Votre recherche

For decades, the cooperative enterprise (CE) produces market goods and/or provides services in the interest to its members, such as communities, customers, and suppliers. The upsurge of interest in social enterprises, and their balancing of social and economic interests, has also led to a renewed interest in CEs, often seen as a specific type of social enterprise. However, from an organizational perspective, this renewed interest has been both limited and scattered over a variety of fields. In this paper, we systematically review papers on CE in the mainstream organizational literature, defined as literature in the fields of economics, business, management and sociology. Our review integrates and synthesizes the current topics in the mainstream organizational literature and provides a number of avenues for future research. In addition, we compare our findings in the organizational literature to the social issues literature as these appeared to be quite complimentary. We found multilevel studies, determination of social impact—in particular measurable impact, managerial practices for sustainable (organisational) development, and the entrepreneurial opportunity generation process as the four key avenues for future research.

For decades, the cooperative enterprise (CE) produces market goods and/or provides services in the interest to its members, such as communities, customers, and suppliers. The upsurge of interest in social enterprises, and their balancing of social and economic interests, has also led to a renewed interest in CEs, often seen as a specific type of social enterprise. However, from an organizational perspective, this renewed interest has been both limited and scattered over a variety of fields. In this paper, we systematically review papers on CE in the mainstream organizational literature, defined as literature in the fields of economics, business, management and sociology. Our review integrates and synthesizes the current topics in the mainstream organizational literature and provides a number of avenues for future research. In addition, we compare our findings in the organizational literature to the social issues literature as these appeared to be quite complimentary. We found multilevel studies, determination of social impact—in particular measurable impact, managerial practices for sustainable (organisational) development, and the entrepreneurial opportunity generation process as the four key avenues for future research.

L’adjectif « agile » est désormais employé pour qualifier un idéal d’entreprises dynamiques et innovantes. De fait, deux interprétations de ce terme peuvent être envisagées. La première renvoie à la mise en place systématique d’une gestion de projet en mode agile, c’est-à-dire se conformant à certaines valeurs et principes formulés dans un manifeste. Celui-ci met notamment l’accent sur le développement en cycles courts, le travail en petite équipe, une conception en collaboration avec les clients et l’acceptation bienveillante des changements de besoins. La seconde se rapporte à une entreprise capable de répondre plus vite et mieux que ses concurrentes à des changements environnementaux. Dans ces deux cas, la créativité et la veille jouent un rôle important. Elles permettent à l’entreprise de rester agile en : identifiant les changements environnementaux, alertant sur ses propres routines, envisageant rapidement des réponses pertinentes pour ses clients et, autant que possible, surprenantes pour ses concurrents.

The last few years witnessed theoretical and practical contributions to the field of social innovation and social enterprise. However, analysis of the interplay between these two different realms is still limited. This article aims to fill some gaps in this respect. We deal with historical reconstruction of the concept of Social Enterprise and Social Innovation, and their conceptual premises. We consider the process of creation of social innovation in social enterprises. As members’ motivations, ownership rights and governance rules in social enterprises create a new relational context and new routines, which are germane to the production of social knowledge and deliberation, social innovation can be considered one of the main outcomes of this setting. Social motivations, collective action of a cooperative kind, multistakeholder governance and socialization of resources, and their interplay are singled out as main drivers of innovation. Social innovation is seen as akin to novelty in social interaction, a non-standardized and non-standardizable outcome of the operation of this organizational form.

The last few years witnessed theoretical and practical contributions to the field of social innovation and social enterprise. However, analysis of the interplay between these two different realms is still limited. This article aims to fill some gaps in this respect. We deal with historical reconstruction of the concept of Social Enterprise and Social Innovation, and their conceptual premises. We consider the process of creation of social innovation in social enterprises. As members’ motivations, ownership rights and governance rules in social enterprises create a new relational context and new routines, which are germane to the production of social knowledge and deliberation, social innovation can be considered one of the main outcomes of this setting. Social motivations, collective action of a cooperative kind, multistakeholder governance and socialization of resources, and their interplay are singled out as main drivers of innovation. Social innovation is seen as akin to novelty in social interaction, a non-standardized and non-standardizable outcome of the operation of this organizational form.

The main purpose of this article is to introduce the Social Enterprise Model Canvas (SEMC), a Business Model Canvas (BMC) conceived for designing the organizational settings of social enterprises, for resolving the mission measurement paradox, and for meeting the strategy, legitimacy and governance challenges. The SEMC and the analysis that explains its features are of interest to academics concerned with the study of social entrepreneurship because they offer a new analytical tool that is particularly useful for untangling and comparing different forms of social enterprises. Also, it is of interest to social entrepreneurs, because the SEMC is a platform that can be used to prevent 'mission drifts' that might result from problems emerging from the mismanagement of such challenges. The arguments presented are grounded on scientific literature from multiple disciplines and fields, on a critical review of the BMC, and on a case study. The main features of SEMC that makes it an alternative to the BMC are attention to social value and building blocks that take into consideration non-targeted stakeholders, principles of governance, the involvement of customers and targeted beneficiaries, mission values, short-term objectives, impact and output measures.

The main purpose of this article is to introduce the Social Enterprise Model Canvas (SEMC), a Business Model Canvas (BMC) conceived for designing the organizational settings of social enterprises, for resolving the mission measurement paradox, and for meeting the strategy, legitimacy and governance challenges. The SEMC and the analysis that explains its features are of interest to academics concerned with the study of social entrepreneurship because they offer a new analytical tool that is particularly useful for untangling and comparing different forms of social enterprises. Also, it is of interest to social entrepreneurs, because the SEMC is a platform that can be used to prevent 'mission drifts' that might result from problems emerging from the mismanagement of such challenges. The arguments presented are grounded on scientific literature from multiple disciplines and fields, on a critical review of the BMC, and on a case study. The main features of SEMC that makes it an alternative to the BMC are attention to social value and building blocks that take into consideration non-targeted stakeholders, principles of governance, the involvement of customers and targeted beneficiaries, mission values, short-term objectives, impact and output measures.

Cette recherche traite du rôle des plateformes technologiques pour engager le client dans un processus de co-création de valeur avec l’entreprise. Le cas du Photomaton digital (Sharingbox) est étudié. Des entretiens semi-directifs menés auprès de clients participants à trois événements de marques mais aussi auprès de managers et de responsables de l’entreprise Sharingbox révèlent le rôle de cette technologie à engager les participants dans un acte de co-création en ligne avec la marque, acte qui peut se révéler engageant dans le temps. Cependant, l’efficacité de ces plateformes d’engagement semble contingente aux valeurs perçues de l’expérience de la technologie, à l’image de la marque et au profil de ses clients.

L’entreprise ReSanté-Vous est positionnée sur le secteur de la santé, à destination des personnes âgées. Elle a élaboré une proposition de valeur fondée sur l’innovation sociale. L’étude du cas de ce business model permet de discuter des critères permettant de définir un tel métier, et dans quelle mesure les modèles existants sont bien adaptés à ses dimensions sociales et solidaires, ou de création de valeur sociétale. L’exposé du cas débouche sur l’identification d’une série de forces et faiblesses du modèle économique, et la nécessité de mieux appréhender le concept d’impact social.

L’entreprise ReSanté-Vous est positionnée sur le secteur de la santé, à destination des personnes âgées. Elle a élaboré une proposition de valeur fondée sur l’innovation sociale. L’étude du cas de ce business model permet de discuter des critères permettant de définir un tel métier, et dans quelle mesure les modèles existants sont bien adaptés à ses dimensions sociales et solidaires, ou de création de valeur sociétale. L’exposé du cas débouche sur l’identification d’une série de forces et faiblesses du modèle économique, et la nécessité de mieux appréhender le concept d’impact social.