公众如何理解社会企业：行业模糊与道德期望的混合方法研究
全文
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.68322/ajsid.42关键词:
行业边界模糊, 公众意义建构, 社会企业, 道德期许, 调查实验, 混合型组织摘要
在全球危机日益紧迫的背景下，社会企业应运而生，成为融合商业运作模式与核心社会使命的复合型组织。现有文献多聚焦于企业内部管理者如何应对这种双重属性，而普通公众如何看待这类跨界业态，相关研究却较为匮乏。传统利益相关者理论大多默认企业边界客观存在、行业划分清晰，并依托经济维度对企业进行评判。而业态跨界融合的现状，将市场逻辑与道德诉求交织在一起，颠覆了上述固有认知。 本研究采用探索性序贯混合研究法，探究公众评判社会企业时所依托的认知框架与道德期许。研究第一阶段开展八组焦点小组访谈（样本量 48 人），梳理民众自发形成的认知思维模式。第二阶段依托预先注册的随机问卷调查实验（样本量 1200 人），选取具有全美代表性的美国成年群体，对前期研究结论进行验证。 定性研究结果表明，当制度边界逐渐模糊时，公众会产生强烈的认知冲突，并借助四种独特的解读方式梳理行为预期，分别是特例化解读、普适化解读、神圣与世俗划分、批判性边界约束。定量研究显示，商业运营强度与公众信任度之间呈现非线性关系：若社会企业在被视作神圣的领域中完全依靠市场化模式实现自给自足，会遭到严厉的 “道德追责”，还会被普遍指责虚伪。但研究同时发现，公开透明的运作阐释方式能够有效化解这类负面评价，它会转变公众的评判视角，让人们不再单纯以交易纯粹性作为标准，转而考量组织运营的独立性。本文将研究视角转向外部公众的认知解读，丰富了利益相关者理论与组织双重属性相关研究。参考
[1] Pereira, W., Missio, F., & Jayme, F. (2024). Structural Change in the 21st Century: The Role of the Modern Services Sector in the Economic Development Strategy. Review of Political Economy, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09538259.2024.2342431.
[2] Piketty, T. (2025). Capital in the 21st Century, Ten Years Later.
[3] Radoynovska, N. (2025). Expectations meet reality: Leader sensemaking and enactment of stakeholder engagement in multistakeholder social enterprises. Business & Society, 64(6), 1185-1228.
[4] 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.
[5] Mair, J. , & Marti, I. . (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: a source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 36-44.
[6] Ebrahim, A. , Battilana, J. , & Mair, J. . (2014). The governance of social enterprises: mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81-100.
[7] Smith, W. K. , & Besharov, M. L. . (2017). Bowing before dual gods: how structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative ence Quarterly, 64(1), 1-44..
[8] Donaldson, T. , & Preston, L. E. . (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. The Academy of Management Review, 20(1).
[9] Kujala, J. , Sachs, S. , Leinonen, H. , Heikkinen, A. , & Laude, D. . (2022). Stakeholder engagement: past, present, and future:. Business & Society, 61(5), 1136-1196.
[10] Greenwood, M. . (2007). Stakeholder engagement: beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315-327.
[11] Winkler, A. P. , Brown, J. A. , & Finegold, D. L. . (2018). Employees as conduits for effective stakeholder engagement: an example from b corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-24.
[12] Weick, K. E. . (1998). Sensemaking in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(1), 205-208.
[13] Šimůnková, Klára. (2019). Being hybrid: a conceptual update of consumer self and consumption due to online/offline hybridity. Journal of Marketing Management, 1-35.
[14] Perreault, K. . (2011). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Manual Therapy.
[15] Kingston, K. . (2020). Toward dialogic accounting? public accountants' assistance to works councils a tool between hope and illusion / when democratic principles are not enough: tensions and temporalities of dialogic stakeholder engagement / bringing the ugly back: a dialogic exploration of ethics in leadership through an ethno-narrative re-reading of the enron case. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 40.
[16] Glynn, M. A. . (2013). Patricia thornton, william ocasio, and michael lounsbury: the institutional logics perspective: a new approach to culture, structure, and process. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(3), 493-495.
[17] Logue, D., & Grimes, M. G. (2022). Living up to the hype: How new ventures manage the resource and liability of future-oriented visions within the nascent market of impact investing. Academy of Management Journal, 65(4), 1055-1082.
[18] Steiner, P. , & Zelizer, V. A. . (1999). The social meaning of money: pin money, paychecks, poor relief, and other currencies. Revue Franaise De Sociologie, 38(2), 387.
[19] Giesler, M., & Veresiu, E. (2014). Creating the responsible consumer: Moral expectations and sacred-profane boundaries in market-driven problem solving. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(3), 840-857.
[20] Wagner, T., Lutz, R. J., & Weitz, B. A. (2009). Corporate hypocrisy: Overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social responsibility perceptions. Journal of marketing, 73(6), 77-91.
[21] Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory.
[22] Maak, T. . (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 329-343.
