
evidence to support hypothesis H4a on the moderat-
ing role of openness upon commercial goal orienta-
tion and social innovation performance. In model 6,
the interaction of openness and social goal orientation
is also statistically significant at the 0.05 level. The
result indicates evidence to support hypothesis H4b
on the moderating role of openness upon social goal
orientation and social innovation performance. How-
ever, in model 7, the interaction of the openness and
environmental goal orientation variables appears with
a negative signed coefficient and is not statistically
significant at the 0.10 level or better. Thus, there is no
evidence to support hypothesis H4c.
In relation to the control variables, we find that
several of the variables are consistently statistically
significant in the models. First, as the number of
full-time employees and also the number of volun-
teers in the social enterprise hybrids increases, this
is positively associated with social innovation perfor-
mance. Second, social innovation performance is also
strongly associated with age of the social enterprise
hybrids as older social enterprise hybrids are posi-
tively associated with social innovation performance.
Thirdly, having the founder as the key decision maker
in social enterprise hybrids is associated with social
innovation performance. Fourthly, the education of
the key decision makers is systematically related to
social innovation performance. Key decision makers
with an advanced level of education, or a degree, have
a negative association with social innovation perfor-
mance compared to those social enterprise hybrids
where the key decision maker has a postgraduate
level of education.
As a sensitivity analysis, we re-ran models where
the dependent variable (Innovation) and the inde-
pendent variable Openness were recalculated as
dummy variables where scores of 5 or 5 and 4 were
coded as 1 and otherwise 0. These alternative binary
logit models generated qualitatively similar results,
with the exception of the model where scores of 4 and
5 were combined and the moderating effects for H4a
and b were still positive but no longer significant. We
also tested to see if there are curvilinear relationships
between our independent variables against social
innovation performance by including quadratic terms,
but these are not statistically significant. Thus, we
found no evidence of curvilinear relationships.
5 Discussion
The social enterprise hybrid mission is to pursue com-
mercial, social, and environmental goals and, when
successful, they contribute to creating economies
that are financially, socially, and environmentally
sustainable. Our investigation portrays a complex
set of relationships between social enterprise hybrid
goal orientation and social innovation performance.
The generation of income from trading distinguishes
social enterprise hybrids from other social purpose
organizations that are grant dependent, such as NGOs
and charities. Grant dependence restricts the organi-
zational use of funds to those specified in the terms
and conditions of the donation. For social enterprise
hybrids, commercial strategies are fundamental to
generate the flow of funds into the organization and
confer on them the freedom to decide where and how
to invest unrestricted income. Successful commercial
strategies would thus lead to funds being available to
invest in social innovation performance. For social
enterprise hybrids, social goal orientation is also
integral to securing legitimacy (Dart, 2004) and the
close relationships between social enterprise hybrids
and users enable them to generate new products and
services that are tailored to market demand. In some
organizations, legitimacy is further strengthened by
user involvement in cocreating new products and
services (Voorberg et al., 2015). Thus, our findings
186
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Social innovation, goal orientation, and openness: insights from social enterprise hybrids
1 3
Vol.: (0123456789)
support the positive relationship between mission and
social innovation performance (McDonald, 2007), but
only for commercial and social goal orientation.
To illustrate, social enterprise hybrids such as
Musica Music and Wellbeing CIC support people
living with dementia and their carers by providing
opportunities to engage with music in domestic and
care homes, day centres, and hospitals (NatWest
SE100, 2020). Trading income is generated from fees
for workshops and enrolment in training courses. The
inflow of knowledge and ideas is secured from rela-
tionships with public sector organizations, partners,
clients, and service users. External knowledge and
ideas are employed to innovate social innovations
such as online coaching, online service delivery, and
free online workshops for music in dementia care.
Commercial success is integral to the pursuit of social
and environmental goals (Moizer & Tracey, 2010) irre-
spective of whether business models to achieve commer-
cial and other goals are either fully integrated or depend-
ent on cross-subsidization between different business
units. Although commercial mission seeks to identify
and exploit market opportunities and social mission is
oriented to identifying and servicing unmet social needs,
both strategies rely on deep knowledge of the require-
ments of external stakeholders. Successful commercial
strategies are dependent on close relationships with sup-
pliers, distributors, and customers to better understand
which products and services are needed by customers,
how much they are willing to pay, where purchases will
be made, etc. (Chesbrough, 2003, 2006a; Von Hippel,
1988; West etal., 2014). Successful strategies for achiev-
ing social goals are dependent upon deep understanding
of market and government policy failures, availability
of resources, and client needs. Information about social
needs is acquired from the flow of knowledge and ideas
that is mediated between the social enterprise hybrid
and external stakeholders. Thus, close relationships with
external sources of knowledge and ideas are integral to
developing strategies for commercial and social goal ori-
entation. As such, our results complement recent case
studies of social innovation (Chesbrough & Minin, 2014)
by finding a positive and significant relationship between
openness and social innovation performance.
For example, Assisted Homes CIC (London) pro-
vides accommodation and support services to the home-
less and pending homeless, i.e. rough sleepers, sofa-surf-
ers, and people fleeing domestic abuse (CIC Regulator
Report, 2017/18). In addition to finding clients a safe
and secure place to stay, Assisted Homes CIC leverages
its network connections to provide tailored medical,
social, and life skill support to help clients build a more
stable future. Information about how best to provide
support services is gathered from relationships with con-
sultants knowledgeable about the availability of special-
ist services, and directly from users. This information is
employed to innovate a bespoke support plan for clients.
Our result concerning the lack of a relationship
between environmental goal orientation and social inno-
vation performance is surprising but may be attributable
to the nature of social innovations that are designed to
address environmental problems. The resource con-
straints faced by social enterprise hybrids suggest that
they are more likely to adopt innovations to address
environmental issues, such as green technologies and
organic and nature conservation standards, which have
been developed by other organizations. Examples of
such innovations include bio-digestion, wind energy,
photovoltaics, and biomass and biofuels (Sengupta
et al., 2020; Surie, 2017) and environmental manage-
ment systems (Batle etal., 2018). Where extant social
innovations designed to solve environmental problems
are working effectively, we suggest that strategies of
learning and replication (Luke & Chu, 2013) may be
resource-efficient ways for social enterprise hybrids
to achieve environmental goals as the imitative adop-
tion of extant social innovations might incur less risk
than investment of their own funds (Chalmers, 2012).
To illustrate, Scott-Cato and Hillier (2010) consider the
spread of the Transition Town model as an example of
how climate-related social innovations have diffused by
adoption (Vickers & Lyon, 2014). Social innovation to
address environmental problems by imitation is a lower
cost strategy than investing in developing innovations to
respond to environmental problems afresh.
For example, the aim of Yorkshire Energy Ser-
vice CIC, trading as Yes Energy Solutions Ltd., is
to reduce CO2 emissions and alleviate fuel poverty.
Income is generated from contracts with energy
companies obliged to comply with energy efficiency
targets (CIC Regulator Report, 2018/19). In partner-
ship with a wide range of public sector organiza-
tions, e.g. the Energy Companies Obligation (ECO)
Scheme; social enterprises, e.g. Housing Associa-
tions; and NGOs, e.g. the Fuel Poor Energy Network
Scheme, consumers are taught a repertoire of existing
standard techniques to increase their fuel efficiency.
Social innovation in services and service delivery is
187
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

J. Hagedoorn et al.
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
implemented to respond to new climate and energy
policies, and regulatory changes.
Further, social innovation for environmental transfor-
mation might also be more technology-based than those
for social and welfare services and hence can be appro-
priated more readily than social innovations that require
tailoring for individual and community use (Batle etal.,
2018; Bhatt etal., 2016). With the exception of accidents
and catastrophes, organizations are more able to exercise
control over their environmental goal orientation than
social goal orientation through the design, implementation,
and monitoring of environmentally-sensitive products, ser-
vices, and processes. Thus, we propose that environmental
goal orientation is also more dependent on the monitoring
and control of internal processes and procedures than on
building close relationships with external stakeholders.
Eco Larder CIC is a zero-waste supermarket in Edin-
burgh established to reduce single-use packaging in food
retailing and raise customer awareness of ways to live a
zero-waste lifestyle (CIC Regulator Report, 2018/19).
Income is generated in four ways, first, the sale of prod-
ucts in zero-waste supermarkets; second, fees from
workshops that teach customers how to make their own
household and bathroom essentials; third, fees from busi-
ness consulting services; and finally, the sale of products
made from material collected from beach clean-ups.
During the COVID 19 pandemic, their control of internal
processes and procedures helped them to achieve social
innovations that included a free home delivery service
that used electric cargo bikes, and a new partnership with
a food bank to provide meals to the disadvantaged.
Our results also frame the purposive inflow of
knowledge and ideas to be beneficial to social innova-
tion performance. In commercial firms, innovativeness
is positively related to profitability (Leiponen, 2000)
and returns to investors (Sood & Tellis, 2009). The
governance structure of social enterprise hybrids, how-
ever, directs returns to beneficiaries, communities, and
social transformation, and thus, performance is evalu-
ated in relation to the positive effect of novel solutions
on social problems. The impact of external sources
of knowledge and ideas on environmental strategies
may be in response to new regulations, and the impact
less direct than found in strategies for commercial and
social goal orientation. For example, when commer-
cial and environmental strategies are integrated, e.g.
upcycling of waste into new products, recycling used
products for re-sale or gifting to new customers, then
environmental goal orientation might be assisted by
the external sources of information advice employed to
facilitate commercial goal orientation.
North Wales Recycle IT CIC provides the only
secure and professional recycling, reuse, and disposal
of IT equipment for individuals, families, and organi-
zations in North Wales. Income is generated from the
collection of IT equipment, and refurbished IT equip-
ment is provided to charities, community groups, low-
income families, the long-term unemployed, and new
businesses. Stakeholder relations with suppliers, end
users, the local community, and local government
provide knowledge and ideas. For example, the CIC
enables organizations to comply with the Waste Elec-
trical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Regulations
by managing secure data destruction from IT hard-
ware, and the safe disposal of IT equipment. Recycling
reduces the amount of IT equipment sent to landfills.
Although competition between commercial firms
increases efficiency and effectiveness, the cultural val-
ues of social enterprise hybrids prioritize collaboration
to maximise social impact above competition to maxim-
ise profits (Le Ber & Branzei, 2010; Santos etal., 2015).
Recent research has noted how social enterprise hybrids
can serve as incubators for new practices that can then
be scaled up through cross-sector collaborations (Lee &
Jay, 2015). In this way, the collaborative values of social
enterprise hybrids may cross institutional boundaries
and infuse commercial firms (Lee & Jay, 2015).
Finally, our research also contributes to widening
the understanding of the scope of activities that com-
prise hybrid organizing (Battilana & Lee, 2014). Hybrid
organizing describes the “activities, structures, processes
and meanings” (Battilana & Lee, 2014, p. 397) of organi-
zational forms that bridge different institutional domains
(Tracey etal., 2011). A review of the literature concluded
that the dimensions of hybrid organizing consisted of
inter-organizational relationships, culture, organiza-
tional design, workforce composition, and organizational
activities (Battilana & Lee, 2014). In their description
of hybrid, organizing inter-organizational relationships
is related to accessing financial resources and markets
(pp. 420–21). The empirical results from our study, how-
ever, find that openness to knowledge and ideas from
external stakeholders is significantly related to economic
and social goal orientation and social innovation perfor-
mance. From our research, we propose that the activities
which comprise hybrid organizing be extended to include
openness to external stakeholders to secure a wider set of
benefits beyond access to finance and markets.
188
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Social innovation, goal orientation, and openness: insights from social enterprise hybrids
1 3
Vol.: (0123456789)
6 Conclusion
The intractability of poverty, inequality, and the impact
of climate change has increased attention on the poten-
tial of social innovation performance to generate long-
term solutions to social and environmental challenges.
Such grand challenges have attracted the attention of
a wide range of different organizational forms as they
adapt to the institutional and societal expectations and
environmental conditions of the twenty-first century.5
Insights into the influence of goal orientation on social
innovation and the impact of openness on these relation-
ships have been limited to date and our study is the first
to shed light on the social enterprise hybrid and social
innovation performance. The results have found that
social enterprise hybrids’ commercial and social goal
orientation are positively related to social innovation
performance. In relation to openness, external sources
of knowledge and ideas positively moderate commercial
and social goal orientation and social innovation perfor-
mance. The results contribute to our understanding of
social innovation, openness, and hybrid organizing.
The social entrepreneurship literature suggests that
the mission of many social enterprise hybrids is dis-
tinctly social and therefore the social enterprise hybrid
is sustainable only to the extent that financial revenue
can achieve social goals (Dacin etal., 2011). In com-
mon with commercial firms, the use of a larger pool
of external knowledge and ideas is beneficial to the
commercial performance of social enterprise hybrids.
The strong moderating effect of openness on commer-
cial and social goal orientation suggests that social
enterprise hybrids benefit from drawing upon external
knowledge and ideas as this favourably positions them
for developing social innovation performances.
Many benefits have been advocated for innovation
(Dahlander & Gann, 2010), however, agreement on
the conditions whereby firms that invest in acquiring
external sources of information outperform others has
yet to be secured. In our study, openness and social
innovation performance are positively related, and
thus, the innovation imperative of commercial firms
is also shared by social enterprise hybrids.
Implications of our research for practice and
also for understanding the practical implications of
a social enterprise hybrid business model include
encouraging social enterprise hybrids to appreciate
the strategic benefits of investing resources in build-
ing relationships with external stakeholders. Rela-
tionships with external stakeholders provide conduits
for information about entrepreneurial opportunities
arising from market and government policy failures,
ideas for how such failures can be responded to, and
how to secure competitive advantage from leveraging
the benefits of collaborating with partners.
We conclude with three suggestions for further
research that arise from the limitations of the research.
First, the data in our study is cross-sectional and thus
we are unable to isolate causality between goal orien-
tation, openness, and social innovation. Furthermore,
cross-sectional research does not readily permit detailed
analysis of learning effects that may take several years
for the benefits to become apparent (Love etal., 2014).
Although our paper offers an important first step in
relating goal orientation, openness, and social innova-
tion performance in social enterprise hybrids, a longi-
tudinal panel study would isolate causality between the
variables. Second, the finding that openness is associ-
ated with commercial and social goal orientation, but
not environmental goal orientation, is intriguing. We do
not find that the strong body of research that advocates
the benefits of openness applies to environmental goal
orientation. Further research to unpack the complexities
between social enterprise hybrids and environmental
goal orientation would extend knowledge on variation
in opennessimpact.6 This may require qualitative, case
study research (Datta, 2011) to unpack the influences on
environmental goal orientation. Finally, our study inves-
tigates the inflow of knowledge and ideas and employs
an incident measure of social innovation performance.
Further research that investigates social enterprise
hybrids and the mechanisms and impact of knowledge
spillover and formal, or third party, measures of social
innovation performance would contribute to knowledge
about how the collaborative values of the social econ-
omy foster, or impede, open social innovation.
5 See Barney and Rangan (2022) for an interesting recent
comment on these challenges in light of the role of, on the one
hand, non-market institutions and, on the other hand, for-profit
firms that could adopt both economic and social goals and gen-
erate innovations to achieve these goals.
6 As suggested by one of the reviewers, social enterprise
hybrids might also be more socially oriented and less focused
on the environmental component of social innovation.
189
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

J. Hagedoorn et al.
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
Table 3 Questions used in the survey
Variable Question
Innovation “Please indicate the impact of the products or services innovation on the CIC.” Respondents were given a
five-point scale from ‘1’ (not important) to ‘5’ (crucially important)
Source: DBIS, 2015
Commercial “Please indicate the importance of financial goals in this CIC.” Respondents were given a five-point scale
from ‘1’ (not important) to ‘5’ (crucially important). Source: Adapted from Weber and Lambrich (2013)
Social “Please indicate the importance of social goals in this CIC.” Respondents were given a five-point scale
from ‘1’ (not important) to ‘5’ (crucially important). Source: Adapted from Weber and Lambrich (2013)
Environ “Please indicate the importance of environmental goals in this CIC.” Respondents were given a five-point
scale from ‘1’ (not important) to ‘5’ (crucially important). Source: Adapted from Weber and Lambrich
(2013)
Openness “Have the following as sources of information, advice and support been used with reference to this CIC?
Please indicate the importance of each source that you have used.” Respondents were given a five-point
scale from ‘1’ (not important) to ‘5’ (crucially important). Respondents were given a list of the follow-
ing sources: friends and relatives; employees or volunteers; customers or clients; beneficiaries or users;
business associates; University or College; consultants; suppliers; CICs, social enterprises or charities;
professional services e.g. accountant, solicitor or lawyer; financial services providers e.g. bank, venture
capitalists or business angels; a UK local authority e.g. a Council; UK national government sources e.g.
BIS, CIC Regulator, HMRC; Other, please specify
Source: Adapted from DBIS (2015) and Hunt etal. (2009)
Full-time “Please indicate the current number of full-time people at the CIC. If zero, please indicate 0.” Adapted
from Hunt etal. (2009)
Part-time “Please indicate the current number of part-time people at the CIC. If zero, please indicate 0.” Adapted
from Hunt etal. (2009)
Volunteers “Please indicate the current number of volunteers at the CIC. If zero, please indicate 0.” Adapted from
Hunt etal. (2009)
Members “Please indicate the current number of members at the CIC. If zero, please indicate 0.” Adapted from
Hunt etal. (2009)
CIC Age “In which year was the CIC founded?” Adapted from Hunt etal. (2009)
Founder “What is your position in this CIC? Please select all options which apply.” The respondents were given
a series of options of: Founder, Managing Director, Director, Other please specify. Respondents who
indicated that they were a founder were coded as ‘1’ and otherwise ‘0’ (Founder). Source: Adapted from
Hunt etal. (2009)
Gender “What is your gender? Male or Female?” The male respondents were coded as ‘1’ and the female
respondents were coded as ‘0’ (Gender). Source: Adapted from Hunt etal. (2009)
Young, middle and older “What is your age in years?” Respondents aged 21–39years old were coded as ‘1’ and otherwise ‘0’
(Young); 40–60years old were coded as ‘1’ and otherwise ‘0’ (Middle) and 61years and older were
coded as ‘1’ and otherwise ‘0’ (Older). Source: Adapted from Hunt etal. (2009)
Compulsory, advanced,
degree, postgraduate
“What is your highest level of education? “Respondents were given a series of options of: No formal
qualifications; GCSE/’O’ level or equivalent (Compulsory), ‘A’ level or equivalent (Advanced), Degree
level (Degree); Postgraduate degree, postgraduate diploma or certificate, doctorate (Postgraduate); and
Other please specify. Source: Adapted from Hunt etal. (2009)
Appendix
190
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Social innovation, goal orientation, and openness: insights from social enterprise hybrids
1 3
Vol.: (0123456789)
Acknowledgements We thank the reviewers and editor of the
Small Business Economics Journal and participants in semi-
nars at the School of Management, University of St. Gallen,
and the School of Business and Management, Royal Holloway
University of London, for their comments on earlier versions of
this paper. We also acknowledge the financial support for our
research from the Edmond de Rothschild Foundation and the
Isaac Newton Research Trust (grant number RG69440).
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Com-
mons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any
medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Crea-
tive Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The
images or other third party material in this article are included
in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your
intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds
the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit
http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
Appendix
Venturing, 33(3), 333–350. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
jbusv ent. 2018. 01. 004
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: A
model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 43(4), 717–736. https:// doi. org/ 10.
5465/ 15563 63
Bareghed, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a
multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Management
Decision, 47(8), 1323–1339. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/
00251 74091 09845 78
Barney, J. B., & Rangan, S. (2022). Introduction to the special
topic forum on new theoretical perspectives on market-
based economic systems. Academy of Management
Review, 47(2), 210–213. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amr.
2022. 0149
Baskaran, S., & Mehta, K. (2016). What is innovation anyway?
Youth perspectives from resource-constrained environ-
ments. Technovation, 52–53, 4–17. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. techn ovati on. 2016. 01. 005
Bastida, M., Garcia, A. V., Pinto, L. H., & Olumero-Blanco,
A. (2022). Motivational drivers to choose worker coop-
eratives as an entrepreneurial alternative: Evidence
from Spain. Small Business Economics, 58, 1609–1626.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11187- 021- 00459-8
Batle, J., Orfila-Sintes, F., & Moon, C. J. (2018). Environmen-
tal management best practices: Towards social innova-
tion. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
69, 14–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijhm. 2017. 10. 013
Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid
organizations: The case of commercial microfinance
organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6),
1419–1440. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amj. 2010. 57318 391
Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid
organizing: Insights from the study of social enterprises.
Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 19416 520. 2014. 893615
Battilana, J., Sengul, M., Pache, A.-C., & Model, J. (2015).
Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations:
The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy
of Management Journal, 58(6), 1658–1685. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 5465/ amj. 2013. 0903
Berrone, P., Fosfuri, A., Gelabert, L., & Gomez-Mejia, L.
(2013). Necessity as the mother of ‘green’ inventions:
Institutional pressures and environmental innovations.
Strategic Management Journal, 34(8), 891–909. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2041
Bhatt, P., Ahmad, A. J., & Roomi, M. A. (2016). Social inno-
vation with open source software: User engagement and
development challenges in India. Technovation, 52–53,
28–39. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techn ovati on. 2016. 01.
004
BIS, 2015. UK Innovation Survey, 1994-2012. Secure Access.
[data collection]. Department for Business, Innova-
tion and Skills, Office for National Statistics, North-
ern Ireland. UK Data Service. SN: 6699, 10.5255/
UKDA-SN-6699-4
Blessing, A. (2012). Magical or monstrous? Hybridity in social
housing governance. Housing Studies, 27(2), 189–207.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 02673 037. 2012. 649469
Bogers, M., Zobel, A.-K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Brun-
swicker, S., Dahlander, L., Frederiksen, L., Gawer, A.,
References
Adams, D., & Hess, M. (2010). Social innovation and why it
has policy significance. The Economic and Labour Rela-
tions Review, 21(2), 139–156. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s12208- 020- 00243-6
Alexy, O., Henkel, J., & Wallin, M. W. (2013). From closed
to open: Job role changes, individual predispositions and
the adoption of commercial open source software devel-
opment. Research Policy, 42(8), 1325–1340. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. respol. 2013. 04. 007
Allison, P., 2013. What’s the best R-squared for logistic regres-
sion. Statistical Horizons blog. https:// stati stica lhori zons.
com/ r2log istic/
Alvord, S. H., Brown, L. D., & Letts, C. W. (2004). Social
enterprise and societal transformation. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science, 40(3), 260–282. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1177/ 00218 86304 266847
Amara, N., & Landry, R. (2005). Sources of information as
determinants of novelty of innovation in manufacturing
firms: Evidence from the 1999 Canada innovation sur-
vey. Technovation, 25(3), 245–259. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/ S0166- 4972(03) 00113-5
Amin, A., Cameron, A., & Hudson, R. (2002). Placing the
social economy. Routledge.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and
commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different or both?
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1540- 6520. 2006. 00107.x
Bacq, S., & Alt, L. (2018). Feeling capable and valued: A
prosocial perspective on the link between empathy and
social entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Business
191
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

J. Hagedoorn et al.
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
Gruber, M., Haefliger, S., Hagedoorn, J., Hilgers, D.,
Laursen, K., Magnusson, M. G., Majchrzak, A., McCa-
rthy, I. P., Moeslein, K. M., Nambisan, S., Piller, F. T., …
Ter Wal, A. L. J. (2017). The open innovation research
landscape: Established perspectives and emerging
themes across different levels of analysis. Industry and
Innovation, 24(1), 8–40. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13662
716. 2016. 12400 68
Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2006). Coproduction, the third
sector and the delivery of public services. Public Man-
agement Review, 8(4), 493–501. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
14719 03060 10228 74
Brandsen, T., van de Donk, W., & Kutters, K. (2005). Griffins
or chameleons? Hybridity as a permanent and inevitable
characteristic of the third sector. International Journal of
Public Administration, 28(9–10), 1749–1765. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1081/ PAD- 20006 7320
Brunnermeier, S. B., & Cohen, M. A. (2003). Determinants of
environmental innovation in US manufacturing indus-
tries. Journal of Environmental Economics and Manage-
ment, 45(2), 278–293. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0095-
0696(02) 00058-X
Cajaiba-Santana, G. (2014). Social innovation: Moving the
field forward. A conceptual framework. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 82, 42–51. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2013. 05. 008
Carrie, W.L., Seddon, J.J.M., 2014. Social innovation in public
health: Can mobile technology make a difference? Infor-
mation Systems Management 187-199https:// doi. org/ 10.
1080/ 10580 530. 2014. 923263
Chalmers, D. (2012). Social innovation: An exploration of the
barriers faced by innovating organizations in the social
economy. Local Economy, 28(1), 17–34. https:// doi. org/
10. 1177/ 02690 94212 463677
Chalmers, D. M., & Balan-Vnuk, E. (2012). Innovating not-for-
profit social ventures: Exploring the microfoundations of
internal and external absorptive capacity routines. Inter-
national Small Business Journal, 31(7), 785–810. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02662 42612 465630
Chell, E. (2007). Social enterprise and entrepreneurship:
Towards a convergent theory of the entrepreneurial pro-
cess. International Small Business Journal, 25(1), 5–26.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02662 42607 071779
Chell, E., Nicolopoulou, K., & Karataş-Özkan, M. (2010).
Social entrepreneurship and enterprise: International and
innovation perspectives. Entrepreneurship & Regional
Development, 22(6), 485–493. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
08985 626. 2010. 488396
Chesbrough, H., Minin, A.D., 2014. Open social innovation.
In: Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J. (Eds.)
New frontiers in open innovation. Oxford University
Press: Oxford.
Chesbrough, H., Bogers, M., 2014. Explicating open innova-
tion: Clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding
innovation. In: Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West,
J. (Eds.) New frontiers in open innovation. Oxford Uni-
versity Press, Oxford.
Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation. Harvard Business
School Press.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2006a). Open innovation: The new imper-
ative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard
Business School Press.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2006b). Open innovation: A research
agenda. In H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverberke, & J.
West (Eds.), Open innovation: Researching a new para-
digm (pp. 1–14). Oxford University Press.
Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverberke, W., & West, J. (2006).
Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford
University Press.
Chiang, Y.-H., & Hung, K.-P. (2010). Exploring open search
strategies and perceived innovation performance from
the perspective of inter-organizational knowledge flows.
R & D Management, 40(3), 292–299. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1111/j. 1467- 9310. 2010. 00588.x
Choi, N., & Majumdar, S. (2014). Social entrepreneurship as
an essentially contested concept: Opening a new avenue
for systematic future research. Journal of Business Ven-
turing, 29(3), 363–376. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusv
ent. 2013. 05. 001
Christensen, C. M., Grossman, J. H., & Hwang, J. (2009). The
innovator’s prescription. McGraw-Hill.
CIC Regulator Report 2017/18. Annual Report 2017/18. Reg-
ulator of community interest companies. Available at
https:// www. gov. uk/ gover nment/ publi catio ns/ cic- regul
ator- annual- report- 2017- to- 2018
CIC Regulator Report 2018/19. Annual Report 2018/19. Reg-
ulator of community interest companies. Available at
https:// www. gov. uk/ gover nment/ publi catio ns/ cic- regul
ator- annual- report- 2018- to- 2019
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity:
A new perspective of learning and innovation. Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128–152. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 2307/ 23935 53
Cooney, K. (2011). An exploratory study of social purpose
business models in the United States. Nonprofit and Vol-
untary Sector Quarterly, 40, 185–196. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1177/ 08997 64009 351591
Corner, P. D., & Ho, M. (2010). How opportunities develop in
social entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 33(4), 635–659. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1540-
6520. 2010. 00382.x
Cox, D. R., & Snell, E. J. (1989). Analysis of binary data (2nd
ed.). Chapman and Hall.
Cukier, W., Trenholm, S., Carl, D., & Gekas, G. (2011). Social
entrepreneurship: A content analysis. Journal of Strate-
gic Innovation Sustainability, 7(1), 99–119. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1007/ s11846- 013- 0104-6
Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., & Tracey, P. (2011). Social entre-
preneurship: A critique and future directions. Organiza-
tion Science, 22(5), 1203–1213. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/
orsc. 1100. 0620
Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innova-
tion? Research Policy, 39(6), 699–709. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. respol. 2010. 01. 013
Dart, R. (2004). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit
Management & Leadership, 14(4), 411–424. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1002/ nml. 43
Datta, P. B. (2011). Exploring the evolution of social innova-
tion: A case study from India. International Journal of
192
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Social innovation, goal orientation, and openness: insights from social enterprise hybrids
1 3
Vol.: (0123456789)
Technology Management and Sustainable Development,
10(1), 55–75. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1386/ tmsd. 10.1. 55_1
Dawson, P. M., & Daniel, L. (2010). Understanding social
innovation: A provisional framework. International
Journal of Technology Management, 51(1), 9–12. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1504/ IJTM. 2010. 033125
DBIS, 2015. UK innovation survey 2012–2014. Department
of Business Innovation & Skills. Office of National
Statistics.
Defourny, J., Nyssens, M., 2010. Defining social enterprise.
In: M. Nyssens (Ed.), Social enterprise in Europe: At the
crossroads of market, public policies and civic society.
Routledge, London.
Di Domenico, M. D., Haugh, H., & Tracey, P. (2010). Social
bricolage: Theorizing social value creation in social
enterprises. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
34(4), 681–703. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1540- 6520.
2010. 00370.x
Dietrich, M., Znotka, M., Guthor, H., & Hilfinger, F. (2016).
Instrumental and non-instrumental factors of social inno-
vation adoption. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(4), 1950–
1978. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11266- 018- 9987-9
Doherty, B., Davies, I. A., & Trenchall, S. (2013). Where now
for fair trade? Business History, 55(2), 161–189. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00076 791. 2012. 692083
Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprise
as hybrids: Review and research agenda. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417–436. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ijmr. 12028
Drechsler, W., & Natter, M. (2012). Understanding a firm’s
openness decisions in innovation. Journal of Business
Research, 65(3), 438–445. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr
es. 2011. 11. 003
DTI, 2005. Explanatory memorandum to the community
interest company regulation 2005. Department for
Trade and Industry, London. http:// www. opsi. gov. uk/ si/
si2005/ draft/ em/ uksid em_ 01107 23538_ en. pdf Accessed
3.01.2019.
Dziallas, M., & Blind, K. (2019). Innovation indicators
throughout the innovation process: An extensive litera-
ture analysis. Technovation, 80–81, 3–19. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. techn ovati on. 2018. 05. 005
Edwards-Schachter, M., & Wallace, M. L. (2017). ‘Shaken,
but not stirred’: Sixty years of defining social innovation.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119(4),
64–79. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2017. 03. 012
Eichler, G. M., & Schwartz, E. J. (2019). What sustainabil-
ity development goals do social innovations address? A
systematic review and content analysis of social innova-
tion literature. Sustainability, 11, 522. https:// doi. org/ 10.
3390/ su110 20522
Evers, A. (2005). Mixed welfare systems and hybrid organiza-
tions: Changes in the governance and provision of social
services. International Journal of Public Administration,
28(9–10), 737–748. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1081/ PAD- 20006
7318
Farny, S., Kibler, E., Hai, S., & Landoni, P. (2018). Volunteer
retention in prosocial venturing: The role of emotional
connectivity. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
43(6), 1094–1123. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10422 58718
769055
Fawcett, B., & Hanlon, M. (2009). The return to community:
Challenges to human service professionals. Journal of
Sociology, 45(4), 432–444. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ijmr.
12028
Fey, C. F., & Birkinshaw, J. (2005). External sources of knowl-
edge, governance mode and R&D performance. Journal
of Management, 31(4), 597–621. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
01492 06304 272346
Foroudi, P., Akarsu, T. N., Marvi, R., & Balakrishnan, J.
(2021). Intellectual evolution of social innovation: A bib-
liometric analysis and avenues for future research trends.
Industrial Marketing Management, 93, 446–465. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. indma rman. 2020. 03. 026
Franklin, A., Kovách, L., & Csurgó, B. (2017). Governing
social innovation: Exploring the role of ‘discretionary
practice’ in the negotiation of shred spaces of community
food growing. Sociologia Ruralis, 57, 439–458. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1111/ soru. 12126
Freel, M. S. (2005). Patterns of innovation and skills in small
firms. Technovation, 25(2), 123–134. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/ S0166- 4972(03) 00082-8
Giudici, A., Combs, J. G., Cannatelli, B. L., & Smith, B. R.
(2020). Successful scaling in social franchising: The case
of impact hub. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
44(2), 288–314. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10422 58718
801593
Graddy-Reed, A., & Feldman, M. P. (2015). Stepping up: An
empirical analysis of the role of social innovation in
response to ab economic recession. Cambridge Journal
of Regional Economic Society, 8(2), 293–312. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1093/ cjres/ rsv008
Greene, W. H. (2012). Econometric analysis. Prentice Hall.
Grieco, C., Michelini, L., & Iasevoli, G. (2015). Measuring
value creation in social enterprises: A cluster analysis of
social impact assessment models. Nonprofit and Volun-
tary Sector Quarterly, 44(6), 1173–1193. https:// doi. org/
10. 1177/ 08997 64014 555986
Haigh, N., Walker, J., Bacq, S., & Kickul, J. (2015). Hybrid
organizations: Origins, strategies, impacts and impli-
cations. California Management Review, 57(3), 5–12.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1525/ cmr. 2015. 57.3.5
Harison, E., & Koski, H. (2010). Applying open innovation
in business strategies Evidence from Finnish software
firms. Research Policy, 39(3), 351–359. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/j. respol. 2010. 01. 008
Haugh, H. (2021). Social economy advancement: From volun-
tary to secure commitments to public benefit. Journal of
Management History, 27(2), 263–287. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1108/ JMH- 06- 2020- 0035
Haugh, H., & Kitson, M. (2007). The third way and the third
sector: New Labour’s economic policy and the social
economy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(6), 973–
994. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ cje/ bem027
Haugh, H., Robson, P., Hagerdorn, J., & Sugar, K. (2022). The
nascent ecology of social enterprise hybrids. Small Busi-
ness Economics, 58, 1223–1242. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s11187- 020- 00442-9
Henkel, J., Schoberl, S., & Alexy, O. (2014). The emergence of
openness: How and why firms adopt selective revealing
193
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

J. Hagedoorn et al.
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
in open innovation. Research Policy, 43(5), 879–890.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. respol. 2013. 08. 014
Herrera, M. E. B. (2015). Creating corporate advantage by
institutionalizing social innovation. Journal of Business
Research, 68, 1468–1474. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr
es. 2015. 01. 036
Hibbert, S., Hogg, G., & Quinn, T. (2002). Consumer
responses to social entrepreneurship: The case of the Big
Issue in Scotland. International Journal of Non-Profit
Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(3), 288–301. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1002/ nvsm. 186
Hidalgo, A., & D’Alvano, L. (2014). Service innovation:
Inward and outward related activities and cooperation
mode. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 698–703.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es. 2013. 11. 030
Holmes, S., & Smart, P. (2009). Exploring open innovation
practice in firm-nonprofit engagements: A corporate
social responsibility perspective. R&D Management,
39(4), 394–409. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467- 9310.
2009. 00569.x
Hostick-Boakye, S., Hothi, M., 2011. Grow your own. How
local authorities can support social enterprise. The
Young Foundation, London.
Hunt, A., Robson, P.J.R., Westhead, P., 2009. Survey of Busi-
ness Owners. University of Durham.
Huq, J.-L. (2019). Conditioning a professional exchange field
for social innovation. Business & Society, 58(5), 1047–
1082. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00076 50318 758321
Huybrechts, B., & Haugh, H. (2017). The roles of networks
in institutionalizing new organizational forms: Insights
from the European renewable energy cooperative net-
work. Organization Studies, 39(8), 1085–1108. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01708 40617 717097
Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Majchrzak, A. (2008). Knowledge collabo-
ration among professionals protecting national security:
Role of transactive memories in ego-centered knowledge
networks. Organization Science, 19(2), 260–276. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 1070. 0315
Jensen, P. H., & Fersch, B. (2019). Institutional entrepreneurs
and social innovation in Danish senior care. Administra-
tion & Society, 51(2), 250–271. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
00953 99715 624945
Katre, A., & Salipante, P. (2012). Start-up social ventures:
Blending fine-grained behaviours from two institutions
for entrepreneurial success. Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, 36(5), 967–994. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j.
1540- 6520. 2012. 00536.x
Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States and
Europe: Understanding and learning from the differ-
ences. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary
and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(3), 247–263. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1177/ 00953 99715 624945
Kickul, J., Terjesen, S., & Justo, R. (2013). Small business
economics special issue introduction. Small Business
Economics, 40(3), 687–691. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s11187- 011- 9397-5
Kostopoulos, K., Papalexandris, A., Papachroni, M., & Ioan-
nou, G. (2011). Absorptive capacity, innovation, and
financial performance. Journal of Business Research,
64(12), 1335–1343. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusr es.
2010. 12. 005
Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. W. (1993). Conduct-
ing inter-organizational research using key informants.
Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1663–1751.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ 256824
Kunze, I. (2012). Social innovations for communal and eco-
logical living Lessons from sustainability research and
observations in intentional communities. Communal
Societies, 32(1), 50–67.
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role
of openness in explaining innovation performance among
UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal,
27(2), 131–150. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. respol. 2013. 07.
004
Lawrence, T. B., Dover, G., & Gallagher, B. (2015). Manag-
ing social innovation. In M. Dodgson, D. M. Gann, & N.
Phillips (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation man-
agement (pp. 316–334). Oxford University Press.
Lazzarotti, V., Manzini, R., & Pellegrini, L. (2011). Firm-spe-
cific factors and the openness degree: A survey of Ital-
ian firms. European Journal of Innovation Management,
14(4), 412–434. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 14601 06111
11748 99
Le Ber, M. J., & Branzei, O. (2010). (Re)forming strategic
cross-sector partnerships: Relational processes of social
innovation. Business & Society, 49, 140–172. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1177/ 00076 50309 345457
Lee, M., & Jay, J. (2015). Strategic responses to hybrid social
ventures. California Management Review, 57(3), 126–
147. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1525/ cmr. 2015. 57.3. 126
Leiponen, A. (2000). Competencies, innovation and profitabil-
ity of firms. Economics of Innovation and New Technol-
ogy, 9(1), 1–24. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10438 59000
00000 01
Leiponen, A. (2005). Organization of knowledge and innova-
tion: The case of Finnish business services. Industrial
Innovation, 12(2), 185–203. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
13662 71050 00879 25
Leiponen, A., & Helfat, C. E. (2010). Innovation objectives,
knowledge sources, and the benefits of breadth. Strategic
Management Journal, 31(2), 224–236. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1002/ smj. 807
Lepoutre, J., Justo, R., Terjesen, S., & Bosma, N. (2013).
Designing a global standardised methodology for meas-
uring social entrepreneurship activity: The global entre-
preneurship monitor social entrepreneurship study. Small
Business Economics, 40(3), 693–714. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1007/ s11187- 011- 9398-4
Lettice, F., & Parekh, M. (2010). The social innovation pro-
cess: Themes, challenges and implications for practice.
International Journal of Technology Management, 51,
139–158. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1504/ IJTM. 2010. 033133
Liket, K., & Maas, K. (2016). Strategic philanthropy: Corpo-
rate measurement of philanthropic impacts as a require-
ment for a “happy marriage” of business and society.
Business & Society, 55(6), 889–921. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1177/ 00076 50314 565356
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for com-
mon method variance in cross-sectional research designs.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0021- 9010. 86.1. 114
194
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Social innovation, goal orientation, and openness: insights from social enterprise hybrids
1 3
Vol.: (0123456789)
Liu, G., Eng, T.-Y., & Takeda, S. (2015). An investigation of
marketing capabilities and social enterprise performance
in the UK and Japan. Entrepreneurship Theory and Prac-
tice, 39(2), 267–298. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ etap. 12041
Liu, X. (2015). Applied ordinal logistic regression using Stata.
Sage.
Long, J. S. (1997). Regression models for categorical and lim-
ited dependent variables. Sage.
Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2014). Regression models for categor-
ical dependent variables using Stata (3rd ed.). College
Station, Texas.
Louviere, J. J., Hensher, A. D., & Swait, D. J. (2000). Stated
choice methods. Cambridge University Press.
Love, J. H., & Roper, S. (2001). Location and network effects
on innovation success: Evidence for UK, German and
Irish manufacturing plants. Research Policy, 30(4), 643–
661. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0048- 7333(00) 00098-6
Love, J. H., Roper, S., & Vahter, P. (2014). Learning from
openness: The dynamics of breadth in external innova-
tion linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 35(11),
1703–1716. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2170
Low, C. (2006). A framework for the governance of social
enterprises. International Journal of Social Economics,
33(5/6), 376–385. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 03068 29061
06606 52
Luke, B., & Chu, V. (2013). Social enterprise versus social
entrepreneurship: An examination of the ‘why’ and
’how’ in pursuing social change. International Small
Business Journal, 31(7), 764–784. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1177/ 02662 42612 462598
Lyon, F., 2012. Social innovation, co-operation, and competi-
tion: Inter-organizational relations for social enterprise
in the delivery of public services. In A. Nicholls and A.
Murdock (Eds.) Social innovation. Palgrave, London, pp.
139–161. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ 97802 30367 098_6
Mair, J., & Martì, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research:
A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Jour-
nal of World Business, 41(1), 36–44. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. jwb. 2005. 09. 002
Mair, J., Martì, I., & Ventresca, M. J. (2012). Building inclu-
sive markets in rural Bangladesh: How intermediaries
work institutional voids. Academy of Management Jour-
nal, 55(4), 819–850. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amj. 2010.
0627
Martin, R.L., Osberg S., 2007. Social entrepreneurship: The
case for definition. Stanford Social Innovation Review
Spring, 28–39. https:// ssir. org/ artic les/ entry/ social_ entre
prene urship_ the_ case_ for_ defin ition#
McCartt, A. T., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1995). Managerial openness
to change and the introduction of GDSS: Explaining ini-
tial success and failure in decision conferencing. Organi-
zation Science, 6(5), 569–584. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/
orsc.6. 5. 569
McDonald, R. (2007). An investigation of innovation in non-
profit organizations: The role of organizational mission.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(2), 256–
281. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 08997 64006 295996
McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualita-
tive choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in
econometrics (pp. 105–142). Academic Press.
Melnyk, S. A., Sroufe, R. P., & Calantone, R. (2003). Assess-
ing the impact of environmental management systems on
corporate and environmental performance. Journal of
Operation Management, 21(3), 329–351. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/ S0272- 6963(02) 00109-2
Menard, S. (2000). Coefficients of determination for multiple
logistic regression analysis. The American Statistician,
54(1), 17–24. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 00031 305. 2000.
10474 502
Miller, T. L., Grimes, M. G., McMullen, J. S., & Vogus, T. J.
(2012). Venturing for others with heart and head: How
compassion encourages social entrepreneurship. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 37(4), 616–640. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 5465/ amr. 2010. 0456
Mina, A., Bascavusoglu-Moreau, E., & Hughes, A. (2014).
Open service innovation and the firm’s search for exter-
nal knowledge. Research Policy, 43(5), 853–866. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. respol. 2013. 07. 004
Mirvis, P., Herrera, M. E. B., Googins, B., & Albareda, L.
(2016). Corporate social innovation: How firms learn
to innovate for the greater good. Journal of Business
Research, 69(11), 5014–5021. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
jbusr es. 2016. 04. 073
Mittlbock, M., & Schemper, M. (1996). Explained variation
in logistic regression. Statistics in Medicine, 15, 1987–
1997. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ (SICI) 1097- 0258(19961
015) 15: 19% 3c198 7:: AID- SIM318% 3e3.0. CO;2-9
Moizer, J., & Tracey, P. (2010). Strategy making in social
enterprise: The role of resource allocation and its effect
on organizational sustainability. Systems Research &
Behavioral Science, 27(3), 252–266. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1002/ sres. 1006
Molecke, G., & Pinkse, J. (2017). Accountability for social
impact: A bricolage perspective on impact measurement
in social enterprises. Journal of Business Venturing,
32(5), 550–568. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jbusv ent. 2017.
05. 003
Moulaert, F., MacCallum, D., Mehmood, M., & Hamdouch, A.
(2013). The international handbook on social innovation.
Edward Elgar.
Mulgan, G., 2015. Forward. The study of social innovation –
theory, practice and progress. In A. Nicholls, J. Simon
and M. Gabriel (Eds.), New frontiers in social innovation
research. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. x-xx.
Mulgan, G. (2006). The process of social innovation. Innova-
tions, 1(2), 145–162. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1162/ itgg. 2006.1.
2. 145
Munoz, P., Kimmit, J., & Dimov, D. (2020). Packs, troops and
herds: Prosocial cooperatives and innovation in the new
normal. Journal of Management Studies, 57(3), 470–503.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ joms. 12542
Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J., Mulgan, G., 2010. The open
book of social innovation. The Young Foundation and
NESTA, London. Available at https:// young found ation.
org/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2012/ 10/ The- Open- Book- of-
Social- Innov ationg. pdf
NatWest SE100 2020. Available at https:// www. pione erspo st.
com/ se100 index
Neumeier, S. (2012). Why do social innovations in rural devel-
opment matter and should they be considered more seri-
ously in rural development research? Sociologia Ruralis,
195
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

J. Hagedoorn et al.
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
52(1), 48–69. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1467- 9523. 2011.
00553.x
Nieto, M. J., & Santamaría, L. (2007). The importance of
diverse collaborative networks for the novelty of product
innovation. Technovation, 27(6–7), 367–377. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1016/j. techn ovati on. 2006. 10. 001
Ongondo, F. O., Williams, I. D., Dietrich, J., & Carroll, C.
(2013). ICT reuse in socio-economic enterprises. Waste
Management, 33(12), 2600–2606. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. wasman. 2013. 08. 020
Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2012). Inside the hybrid organiza-
tion: Selective coupling as a response to competing insti-
tutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4),
972–1001. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amj. 2011. 0405
Parrish, B. D. (2010). Sustainability-driven entrepreneurship:
Principles of organization design. Journal of Business
Venturing, 25(5), 510–523. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
jbusv ent. 2009. 05. 005
Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007). Understanding and
mitigating uncertainty in online exchange relationships:
A principal-agent perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(1),
105–136. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 25148 783
Perkmann, M., & Walsh, K. (2007). University-industry rela-
tionships and open innovation: Towards a research
agenda. International Journal Management Reviews,
9(4), 259–280. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1468- 2370. 2007.
00225.x
Perrini, F., Vurro, C., & Costanzo, L. A. (2010). A process-
based view of social entrepreneurship: From opportunity
identification to scaling up change in the case of San
Patrignano. Entrepreneurship and Regional Develop-
ment, 22(6), 515–534. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08985 626.
2010. 488402
Phillips, W., Alexander, E. A., & Lee, H. (2019). Going it
alone won’t work! The relational imperative for social
innovation in social enterprises. Journal of Busi-
ness Ethics, 156, 315–331. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10551- 017- 3608-1
Phillips, W., Lee, H., James, P., Ghobadian, A., Regan, N., &
James, P. (2015). Social innovation and social entrepre-
neurship: A systematic review. Group and Organization
Management, 40(3), 428–461. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/
10596 01114 560063
Phills, J.A., Deiglemeier, K., Miller, D.T., 2008. Rediscover-
ing social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review
6(4), 34–43. https:// ssir. org/ artic les/ entry/ redis cover ing_
social_ innov ation
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff,
N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioural
research: A critical review of the literature and recom-
mended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5),
879–903. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0021- 9010. 88.5. 879
Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organ-
izational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of
Management, 12(4), 531–544. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/
0021- 9010. 88.5. 879
Pol, E., & Ville, S. (2009). Social innovation: Buzz word or
enduring term? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(6),
878–885. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. socec. 2009. 02. 011
Radoynovska, N., & Ruttan, R. (2022). A matter of transition:
Authenticity judgements and attracting employees to
hybridized organizations. Organization Science, Articles
in Advance. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 2021. 1495
Rana, N. P., Weerakkody, V., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Piercy, N. C.
(2014). Profiling existing research on social innovation in
the public sector. Information Systems Management, 31,
259–273. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10580 530. 2014. 923271
Rao, P., & Holt, D. (2005). Do green supply chains lead to
competitiveness and economic performance? Interna-
tional Journal of Operation Production Management,
25(9), 898–916. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 01443 57051
06139 56
Rawhouser, H., Cummings, M., & Newbert, S. L. (2019).
Social impact measurement: Current approaches and
future directions for social entrepreneurship research.
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 43(1), 82–115.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10422 58717 727718
Richardson, H. A., Simmering, M. J., & Sturman, M. C.
(2009). A tale of three perspectives: Examining post
hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction
of common method variance. Organizational Research
Methods, 12(4), 762–800. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10944
28109 332834
Rodin, J. (2010). Social Innovation, civic infrastructure, and
rebuilding New Orleans from the inside out. Innovations
technology, governance and globalization, 5(3), 13–20.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1162/ INOV_a_ 00023
Rodriguez, M., Doloreux, D., & Shearmur, R. (2016). Innova-
tion strategies, innovator types and openness: A study of
KIBS firms in Spain. Services Business, 10(3), 629–649.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11628- 015- 0286-x
Rodriguez, M., Doloreux, D., & Shearmur, R. (2017). Variety
in external knowledge sourcing and innovation novelty:
Evidence from the KIBS sector in Spain. Technovation,
68, 35–43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techn ovati on. 2017.
06. 003
Rothwell, R., Freeman, C., Horseley, A., Jervis, V. T. P., &
Townsend, J. (1974). Sappho updated – Project Sappho
phase II. Research Policy, 3(3), 204–225. https:// doi. org/
10. 1016/ 0048- 7333(93) 90058-P
Rubulcaba, L., Michel, S., Sundbo, J., Brown, S. B., & Rey-
noso, J. (2012). Shaping, organizing, and rethinking ser-
vice innovation: A multidimensional framework. Journal
of Services Management, 23(5), 696–715. https:// doi. org/
10. 1108/ 09564 23121 12698 47
Santos, F. M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepre-
neurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335–351.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10551- 012- 1413-4
Santos, P., Pache, A.-C., & Birkholz, C. (2015). Making
hybrids work: Aligning business models and organiza-
tional design for social enterprises. California Manage-
ment Review, 57(3), 36–58. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1525/ cmr.
2015. 57.3. 36
Scott-Cato, M., & Hillier, J. (2010). How would we study
climate-related social innovation? Applying Deleuzian
philosophy to transition towns. Environmental Politics,
19(6), 869–887. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 09644 016. 2010.
518677
Sengupta, S., Sahay, A., & Hisrich, R. D. (2020). The social
– market convergence in a renewable energy social enter-
prise. Journal of Cleaner Production, 270, 1–15. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jclep ro. 2020. 122516
196
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Social innovation, goal orientation, and openness: insights from social enterprise hybrids
1 3
Vol.: (0123456789)
Seyfang, G. (2004). Working outside the box: Community
currencies, time banks and social inclusion. Journal of
Social Policy, 33(1), 49–71. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/
S0047 27940 30072 32
Seyfang, G., Hielscher, S., Hargreaves, T., Martiskainen, M., &
Smith, A. (2014). A grassroots sustainable energy niche?
Reflections on community energy in the UK. Environ-
mental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 13, 21–44.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eist. 2014. 04. 004
Sood, A., & Tellis, G. J. (2009). Do innovations really pay
off? Total stock market returns to innovation. Marketing
Science, 28(3), 442–456. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ mksc.
1080. 0407
StataCorp., 2013. Stata Statistical Software. Release 13. Stata-
Corp LP, College Station, TX.
Stevens, R., Moray, N., Bruneel, J., & Clarysse, B. (2015).
Attention allocation to multiple goals: The case of for-
profit social enterprises. Strategic Management Journal,
36(7), 1006–1016. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2265
Surie, G. (2017). Creating the innovation ecosystem for renew-
able energy via social entrepreneurship: Insights from
India. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
121, 184–195. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techf ore. 2017. 03.
006
Svensson, P., & Bengtsson, L. (2010). ‘Users’ influence on
social service innovations: Two Swedish case stud-
ies. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(2), 190–212.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 19420 676. 2010. 511813
Teasdale, S. (2012). What’s in a name? Making sense of
social enterprise discourses. Public Policy Admin, 27(2),
99–119. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09520 76711 401466
The Young Foundation, 2012. Defining social innovation – Part
one of social innovation overview: A deliverable pro-
ject: “The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations
for building social innovation in Europe” (TEPSIE). In:
European Commission – 7th Framework Programme,
Brussels: European Commission. DG Research.
Thompson, J., & Doherty, B. (2006). The diverse world of
social enterprise. International Journal of Social Eco-
nomics, 33(5/6), 361–375. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 03068
29061 06606 43
Tödtling, F., Lehner, P., & Kaufman, A. (2009). Do different
types of innovation rely on specific kinds of knowledge
interactions? Technovation, 29(1), 59–71. https:// doi. org/
10. 12691/ seg-1- 1- 310. 12691/ seg-1- 1-3
Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (2011). Bridging institu-
tional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organiza-
tional forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science,
22(1), 60–80. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 1090. 0522
Tracey, P., & Stott, N. (2017). Social innovation: A window
on alternative ways of organizing and innovating. Inno-
vation, 19(1), 51–60. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14479 338.
2016. 12689 24
Uyarra, E., Edler, J., Garcia-Estevez, J., Georghiou, L., &
Yeow, J. (2014). Barriers to innovation through public
procurement: A supplier perspective. Technovation, 34,
631–645. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techn ovati on. 2014. 04.
003
van der Have, R. P., & Rubulcaba, L. (2016). Social innova-
tion research: An emerging area of innovation studies.
Research Policy, 45(9), 1923–1935. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. respol. 2016. 06. 010
van Sandt, C., Sud, M., & Marmé, C. (2009). Enabling the
original intent: Catalysts for social entrepreneurship.
Journal of Business Ethics, 90(S3), 419–428. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1007/ s10551- 010- 0419-z
van Wijk, J., Zietsma, C., Dorado, S., de Bakker, F. G. A., &
Martí, I. (2018). Social innovation: Integrating micro,
meso and macro level insights from institutional theory.
Business & Society, 58(5), 887–918. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1177/ 00076 50318 789104
Vickers, F., Lyon, F., Sepulveda, L., & McMullin, M. (2017).
Public service innovation and multiple institutional log-
ics: The case of hybrid social enterprise providers of
health and wellbeing. Research Policy, 46(10), 1755–
1768. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. respol. 2017. 08. 003
Vickers, I., & Lyon, F. (2014). Beyond green niches? Growth
strategies for environmentally-motivated social enter-
prises. International Small Business Journal, 32(4), 449–
470. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02662 42612 457700
Villeneuve-Smith, F., & Temple, N. (2015). State of social
enterprise survey. Social Enterprise UK.
Vivas, C., & Barge-Gil, A. (2015). Impact on firms of the use
of knowledge external sources: A systematic literature
review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 29(5), 943–964.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ joes. 12089
Volkmann, C., Fichter, K., Klofsen, M., & Audretsch, D.
B. (2021). Sustainable entrepreneurial ecosystems:
An emerging field of research. Small Business Eco-
nomics, 56(3), 1047–1055. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s11187- 019- 00253-7
Von Hippel, E. (1976). The dominant role of users in the sci-
entific instrument innovation process. Research Policy,
5(3), 212–239. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 0048- 7333(76)
90028-7
Von Hippel, E. (1988). The Sources of Innovation. Oxford Uni-
versity Press.
Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G.
(2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-pro-
duction: Embarking on the social innovation journey.
Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14719 037. 2014. 930505
Weber, C., Kröger, A., & Demitras, C. (2015). Scaling social
impact in Europe. Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Weber, C., & Lambrich, K. (2013). Social entrepreneurship
survey. Leibniz University.
Weerawardena, J., & Mort, G. S. (2006). Investigating social
entrepreneurship: A multidimensional model. Journal of
World Business, 41(1), 21–35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j.
jwb. 2005. 09. 001
West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging from external inno-
vation: A review of research on open innovation. Jour-
nal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), 814–831.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jpim. 12125
West, J., & Bogers, M. (2017). Open innovation: Current sta-
tus and research opportunities. Innovation Organization
& Management, 19(1), 43–50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/
14479 338. 2016. 12589 95
West, J., Salter, A., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Chesbrough, H.
(2014). Open innovation: The next decade. Research
197
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

J. Hagedoorn et al.
1 3
Vol:. (1234567890)
Policy, 43(5), 805–811. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. respol.
2014. 03. 001
Westley, F., Antadze, N., 2010. Making a difference: Strategies
for scaling social innovation for greater impact. Innova-
tion Journal 15(2), 3–20. https:// www. innov ation. cc/
schol arly- style/ 2010_ 15_2_ 2_ westl ey- antad ze_ social-
innov ate. pdf
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 crea-
tion. Small Business Economics, 40(3), 715–773. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11187- 011- 9401-0
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. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1016/j. jbusv ent. 2008. 04. 007
Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., & Tam, C. M. (2010). Relationship
between cooperation networks and innovation perfor-
mance of SMEs. Technovation, 30(3), 181–194. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techn ovati on. 2009. 08. 003
Zobel, A.-K., Lokshin, B., & Hagedoorn, J. (2017). Formal
and informal appropriation mechanisms: The role of
openness and innovativeness. Technovation, 59, 44–54.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. techn ovati on. 2016. 10. 001
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
198
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”),
for small-scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are
maintained. By accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use
(“Terms”). For these purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or
a personal subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or
a personal subscription (to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the
Creative Commons license used will apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data
internally within ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking,
analysis and reporting. We will not otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of
companies unless we have your permission as detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that
Users may not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to
circumvent access control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil
liability, or is otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by
Springer Nature in writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer
Nature journal content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates
revenue, royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain.
Springer Nature journal content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal
content on a large scale into their, or any other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any
information or content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or
without notice. Springer Nature may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature
journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express
or implied with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or
warranties imposed by law, including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be
licensed from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other
manner not expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com