BETWEEN MISSION AND MONEY: A LESSON LEARNED FROM SOCIAL ENTERPRISE IDENTITY

(1)

VOLUME 21 ISSUE 4 DECEMBER 2023 JURNAL APLIKASI MANAJEMEN

977

JAM

J u r n a l A p l i k a s i M a n a j e m e n J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d M a n a g e m e n t

V o l u m e 2 1 I s s u e 4 D e c e m b e r 2 0 2 3

2 1 | 4 | 2 0 2 3

R e c e i v e d S e p t e m b e r ‘ 2 3 R e v i s e d S e p t e m b e r ‘ 2 3 O c t o b e r ‘ 2 3 A c c e p t e d N o v e m b e r ‘ 2 3

BETWEEN MISSION AND MONEY:

A LESSON LEARNED FROM SOCIAL ENTERPRISE IDENTITY

Anita Wijayanti I Made Narsa

Airlangga University, Indonesia

Abstract: Social Entrepreneurship is a popular business model that proposes entrepreneurship to solve social and environmental problems by selling products or services. In Indonesia, the development of the number and awareness of entrepreneurs supported by the Social Entrepreneurship ecosystem is growing. However, due to the need for a unified definition of 'Social Entrepreneur- ship' and the slow pace of formal recognition from the government, organizations have developed with mixed practices and results. This study aims to describe the practice of Social Enterprise through the disclosure of corporate identity. Using Identity and Stakeholder Theory, this study explores the five characteristics of identity: mission, activity, governance, performance, and accountability. This multiple case study uses 10 Indonesian Social Enterprises.

Data was obtained mainly through the company website, supported by interviews and presentations by CEO of Social Enterprise at various webinars in 2022 and 2023. Data analysis uses Nvivo to find themes from various Social Enterprise identity criteria groups. The results show that Social Enterprise has a unique mission and activities that carry a social value where community, empowerment, welfare and sustainability are more emphasized than profit. In- stitutional commitment as a Social Enterprise is proven by disclosing the impact achieved through impact reports, impact achievement profiles, SDG achievements, or articles in the news column. However, financial performance is rarely disclosed, even though several companies have disclosed the distribution of their profits. Accountability practice in formal and informal to its stakeholder. This study provides guidelines for how companies disclose and be accountable for their identity as a Social Enterprise.

Keywords: Social Enterprise, Identity Theory, Social Value, Impact, Ac- countability

CITATION

Wijayanti, A. and Narsa, I. M. 2023. Between Mission and Money: A Lesson Learned Form Social Enterprise Identity. Jurnal Aplikasi Manajemen, Volume 21, Issue 4, Pages 977-990. Malang: Uni- versitas Brawijaya. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21776/ub.jam.2023.021.04.09.

I N D E X E D I N

D O A J - D i r e c t o r y o f O p e n A c c e s s J o u r n a l s

S I N T A - S c i e n c e a n d T e c h n o l o g y I n d e x

D i m e n s i o n s G o o g l e S c h o l a r R e s e a c h G a t e G a r u d a

I P I - I n d o n e s i a n P u b l i c a t i o n I n d e x

I n d o n e s i a n O N E S e a r c h

C O R R E S P O ND I N G A U T H O R

I M a d e N a r s a

F a k u l t a s E k o n o m i d a n B i s n i s U n i v e r s i t a s A i r l a n g g a , I n d o n e s i a

E M A I L

i - m a d e - n @ f e b . u n a i r . a c . i d

OPEN ACCESS

e I S S N 2 3 0 2 - 6 3 3 2 p I S S N 1 6 9 3 - 5 2 4 1

(2)

VOLUME 21 ISSUE 4 DECEMBER 2023

WIJAYANTI AND NARSA (2023) JURNAL APLIKASI MANAJEMEN

978

INTRODUCTION

Like other countries, Social Enterprise as an impactful business practice is becoming a trend in Indonesia. Social Enterprise is a third-sector organization becoming convergent from the traditional public,commercialbusiness,andthenot-for-profit sectors (Doherty et al., 2014; Ebrahim et al., 2014;

Grassl, 2012; Ridley-Duff, 2008). Through Presi- dential Regulation No. 2 of 2022 concerning the Development of the National Entrepreneurship for 2021-2024, the Indonesian government has legally recognized and clarified the identity of organizations with Social Enterprise status. However, existing Social Enterprises have practiced with a diverse of legal entities to date. It happens because there is no specific legal entity for Social Enterprises as enforcedbytheUnitedStatesandtheUnitedKing- dom.Theabsenceofspecificlegalentitiescanalso result in limited or even too broad practices beyo- nd the organization's status as a Social Enterprise, especially those under the criteria mandated by the Presidential Regulation No. 2 of 2022. Referring to the reports of two Social Enterprise-enabling institutions in Indonesia, PLUS and the British Cou- ncil, Social Enterprise practices with various legal entities such as Private Companies, Foundations, Cooperatives, and the others without legal entities.

This reality raises questions about how existing Social Enterprises have fulfilled the identity criteria mandated by Presidential Regulation No. 2 of 2022.

This study is motivated by many reasons.

First, the expansion of Social Enterprise and its gr- eat interest in practice, but further improvement is needed in the study of the Indonesian context. Ba- sed on the 2020 British Council report, it is estimated that the number of Social Enterprises in Indo- nesia has reached 342,000, although only 2,000 companies have been identified. However, the ex- act practice and the company's development still need to be explored. This ambiguity is due to the unavailability of a single definition and of a government body that accredits an organization labeled Social Enterprise, where this reality is different from Malaysia (Nadzri et al., 2021). Based on those phenomena, the extent to which organizations labeled Social Enterprise meet these criteria is still opentoexplore.Second,SocialEnterpriseisanes- sential organization because of its impactful contribution to the community's social, economic, and

environmental development and its ability to solve social problems and drive cultural change through innovative ideas and sustainable solutions (Alti- nay et al., 2016; Gidron and Monnickendam‐Giv- on, 2017; Singgalen, 2022). Therefore, understanding the identity of Social Enterprise, which is rec- ognizedasuniqueinconceptandpractice,willpro- vide an overview of existing practices in Indone- sia.

Furthermore, the results can be used to str- engthen the existence and development of newly established organizations. Third, this study emph- asizes more in accountability practices where no disclosure or reporting guidelines exist, particularly in Indonesia. Fourth, as internet use increases, the Social Enterprises, like other organizations, can use their websites to disclose company activities voluntarily. So far, no similar research has been conducted in the Indonesia. This study will fill this gap by exploring the Social Enterprise practice through its identity disclosure on their official company websites.

This research was conducted on Ten Social Enterprises in Indonesia, selected because of their status as organizations with a social mission and business practices to fulfill them. Their activeness in various webinars strengthened the selection of the Ten Social Enterprises based on public recognition of their existence. The Ten Social Enterpri- ses operate in multiple sectors: education, creative economy, waste management, and tourism. Data was obtained mainly through the company website, supported by interviews and presentations by the CEO of Social Enterprise at various webinars in 2022 and 2023. This study uses identity and stakeholder theory to uncover how Social Enterprises practice. Identity theory is used to understand how Social Enterprises differ from not-for-profit organizations and traditional businesses through their mission, activities, governance, performance, and accountability criteria.

Moreover, identity theory will reveal how Social Enterprise exceeds its entrepreneurial identity (Gesso, 2021). Stakeholder theory is based on the understanding that a Social Enterprise is faced with various stakeholders who may have diverse and conflicting the desires and interests (Freeman, 2015). The use of stakeholder theory will explain how companies play a role and interact with various stakeholders in fulfilling their social mission.

(3)

WWW.JURNALJAM.UB.AC.ID

979 This research was conducted to fill several

gaps in previous research, especially in the context of Social Enterprise in Indonesia. So far, various results of studies on the development of Social En- terprise in Indonesia have been carried out by private institutions that care about social, environmental, youth, and social entrepreneurship issues (AN- GIN, 2019; Council, 2020; PLUS, 2022). Several studies have also mapped the trigger factors and challenges of Social Enterprise practices in Indo- nesia (Pratono et al., 2016; Rostiani et al., 2015;

Rostiani et al., 2014), the role of organizations in empowerment and emancipation (Maksum et al., 2020; Chandra, 2017; Kusumastuti and Juwono, 2022), business models (Kusumasari, 2016; Qast- harin and Vanourek, 2020; Utami et al., 2020), supporting factors for sustainability (Desiana et al., 2022; Puspadewi et al., 2019), until it is drawn to the historical roots of the emergence of the presence of Social Enterprise in Indonesia (Aida and Ha- ti, 2013). Based on previous research, there has yet to be research that discusses the Social Enterprise wholly based on its differentiating identity criteria from purely private or non-profit organizations.

Apart from that, research using websites and webinars as data collection media still needs to be improved. These two sources are relevant to the current use of advances in information technology and the internet.

The novelty of this research lies in its com- prehensive discussion by describing Social Enter- prise from its five identity criteria. This research is also devoted to organizations that declare themselves to be Social Enterprises that combine social missions and entrepreneurial practices, where various previous studies still need to provide more specificity. This research also uses identity theory, which has yet to be used in Social Enterprise research in Indonesia. Furthermore, based on the pro- posed novelty, this research contributes to the development of Social Enterprise in Indonesia by il- lustrating how existing practices fulfill their characteristics in accordance with the mandate of Pres- idential Decree No. 2 of 2022 and Haryanti et al.

(2020). Another contribution is the strengthening and legitimization of the existing Social Enterprise practices and emerging organizations. Based on the existing research gap, this research aims to fill it by describing how Social Enterprise practices in Indonesia are understood through the organizati-

on-specific identity, including mission, activities, governance, performance, and accountability.

This paper is structured as follows: The researchers begin by explaining the phenomenon of the concept and development of the Social Enter- prise existence in Indonesia. In disclosing existing practices, this research referred to Presidential Re- gulation No. 2 of 2022 and Haryanti et al. (2020) concerning the criteria for an organization labeled a Social Enterprise in Indonesia. Then, we determine the research design and use identity and stakeholder theory in describing existing practices. Fur- thermore, the research results and discussion explain the various findings and their interpretations.

In the final section, we convey the conclusions, followed by the limitations and implications for the research and practice of Social Enterprise in Indonesia.

LITERATURE REVIEW Social Enterprise in Indonesia

Social Enterprises are unique in their con- cepts and practices. On the one hand, so far, there is no unified definition of this type of organization; on the other hand, practices have become very diverse, adapting to the maturity of the internal organization and its ecosystem in each country where Social Enterprises are established (Adam et al., 2016; Anastasiadis, 2016; Borzaga and Depedri, 2012; Claeyé, 2016; Cooney, 2011; Spear et al., 2009; Yu, 2011). Likewise, what happened in In- donesia, where it is recognized that the ecosystem is formed and represented by a variety of stakeholders, including investors, educational and government institutions, advisors, and supporting organizations (ANGIN, 2019), but in reality, each Social Enterprise interprets its business concept in various ways.

In general, a Social Enterprise is outlined as an organization that conveys basic unmet needs or solves social or environmental problems through a market-based approach (Alliance, 2018). This definition is also used in Indonesia, where Haryanti et al. (2020) state that there are at least five criteria foranorganizationtobeconsideredaSocialEnter- prise, namely measurable impactful social mission, an economic model implemented with accountability, empowerment, investing in a much larger share of the profits in social mission, and oriented towards sustainability. These criteria are also out-

(4)

980

lined in Presidential Regulation No. 2 of 2022, which officially recognizes a Social Enterprise's presence in Indonesia.

Social Enterprise and Web Disclosure

The website allows the company to dissem- inate information to the public, particularly its stakeholders, in a timely, precise, and easy manner (Abeysekera, 2020; Andrikopoulos et al., 2013;

Blazquez et al., 2018; Everaert et al., 2019; Paras- kevopoulou, 2015). Website disclosure provides management information and achieves goals for socially oriented organizations like non-profit organizations (Lee and Blouin, 2019; Nair et al., 2022) and Social Enterprises (Nadzri et al., 2021;

Sean, 2017). In this study, "web disclosure" is de- fined as various information disclosed by SE through websites in diverse formats such as video, au- dio, images, and presentations. It is beneficial for stakeholders to collect relevant information and assist in the decision-making process (Basuony et al., 2020). This voluntary disclosure of information can be understood within identity and stakeholder theory.

Entrepreneurial Identity of Social Enterprise Identity theory is based on the idea that "society shapes self, and self shapes social behavior."

From this point of view, identities are important categories that people use to describe themselves and others as role players, members of groups, and individuals. Each identity has a behavior standard that shows how people generally think that identity should be shown (Wry and York, 2017). Ac- cording to Gesso (2021), the entrepreneurial identity of a Social Enterprise can be evaluated based on five criteria, including mission, activity, governance, performance, and accountability, all of which should reflect the distinctive nature of a Social Enterprise emphasizing the achievement of its social mission through its business operations.

Furthermore, the Social Enterprise identity consists of five criteria: mission that reflects the company's efforts to overcome social or environmental problems; activities that emphasize entrepreneurial activity as a means of achieving the company's social mission; governance that reflects the involvement of workers and other stakeholders;

performance that contains social or environmental impacts achieved by the company; and accounta-

bility that is manifested by transparency in achieving social or environmental results.

Stakeholders and Accountability

The significant development of the SE concept has attracted the attention of various stakeholders,whichmaybenodifferentfromothersectors.

However, the nature of the business necessitates a different approach to accountability. Stakeholders withinthescopeoftheSEincludethegovernment, beneficiaries, customers, donors, partners, and the community (Azzahra, 2022; Nadzri et al., 2021).

Beneficiaries are one type of the stakeholder often usedtodescribeaSocialEnterprisethatcanbewo- men (Fotheringham and Saunders, 2014; Agrawal et al., 2021), youth (Ferguson, 2012; Chandra and Liang, 2017), community (Chandra, 2017), or the environment (Chedli, 2016; Filatova, 2020). Di- verse stakeholders have distinct roles and requirements for the organization. Social Enterprise sho- uldbeaccountableandtransparentinitsoperations as a business and social organization. Therefore, accountability and transparency play an important role in aligning the interests of stakeholders and are expected to reduce conflicts between one interests and ensure the fulfillment of both company goals (Ebrahim et al., 2014; Loan, 2018).

METHOD

This research uses a qualitative descriptive approach to understand how existing Social Entre- preneurship practices fulfill their identity as de- scribed in Presidential Regulation No. 2 of 2022 and Haryanti et al. (2020). Even though the number of Social enterprises is estimated to be large and increasing, clarity regarding its practice still needs to be explored. As a multiple case study, this research uses ten Social Enterprises in education, tourism, agriculture, waste management, and the creative economy. The ten companies were selected from the Social Enterprise directory (https://usaha social.com/-community/map/). Researchers also accessed various webinars throughout 2022 and 2023 to ensure the company chosen is still active andconsistentlylabelsitselfasaSocialEnterprise.

The research was managed in three steps.

Between 2022 and 2023, one of the researchers participated in a series of webinars on social entrepreneurship, which aimed to gain the direct insight from Social Enterprise practitioners, including the

(5)

981 founder, academics, and government officials, ab-

out Social Enterprise practices in Indonesia. Then, we conducted a literature review, aiming to compare practices with the results of previous research.

Based on the two previous steps, we then compil- edthedisclosurecriteriathatshouldbeontheweb- site and reflect the entrepreneurial identity of the Social Enterprise.

Referring to identity theory (Gesso, 2021), the criteria include the mission, activities, governance,performance,andaccountability.Dataisthen collected through disclosure on the website from March to June 2023. Nvivo is used for data analysis to identify themes from diverse Social Enter- prises and some identity criteria groups. Triangu- lation of methods was also employed to ensure the absence of bias in this study. In addition to docu- mentation studies via the website (photos, videos, informal narratives, and impact reports), we conducted interviews and explored the speeches of the company founders in webinars.

DISCUSSION

Social over Profit on the Mission Statement The mission is the essence of the Social En- terprise (Alter, 2007; Dees, 1998, 2003; Hockerts, 2010); it meets social needs and differentiates So- cial Enterprise from traditional commercial ventures or non-profit organizations. In general, the mission is a statement about what an organization wants to achieve. The importance of setting a mission, especially for a Social Enterprise, will provide direction for the following goals and strategic plans. Does the mission of the Social Enterprise show its uniqueness? This research will answer through the following descriptions.

Understandingthecompany'smissionisdo- ne by exploring whether the company includes the vision, mission, or values on its website. In this case, researchers used NVivo to find frequently used words that reflect the Social Enterprise's identity through its vision, mission, or value statements. In contrast to traditional for-profit business, the main mission of Social Enterprise is not to make money for its members. The social mission is aligned with the organization's vision of the community, which includes creating value for society as a whole. Ac- cording to research findings, not all companies have complete vision, mission, and value items sepa- rately. Some only mention the company's vision or

the mission, although a small number mention all three. In Indonesia, based on Presidential Regula- tion No. 2 of 2022, Social Enterprise is an organization that helps the government achieve the SDGs.

Even if it succeeds in making a profit, the most significant portion must be reinvested in its social mission.TheissueofachievingtheSDGshasbeen a target for Social Enterprises, and they have even explicitly incorporated it into their vision or mission. Some examples of statements are as follows.

In one of the case studies, a Social Enterpri- se that is currently centered on Sumatra. This So- cial Enterprise is renowned for its coastline tourism, which annually attracts thousands of surfers from around the globe. This inflow of surfers sig- nificantly contributes to the state income of the ar- ea. As stated on its website, the Social Enterprise's mission is "Empowering rural communities through the implementation of responsible tourism."

The purpose is in line with the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), focusing on achieving life's goals underwater, decent work and economic growth, and quality education.

Another illustration can be found in Social Enterprise as a pioneer food rescue application in Indonesia. This innovative platform facilitates the acquisition of excess food from certain supermar- kets or restaurants at a half-price discount. The vision is to create a world without "Food Waste" as a step toward pursuing the Sustainable Develop- ment Goals, particularly zero hunger, responsible consumption and production, and climate action.

In other cases, it is a Social Enterprise focusing on the creative sector, a mission to empower the economy and improve women's health in rural areas throughout Indonesia. This Social Enterprise is built on its founders' values, embodied in three pil- lars: empowering women, promoting culture, and increasing welfare. Again, this Social Enterprise's concern in achieving SDGs issue. The data analysis using Nvivo software revealed that terms such as empowerment, community, prosperity, contribution, and sustainability characterize the Social Enterprise purpose. These words represent distinctive factors that set Social Enterprises apart from profit-oriented companies. However, another differentiating characteristic of Social Enterprise is its ability to accomplish its social objective through entrepreneurial activities, setting it apart from conventionalnon-profitorganizations(Bradfordet

(6)

982

al., 2020; Alter, 2007; Wang, 2009). The combina- tion of the two company objectives (economic and social) reflects the determinants of organizational sustainability, which are not solely determined by financial capacity or reliance on activities of a social nature, but both must be connected. This understanding aligns with Presidential Regulation No. 2 of 2022, which stipulates that entrepreneurs with social values and innovative and professional business models must be considered social entrepreneurs.

People, Planet, and Profit through Activities The comprehension of Social Enterprise activities involves an examination of the extent to which the organization reveals its entrepreneurial activities, comprising details about its products and social initiatives, to its intended beneficiaries.

The existence of the entrepreneurial activity as a means of creating social impact is a difference between Social Enterprise and traditional non-profit organizations. That is why we cannot separate business and social activities when discussing Social Enterprise activities. Social Enterprises can be classified based on their mission orientation and the level of integration between their social programs and business activities (Alter, 2007); that is, Social Enterprises can engage in business activities that are mission-centric, mission-related, or unrelated to mission. Whatever its form, Social Enterprise must be balanced in carrying out its activities, in whichcasethisdoesnotoccurmissiondrift,which causes the company to lose its identity as a Social Enterprise (Ebrahim et al., 2014).

What is interesting about the study docum- enting the activities of ten Social Enterprises is the disclosure of business activities through the sale of products or services, which are associated with the resulting social impact. The company provides product or service information and offers through its website: price information, product specifications, and production stories involving the beneficiaries.

Information in the form of narratives accompanied by photos and videos of products, beneficiaries, or activities that describe the interaction between the two.Thesefindingsdescribeactivitiesthataddress social or environmental issues, where entrepreneurial activities are used to achieve social value out- comes by meeting the community needs (Gesso, 2021). So far, it can be accepted that Social Enter-

prise, through website disclosure, engages in actions that are consistent with the vision, mission, or values in which it believes. Several earlier research revealed that the motivation to prioritize solv- ing social problems was the catalyst for establish- ing a Social Enterprise, as reflected by their website disclosures (Chinchilla and Garcia, 2017; Hock- erts, 2017; Mair and Noboa, 2006; Ruskin et al., 2016). Another exciting finding is that business and social activities are carried out inclusively by targeting economic, social, and environmental impacts. For example, with its mission to make the sea a better source of life for all, one of the Social Enterprisestrivestoachievemarineecosystemsus- tainability by empowering fishermen, youth, and women who live on the coast.

Multi-Stakeholder in Governance

Governance can describe the relationships between an organization and its numerous stakeholders. This relationship has implications for ob- ligations, authorities, rights, and responsibilities.

Understanding governance in the context of the Social Enterprise necessitates elaborating on the requirements of the company's stakeholders (Ma- son, 2009; Mason et al., 2007). Stakeholders are a group of individuals or organizations that influence and are influenced by the activities of an organization (Jones et al., 2017). Several previous studies stated that the stakeholders of Social Enterpri- ses include service or product users, internal organizations (managers, staff, and others), local communities and governments, investors or fund pro- viders, and other parts of the ecosystem (Mason, 2009; Sanzo-Pérez et al., 2022; Vidal, 2014) all of whom may have different and even conflicting interests (Nadzri et al., 2021).

This study explores governance by examin- ing Social Enterprise disclosures about stakeholders and their interactions on the website. Accord- ing to the findings, the entire Social Enterprise reveals its stakeholders, which include the founder (the company's CEO) and co-founder, who can act as the CMO (Chief of Marketing Officer) or CCD (Chief of Community Development) or the others.

The organization also discloses employees and job vacancies of becoming staff along with the criteria.SomeSocialEnterprisesallowmembersofspe- cific communities to volunteer for the company's social objective. For example, a Social Enterprise

(7)

983 focusing on the creative sector is looking for vol-

unteers to work as training instructors for its beneficiaries, who are female Middle Eastern migr- ants. Training activities are a common practice in empowerment and typically for Social Enterprise.

This finding is consistent with Dewi et al. (2019), who found that volunteers are essential in ensuring organizationalaccountabilitytotheirbeneficiaries.

Through its website, Social Enterprise also reveals corporate partners from the private sector, government, venture capital, and certifying authorities. Different partners interact with various interests.Privateenterprisesaretypicallycustomersof Social Enterprise services or products. Aside from that, Social Enterprise can collaborate with private enterprises on CSR initiatives. This collaboration naturally occurs when private enterprises seek ap- propriate CSR target beneficiaries, and Social En- terprise requires beneficiaries to participate in activities. Because Social Enterprise in Indonesia is mainly focused on the MSMEs, collaboration with large-scale corporations is expected to assist the sustainability of Social Enterprise from a commercial standpoint, ultimately affecting the sustainability of the beneficiaries. This finding in the Indon- esian setting is consistent with prior research (San- zo-Pérez et al., 2022; Selsky and Parker, 2005;

Wangsirilert and Simon, 2017), which found that partnershipsfacilitatetheestablishmentofimpacts for beneficiaries. Furthermore, partnerships with large-scale companies with inherent business eth- ics, such as providing minimum wages under local regulations, indirectly provide specific operational standards for Social Enterprise to their beneficiaries.

Some companies mention that they have re- ceived accreditation, such as Halal certification and B Corp certification. In several previous studies, B Corp certification provides many benefits for Social Enterprise, especially in ensuring the stakeholders' fulfillment of good impacts. On the other hand, it is an attraction for consumers to buy So- cial Enterprise products (Verhaar, 2023; Villela et al., 2021), fostering sustainability (Carvalho et al., 2022; Ferré-Cerdà et al., 2020; van Eck and Kelly, 2018).

The beneficiaries are stakeholders associated with the organization's status as a Social Enter- prise. As an organization formed to preserve diverse social and environmental problems, it is crit-

ical to determine who would benefit, especially when a company is creating its social business model. According to several previous research, the prioritization of beneficiaries is crucial for con- ducting practical needs assessments and justifying service design and delivery (Wellens and Jegers, 2014; Dewi et al., 2019; Hall and O'Dwyer, 2017).

Beneficiaries frequently relate to the "why" of founding Social Enterprises. Furthermore, the de- gree of integration between social programs and entrepreneurialoperations, classifiedasembedded,

integrated, and external Social Enterprises (Alter, 2007), determines the interaction between companies and beneficiaries.

Social over Financial Performance

As an organization that focuses on fulfilling its social mission through business activities, the performance of a Social Enterprise is more char- acterized by whether its social mission is achieved while still involving business activities. Perform- ance measurement is one of the dramatic differences between commercial and social ventures (Aus- tin et al., 2006). Typically, performance in commercial entrepreneurship is measured in terms of financial performance, such as profitability and sales growth. Because financial performance metrics are standardized, entrepreneurs and investors can recognize and value them easily. In social entrepreneurship, however, performance measurement is less standardized and more organization-specific. Furthermore, due to the dual nature of Social Enterprise's operations encompassing both social and business activities, it becomes imperative to establish the performance measurements for both realms.

Financial performance in this research re- fers to several dimensions of disclosure, namely product availability and ease of access for consumers, number of products sold, partnerships, certification, and distribution of profits generated. The- se dimensions were selected based on criteria from previous research (Kim, 2018; Kwong et al., 2023;

Pinheiro et al., 2021) and researchers' understanding based on the interviews and exposure of Social Enterpriseactorsinvariouswebinarsoronlinetalk shows. Disclosure of product or service information makes it easier for sales to occur, whether from individual consumers or other companies, which should have an impact on the financial performan-

(8)

984

ce of the Social Enterprise and ultimately also have an impact on its social performance.

Social performance is related to the output or positive impact resulting from empowerment.

The ten companies, through their websites, show the profile of their impact achievements for their beneficiaries. In addition to selling goods or services, creating an impact can also be done through volunteer activities and collaboration with other stakeholders with the same social or environmental values as Social Enterprise. To ensure their sustainability, Social Enterprise must balance their social and financial goals. Successful social enterprises must be financially sustainable to expand their scope over the long term. However, financial performance must remain a means to accomplish their social mission rather than becoming an objective in and of itself. The tendency to fulfill one goalwillcausemissiondrift(Ebrahimetal.,2014), although fulfilling the balance is difficult (Civera et al., 2020). One of Social Enterprise stated.

"Striking a balance between social and business is challenging. Sometimes, foresight and wise decisions are needed to be able to fulfill both and achieve sustainability. If the focus is too much on social, then the company will become a foundation. At the same time, if it focuses too much on business, then the company will turn into a factory, which will lose its Social Enterprise identity."

In the end, we cannot judge a Social Enter- prise to be more inclined towards one of its goals or even lose its identity because, in reality, an organization is still in the process of achieving an ideal balance in the particular conditions it faces.

Accountability Mechanism

Accountability in Social Enterprise means the company is accountable for its mission and activities. So far, no consensus has been reached on how Social Enterprise would be held accountable.

However, previous research has referred to this practice as transparency of social and financial performance (Loan, 2018; Wang, 2009) to upwa- rd, lateral, and downward stakeholders, which can be achieved through formal or informal channels (Ab Samad et al., 2017; Astrid, 2015; Bradford et

al., 2018, 2020; Connolly and Kelly, 2011; Kara- moy, 2017). Various disclosures from mission statements, social activities integrated with business, governance involving various stakeholders, and performance measurements, even though the website discloses more of the company's social performance, are a form of operational and performance accountability. The accountability to beneficiaries is carried out by fulfilling the company's mission commitment in both the company's business and social activities. The researcher's interview with one of the co-founders of Social Enterprise confir- med several forms of corporate accountability to its beneficiaries:

"We fulfill our commitment to beneficiaries by providing fair prices for weaving trans- actions. We also provide scholarships and healthy food as a commitment to education and health issues."

Haryanti et al. (2020) mention Social Enter- prise as an organization that conducts business and is accountable. Accountability in a business context is usually linked to financial performance, the preparation of financial reports, and transparency, and leads to audits of financial reports. While So- cial Enterprise combines two activities (social and business), accountability should also include both.

Wang (2009) stated that social accountability is related to mission and legitimacy, while financial accountability is related to the company's ability to meet its financial sufficiencies and market pres- sures.

The form of accountability depends on its object. As an organization that relies on social programs through its business activities, the impact is the change targeted. It is a measure of the success of Social Enterprise. Through the website disclosure, the majority of Social Enterprises provide an impact profile, such as the amount of empowerment expressed in units of women or artisans or the number of social activities carried out or others.

Theoretically, it is all more about creating output from activities. In this case, the term impact often replaces the actual meaning of practice, namely output. That means the real impact is still a questi- on. According to Molecke and Pinkse (2017), measuring impact as meeting the needs of external interests is an important practice of the Social Enter-

(9)

985 prise. However, in fact, impact measurement still

needs to be clarified.

In the Indonesian context, the average size of companies classified as SMEs makes impact measurement activities challenging. Social Enter- prise focuses more on creating impact and docu- menting it through the company's social media by uploading photos or videos accompanied by a nar- ration. Another obstacle is the need for more human resources within the company tasked explicitly with measuring impacts. One Social Enterprise commented:

"We have not carried out impact measurements because we still need clarification about determining measurement criteria in addition to our limited human resources."

This phenomenon aligns with Nadzri et al.

(2021), in the context of Social Enterprise in Ma- laysia, who mention that the obstacles in disclosing impacts are partly due to limited budget, time, and company awareness.

IMPLICATIONS

The findings of this research suggest the need for more standardized guidelines regarding So- cial Enterprise practices in Indonesia. More detail- ed guidelines and even the need for an accreditation body for organizations operating in two missions are necessary to avoid misusing the Social En- terprise label for opposing purposes.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Social Enterprise practices in Indonesia are growing, but research on this topic still needs to be conducted in Indonesia. Therefore, an in-depth exploration of existing practices using case studies and qualitative approaches is required. The Social Enterprise used as a case study in this research is classified as a company whose performance and existence are recognized by its ecosystem in Indo- nesia. While the scope of Social Enterprise rema- ins diverse, further research can use a broader ra- nge of companies to compare the practice in different sizes. Next, in the realm of Social Enterprise, performance measurement is still a practice that needs to be explored and standardized; therefore, further research can address this theme by focusing more on the achievements and challenges fa-

ced, especially in the Indonesian context. Lastly, furtherresearchcouldalsotargetthethemeofcom- parison between the practices of traditional business commercial identities that also carry out social activities and Social Enterprise. Understanding the differences will later be helpful to prove whether a company labeled Social Enterprise still needs its unique identity. Since not all social enterprises in this study could be interviewed, the researcher attempted to follow the CEO's activities dur- ing numerous webinars. Even if questions that are pertinent to the research issue can be asked, the results are only the answers, and no further discussion is possible.

CONCLUSIONS

This study aims to describe the practice of Social Enterprise through the disclosure of corporate identity. Through the identity and stakeholder Theory, this study explores the five characteristics of identity: mission, activity, governance, performance, and accountability. The overall finding shows that the existing ten Social Enterprise practices follow its characteristics based on Presiden- tial Regulation No. 2 of 2022 and Haryanti et al.

(2020),thatexistingpracticeswereappropriateex- cept for reinvesting the profits into social activities that had yet to be successfully disclosed.

The company's mission provides direction for various activities and responsibilities. Social Enterprise's mission differentiates it from traditio- nalventurebusiness,wherecommunity,empowerment, welfare, and sustainability are more prono- unced. The company discloses its business activities through the sale of products or services resulting from various empowerment activities carried out by the company and through the involvement of other parties, such as volunteers or collaboration. Corporate governance involves many stakeholders such as beneficiaries, board of directors, volunteers, and partners to ensure the realization of the company's mission.

Performance measurement allows companies to evaluate their social and business activities.

The social performance is expressed in the impact achievements expressed by the company through its website as an achievement profile or an informal narrative dissertation with photos or videos. Fi- nancial performance in more standardized measu- res such as SROI (a performance measurement us-

(10)

986

ually used in organizations with a social mission) still needs to be improved. Lastly, accountability in Social Enterprise has diverse practices; on the one hand, because there are still no guidelines, on the other hand, there are limitations for companies to translate the practices themselves. Accountabil- ity has been carried out in stages, and the company has been consistent with its mission.

REFERENCES

Ab Samad, N. H., Arshad, R., Asat, S. H., and Ka- sim, N. 2017. Sustainability and Accounta- bilityofSocialEnterprise.Managementand Accounting Review (MAR), 16(2), pp. 181- 202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24191/mar.v1 6i2.562.

Abeysekera,I.2020.IntangiblesDisclosureonEn- trepreneurial Small Businesses' Websites to Influence Stakeholders' Impressions. Austr- alian Accounting Review, 30(1), pp. 22-32.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/auar.12277.

Adam, S., Avilés, G., Ferrari, D., Amstutz, J., Cri- velli, L., Enrico, C., and Zoebeli, D. 2016.

Work Integration Social Enterprises in Swi- tzerland. Non-profit Policy Forum, 7(4), pp.

509-539. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/npf- 2016-0014.

Agrawal, A., Gandhi, P., and Khare, P. 2021. Wo- men Empowerment Through Entrepreneur- ship: Case Study of a Social Entrepreneurial Intervention in Rural India. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-03-2021-265 9.

Aida,I.andHati,S.R.H.2013.SocialEntreprene- urship in Indonesia: Lessons from the Past.

Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(3), pp. 277-301. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1080/1 9420676.2013.820778.

Alliance, S. E. 2018. Social Enterprise: What is Social Enterprise?.

Alter, K. 2007. Social Enterprise Typology. Virtue Ventures LLC, 12(1), pp. 1-124.

Altinay, L., Sigala, M., and Waligo, V. 2016. Soc- ial Value Creation Through Tourism Enter- prise. Tourism Management, 54, pp. 404–

417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourma n.2015.12.011.

Anastasiadis, M. 2016. Work Integration Social Enterprises in Austria – Characteristics, Ev-

olution and Perspectives. Non-profit Policy Forum, 7(4), pp. 541-564. DOI: https://doi.

org/10.1515/npf-2016-0008.

Andrikopoulos, A., Merika, A. A., Triantafyllou, A., and Merikas, A. G. 2013. Internet Dis- closure and Corporate Performance: A Case Study of the International Shipping Indus- try. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 47, pp. 141-152. DOI: https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2012.10.016.

ANGIN. 2019. 52 Figures and Organizations Mo- ving Social Entrepreneurship in Indonesia.

Retrieved from https://www.angin.id/wp-c ontent/uploads/2019/09/52-Figures-and-Or ganizations-Moving-Social-Entrepreneursh ip-in-Indonesia-v2.pdf.

Astrid, G. I. G. 2015. Social Enterprises: Examin- ing Accountability for Social and Financial Performance. Queensland University of Technology.

Austin, J., Stevenson, H., and Wei–Skillern, J.

2006.SocialandCommercialEntrepreneur- ship: Same, Different, or Both?. Entrepre- neurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), pp. 1- 22.

Azzahra, B. 2022. ASEC (A Social Enterprises Connector): Platform Data Social Enterpri- ses Terintegrasi sebagai Sarana Keberlanju- tan Social Movement Pasca Covid 19. Pap- er Presented at the Seminar Nasional Pari- wisata dan Kewirausahaan (SNPK).

Basuony, M. A., Mohamed, E. K., Elragal, A., and Hussainey, K. 2020. Big Data Analytics of Corporate Internet Disclosures. Accounting Research Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1 108/ARJ-09-2019-0165.

Blazquez, D., Domenech, J., and Debón, A. 2018.

Do Corporate Websites' Changes Reflect Firms' Survival?. Online Information Re- view.

Borzaga, C. andDepedri, C. 2012. TheEmergence, Institutionalisation and Challenges of Soci- al Enterprises: The Italian Experience. Soci- al y Cooperativa, 75, pp. 35-53.

Bradford,A.,Luke,B.,andFurneaux,C.2018.So- cial Enterprise Accountability: Directions, Dominance, and Developments. Social En- terprise Journal, 14(2), pp. 156-179. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-03-2017-0018.

Bradford,A.,Luke,B.,andFurneaux,C.2020.Ex-

(11)

987 ploring Accountability in Social Enterpri-

se:Priorities,Practicalities,andLegitimacy.

VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Vol- untaryandNon-profitOrganizations, 31(3), pp. 614-626. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s 11266-020-00215-8.

Carvalho, B., Wiek, A., and Ness, B. 2022. Can B Corp Certification Anchor Sustainability in SMEs?. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 29(1), pp.

293-304.

Chandra, Y. 2017. Social Entrepreneurship as Em- ancipatory Work. Journal of Business Ven- turing, 32(6), pp. 657-673. DOI: https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.08.004.

Chandra, Y. and Liang, S. 2017. Social Enterprise as a Mechanism of Youth Empowerment.

The Hong Kong Journal of Social Work, 51 (01n02), pp. 115-144. DOI: https://doi.org/

10.1142/S0219246217000080.

Chedli, M. K. E. 2016. The Impact of Social Partn- ership on the Environment. Journal of Eco- nomic Development, Environment, and Pe- ople, 5(4), pp. 6-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.

26458/jedep.v5i4.510.

Chinchilla, A. and Garcia, M. 2017. Social Entrep- reneurship Intention: Mindfulness Towards a Duality of Objectives. Humanistic Mana- gement Journal, 1(2), pp. 205-214.

Civera, C., Cortese, D., Mosca, F., and Murdock, A. 2020. Paradoxes and Strategies in Social Enterprises' Dual Logics Enactment: A csQCA between Italy and the United King- dom. Journal of Business Research, 115, 334-347.

Claeyé, F. 2016. Social Enterprise in South Afri- ca: A Tentative Typology.

Connolly, C. and Kelly, M. 2011. Understanding Accountability in Social Enterprise Organi- sations:AFramework.SocialEnterpriseJo- urnal, 7(3), pp. 224-237. DOI: https://doi.or g/10.1108/17508611111182386.

Cooney, K. 2011. An Exploratory Study of Social Purpose Business Models in the United Sta- tes. Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Quar- terly, 40(1), pp. 185-196. DOI: https://doi.o rg/10.1177/0899764009351591.

Council, B. 2020. Creative and Social Enterprise in Indonesia. Retrieved from Indonesia.

Dees,J.G.1998.EnterprisingNon-profits:What

do You do When Traditional Sources of Fu- nding Fall Short. Harvard Business Review, 76(1), pp. 55-67.

Dees, J. G. 2003. Social Entrepreneurship is Abo- ut Innovation and Impact, Not Income. So- cial Edge, pp. 1-4.

Desiana, P. M., Ma’arif, M. S., Puspitawati, H., Rachmawati, R., Prijadi, R., and Najib, M.

2022. Strategy for Sustainability of Social Enterprise in Indonesia: A Structural Equa- tion Modeling Approach. Sustainability, 14 (3), pp. 1383.

Dewi, M. K., Manochin, M., and Belal, A. 2019.

Marching with the Volunteers: Their Role and Impact on Beneficiary Accountability in an Indonesian NGO. Accounting, Audit- ing and Accountability Journal. DOI: https:

//doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2016-2727.

Doherty, B., Haugh, H., and Lyon, F. 2014. Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Re- view and Research Agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), pp.

417-436.

Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., and Mair, J. 2014. The Governance of Social Enterprises: Mission Drift and Accountability Challenges in Hy- brid Organizations. Research in Organizati- onal Behavior, 34, pp. 81-100. DOI: https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2014.09.001.

Everaert, P., Bouten, L., and Baele, A. 2019. CSR Website Disclosure: The Influence of the Upper Echelons. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 32(2), pp. 421-455.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-03-20 17-2882.

Ferguson, K. M. 2012. Merging the Fields of Men- tal Health and Social Enterprise: Lessons from Abroad and Cumulative Findings from Research with Homeless Youths. Vol. 48.

Ferré-Cerdà, L., Viana-Neves, O., Nawej, J. L., and Carlsson, M. 2020. B Corp Certification - A Strategic Step Towards Sustainability?.

Filatova, U. 2020. Environmental Entrepreneur- ship as a Type of Social Entrepreneurship.

Paper Presented at the E3S Web of Confer- ences.

Fotheringham, S. and Saunders, C. 2014. Social Enterprise as Poverty Reducing Strategy for Women. Social Enterprise Journal, 10(3), pp. 176-199. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/

(12)

988

SEJ-06-2013-0028.

Freeman, R. E. 2015. Stakeholder Theory. Wiley EncyclopediaofManagement,pp.1-6.DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118785317.

Gesso, C. D. 2021. An Entrepreneurial Identity for SocialEnterpriseacrosstheInstitutionalAp-

proaches: From Mission to Accountability toward Sustainable Societal Development.

International Journal of Business and Man- agement, 15(1).

Gidron, B. and Monnickendam‐Givon, Y. 2017. A Social Welfare Perspective of Market‐Ori- ented Social Enterprises. International Jo- urnal of Social Welfare, 26(2), pp. 127-140.

Grassl, W. 2012. Business Models of Social Enter- prise: A Design Approach to Hybridity. AC- RN Journal of Entrepreneurship Perspecti- ves, 1(1), pp. 37-60.

Hall, M. and O'Dwyer, B. 2017. Accounting, Non- Governmental Organizations, and Civil So- ciety: The Importance of Non-profit Organ- izations to Understanding Accounting, Or- ganizations and Society. Accounting, Orga- nizations and Society, 63, pp. 1-5.

Haryanti, D. M., Hati, S. R. H., and Anggriyani, D. S. 2020. Profit untuk Misi Sosial. Jakar- ta: DBS Foundation.

Hockerts,K.2010.SocialEntrepreneurshipbetwe- en Market and Mission. Hockerts, Kai." So- cial Entrepreneurship between Market and Mission." International Review of Entrepr- eneurship, 8(2010), pp. 177-198.

Hockerts, K. 2017. Determinants of Social Entrep- reneurial Intentions. Entrepreneurship The- ory and Practice, 41(1), pp. 105-130. DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12171.

Jones, T. M., Wicks, A. C., and Freeman, R. E.

2017. Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. The Blackwell Guide to Business Eth- ics, pp. 17-37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465 /19416520.2010.495581.

Karamoy, H. 2017. Accessibility, Accountability and the Impact of Social Enterprise. Journal of Life Economics, 4, pp. 1-12. DOI: https://

doi.org/10.15637/jlecon.204.

Kim, M. J. 2018. A Study of the Economic and Social Performance of Social Enterprise.

The International Journal of Advanced Cul- ture Technology, 6(2), pp. 43-50.

Kusumasari, B. 2016. The Business Model of So-

cial Entrepreneurship in Indonesia. BISNIS and BIROKRASI: Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi dan Organisasi, 22(3), pp. 156-168.

Kusumastuti, R. and Juwono, V. 2022. Social En- terprise in Action: A Study of Indigenous Community-based Enterprise in Rural Ar- eas to End Poverty in All its Form (Irodori Leaf-Business Kamikatsu, Japan and Ikat Woven-Business Pringgasela Lombok, In- donesia). KnE Social Sciences, pp. 424-431.

Kwong, C., Bhattarai, C. R., Bhandari, M. P., and Cheung, C. W. 2023. Does Social Perform- ancecontributetotheEconomicPerforman- ce of Social Enterprises? The Role of Social Enterprise Reputation Building. Internati- onal Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior and Research.

Lee, R. L. and Blouin, M. C. 2019. Factors Affect- ing Web Disclosure Adoption in the Non- profit Sector. Journal of Computer Inform- ation Systems, 59(4), pp. 363-372. DOI: ht tps://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2017.1370 988.

Loan, A. 2018. Accountability in Social Enterpri- ses Around the World. Retrieved from https:

//accountablenow.org/accountability-in-soc ial-enterprises-around-the-world/.

Mair, J. and Noboa, E. 2006. Social Entrepreneur- ship: How Intentions to Create a Social Ve- nture are Formed Social Entrepreneurship, pp. 121-135. Springer.

Maksum, I. R., Rahayu, A. Y. S., and Kusumawar- dhani, D. 2020. A Social Enterprise Appro- ach to Empowering Micro, Small and Medi- um Enterprises (SMEs) in Indonesia. Jour- nal of Open Innovation: Technology, Mark- et, and Complexity, 6(3), pp. 50. DOI: https:

//doi.org/10.3390/joitmc6030050.

Mason, C. 2009. Governance in Social Enterpri- ses.

Mason, C., Kirkbride, J., andBryde, D. 2007. From Stakeholders to Institutions: The Changing Face of Social Enterprise Governance The- ory. Management Decision. DOI: https://do i.org/10.1108/00251740710727296.

Molecke, G. and Pinkse, J. 2017. Accountability for Social Impact: A Bricolage Perspective on Impact Measurement in Social Enterpri- ses. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(5), pp. 550-568.

(13)

989 Nadzri, F. A. A., Lokman, N., Yusuf, S. N. S., and

Naharuddin, S. 2021. Accountability and Transparency of Accredited Social Enterpr- ises in Malaysia: Website Disclosure Ana- lysis. Management and Accounting Review (MAR), 20(3), pp. 246-276.

Nair, R., Arshad, R., Muda, R., and Joharry, S. A.

2022. Web-Disclosure Practices for Transp- arency and the Sustainability of Non-Profit Organisations. International Review on Pu- blic and Non-profit Marketing, pp. 1-23.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-021-0 0330-2.

Paraskevopoulou, P. 2015. Stakeholder Communi- cation Through the Websites and Expressi- on of Success. (Master Thesis Master The- sis), Sewesh University of Agriculture Sci- ences. Retrieved from http://stud.epsilon.sl u.se.

Pinheiro, P., Daniel, A., and Moreira, A. 2021. So- cial Enterprise Performance: The Role of Market and Social Entrepreneurship Orien- tations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Non-profit Organizations, 32(1), pp. 45-60.

PLUS. 2022. Understanding the State and Profile of Social Enterprise in Indonesia. Retrieved from Jakarta: https://usahasosial.com/wp-c ontent/uploads/2023/04/Understanding-the -State-and-Profile-of-Social-Enterprise-in-I ndonesia-2022-Platform-Usaha-Sosial-PLU S.pdf.

Pratono, A. H., Pramudija, P., andSutanti, A. 2016.

Social Enterprise in Indonesia: Emerging Models Under Transition Government.

Puspadewi, I., Soetjipto, B. W., Wahyuni, S., and Wijayanto, S. H. 2019. Managing Paradox for the Sustainability of Social Enterprises:

An Empirical Study of Forestry Community CooperativesinIndonesia.JournalofSocial Entrepreneurship, 10(2), pp. 177-192. DOI:

10.1080/19420676.2018.1541008.

Qastharin, A. R. and Vanourek, G. 2020. Unders- tanding the Business Model of Social Enter- prise: Case Study of Indonesia Mengajar.

The Future Opportunities and Challenges of Business in Digital Era, 4.0, pp. 239-243.

Ridley-Duff, R. 2008. Social Enterprise as a Soci- ally Rational Business. International Jour- nal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour and Rese-

arch, 14(5), pp. 291-312. DOI: https://doi.o rg/10.1108/13552550810897669.

Rostiani, R., Paramita, W., Audita, H., Virgosita, R.,Budiarto,T.,andPurnomo,B.2015.Un- derstanding Social Enterprises in Indonesia.

Journal of Indonesian Economy and Busi- ness, 29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jieb .6356.

Rostiani, R., Paramita, W., Audita, H., Virgosita, R., Budiarto, T., and Purnomo, B. R. 2014.

Understanding Social Enterprises in Indon- esia: Drivers and Challenges. Journal of In- donesian Economy and Business, 29(2).

Ruskin, J., Seymour, R. G., and Webster, C. M.

2016.WhyCreateValueforOthers?AnEx- plorationofSocialEntrepreneurialMotives.

Journal of Small Business Management, 54 (4), pp. 1015-1037. DOI: https://doi.org/10.

1111/jsbm.12229.

Sanzo-Pérez, M. J., Rey-García, M., and Álvarez- González, L. I. 2022. Downward Account- ability to Beneficiaries in Social Enterpri- ses: Do Partnerships with Non-profits Boost It without Undermining Accountability to Other Stakeholders?. Review of Managerial Science, 16(5), pp. 1533-1560. DOI: https://

doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00485-6.

Sean, L. J. 2017. Collaborations, Board Independ- ence and Website Social Impact Disclosu- res: A Study of Social Enterprises. Queens- land University of Technology.

Selsky, J. W. and Parker, B. 2005. Cross-Sector Partnerships to Address Social Issues: Chal- lenges to Theory and Practice. Journal of Management, 31(6), pp. 849-873. DOI: http s://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279601.

Singgalen, Y. A. 2022. Peran Perusahaan Sosial dalam Pemberdayaan Masyarakat untuk Pe- nghidupan Berkelanjutan. Jurnal Ilmu Sosi- al Dan Humaniora, 11(2), pp. 257-268.

Spear, R., Cornforth, C., and Aiken, M. 2009. The Governance Challenges of Social Enterpri- ses: Evidence from a UK Empirical Study.

Annuals of Public and Cooperative Econo- mics, 80(2), pp. 247-273. DOI: https://doi.

org/10.1111/j.1467-8292.2009.00386.x.

Utami, W., Nugroho, L., and Nemoto, M. 2020.

The Conception and Practices of Social En- terprise between Indonesia and South Ko- rea. Al Farabi Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler

(14)

990

Dergisi, 5(4), pp. 41-48.

van Eck, W. and Kelly, D. 2018. The Sustainabil- ity Journey: An Exploration into Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises' Quest for Legit- imacy: The B Corp Case.

Verhaar, F. D. R. 2023. Sustainability as a Stra- tegy: The B-Corp Certification's Effect on Consumers' Willingness to Pay.

Vidal, I. 2014. Multi-Stakeholder Governance in Social Enterprise Social Enterprise and the Third Sector, pp. 192-202. Routledge.

Villela, M., Bulgacov, S., and Morgan, G. 2021. B Corp Certification and Its Impact on Organ- izations Over Time. Journal of Business Et- hics, 170, pp. 343-357. DOI: https://doi.org /10.1007/s10551-019-04372-9.

Wang, W.-J. 2009. Accountability in Social Enter- prises: An Analytical Framework. The Uni- versity of Pittsburgh's Johnson Institute for Responsible Leadership Working Papers.

Wangsirilert, C. and Simon, L. 2017. How Large- Scale Companies and Social Enterprises Improve the Sustainability of Their Partner- ship?. (Master of Science), KTH Industrial Engineering and Management Stockholm, Sweden.

Wellens, L. and Jegers, M. 2014. Beneficiary Par- ticipation as an Instrument of Downward Accountability: A Multiple Case Study. Eu- ropean Management Journal, 32(6), pp.

938-949. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.e mj.2014.03.004.

Wry, T. and York, J. G. 2017. An Identity-Based Approach to Social Enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 42(3), pp. 437-460.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0 506.

Yu, X. 2011. Social Enterprise in China: Driving Forces, Development Patterns and Legal Framework. Vol. 7. Emerald.