Mark

Marketing and eting

and
social social
enterprises: enter

implications for prises

social
marketing
Alex Mitchell 285
Received 23
Queens School of Business, Queens September 2014
University, Kingston, Canada, and Revised 22
April 2015

Judith Madill and 31

Augu

Samia Chreim st
2015

Telfer School of Management, University Accepted 31

August 2015
of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to build Research
understanding of the concept of social enterprise in the limitation
social marketing community and to report on empirical s/implicati
research designed to develop an understanding the ons This
perceptions and practices of marketing within social qualitative
enterprises. This addresses a significant gap in the current study
literature base and also provides insights for social pursues
marketers seeking to pursue social change initiatives depth of
through social enterprise. understand
Design/methodology/approach This empirical ing through
investigation uses a qualitative investigation of 15 social focused
enterprises informed by a grounded theory approach. investigatio
Researchers conducted interviews with senior decision- n of a
makers responsible for marketing activities and strategic small,
policy, and gathered additional data regarding the regional
organizations in the form of archival materials, including sample of
strategic planning documents, promotional materials and Canadian
firm-generated online content. social
Findings Strategic marketing practices used by social enterprises
enterprises are shaped by moral, pragmatic and . The
cognitive legitimacy influences stemming from findings
imperatives to achieve congruence with institutional demonstrat
norms. This study exposes the challenges social e that
enterprises face in developing strategic marketing social
activities that address business needs, while balancing enterprises
stakeholder interests linked to the social missions of are similar
such organizations. to both
not-for-profit and small- and medium-sized firms in
terms of their marketing approaches, but face particular
institutional legitimacy challenges when developing and
implementing strategic marketing activities.
Practical implications This paper highlights the
influences of institutional legitimacy on marketing practices
and approaches in social enterprises. Understanding these
influences is crucial for social marketing practitioners, as
they develop strategic activities. The findings from the
research provide a baseline upon which to begin to build
both our theoretical and practical understanding of the
potential utilization of social marketing through social
enterprises.
Social implications Understanding the challenges social
enterprises face in developing their strategic marketing
activities provides deeper insights into social enterprises for
social marketers, who might consider using social marketing
in such organizations to achieve social change.
Originality/value This paper offers empirical evidence
grounded in depth investigations of 15 social enterprises
operating in a Canadian context. The findings help to extend our
understanding of the

The authors gratefully acknowledge the support

of the Telfer School of Management through the
School of Management Research Fund, which
provided financial assistance for a portion of the
data collection involved with this study. This
paper is based on the first authors masters
dissertation.

Journal of Social
Marketing
Vol. 5 No. 4,
2015
pp. 285-306
Emerald Group
Publishing Limited
20
42-
67
63
DOI 10.1108/JSOCM-
09-2014-0068

complex institutional influences impacting

JSO marketing practices within social enterprise
organizations. These institutional influences help to
CM attune social marketers to the potential
opportunities and challenges of using social
5,4
enterprise as an organizational form for launching
social marketing programs.
Keywords Marketing strategy, Legitimacy, Social
enterprise, Social marketing, Social business

2 Paper type Research paper

8
6 Introduction
Social enterprises are growing in number and
importance in contemporary society (Austin et al.,
2006; Christie and Honig, 2006; Dees, 1998;
Rangan et al., 2008). In the face of reduced funding
from government, many traditional charitable
organizations are attempting to generate at least
so es are also emerging (Dees and Anderson, 2003).
me Not to be confused with socially responsible
rev activities undertaken by for-profit firms to enhance
enu their reputation or increase employee satisfaction,
e this renewed (Dart, 2004b, p. 421) breed of
thr organization utilizes a for-profit model and
oug competes directly with other firms, including not-
h for-profits, to deliver social value.
the Why might social marketers be interested in
sal social enterprises? Social marketing is a marketing
e of approach utilized primarily by governments, such
pro as ministries of health and agriculture, as well as
duc not-for-profit organizations, to achieve positive
ts behaviour change contributing to social good
and (Andreasen, 2002). Leading thinkers within the
ser social marketing domain have recognized recently,
vic that social marketing as a field may have moved
es away from its dynamic roots and become captive
usi of a routinized process to create programs
ng (Lefebvre, 2012, p. 119). Lefebvre (2012) argues
for- further that to make positive transformative
pro change in tackling social problems, social
fit marketers need to recognize that the world is
bus changing and look for fresh ideas and inspiration in
ine the fields around us. The emergence of innovative
ss social enterprises presents an alternative method
mo for pursuing positive social change that has
del garnered substantial attention due to the focus on
s. creating shared value equally social and
In economic rather than narrow economic returns
add (Porter and Kramer, 2011). In this view, social
itio enterprises are vehicles to pursue entrepreneurial
n, approaches that catalyze social change (Dacin et
for- al., 2010; Mair and Mart, 2006). Similarly, in social
pro marketing, practitioner and academic communities
fit are moving beyond the more narrow focus on the
fir individual, to re-consider the broader social change
ms goals of the discipline (Lefebvre, 2012; Andreasen,
wit 2002; Kotler and Zaltman, 1971). There is a very
h a recent but developing recognition in both the
dire practitioner and academic communities that social
ct marketing and social enterprises are really in the
soc same business the business of social change
ial but represent different approaches for achieving it
mis (see, for example, the keynote address of Jeff
sio Jordan, President and Executive Creative Director,
n Rescue Social Change, at the 2015 World Social
for- Marketing Conference, and a recent academic
pro presentation by Mitchell et al. (2014) at the Social
fit Marketing Advances in Research and Theory
soc Conference). Further, there is some empirical
ial evidence that social marketing may be a useful
ven tool/approach that could be utilized successfully in
tur appropriate circumstances in social enterprise
org and Ziegler, 2012). For that reason, social
ani marketers may find social enterprises to be
zati appropriate organizational vehicles in which to
ons work to achieve social change. The demand for
(Ma utilizing social marketing may also come from
dill social
areas
enterprise organizations themselves, who may of
recognize the potential for social marketing as an discuss
approach for achieving their social change. Madill ion
and Ziegler (2012) provide evidence of the use of relevan
social marketing approaches in one major Canadian t to
social enterprise, suggesting that combining social possibl
enterprise and social marketing approaches may be e
a powerful tool in the quest for improved social mutual
outcomes. goals
Given that a focus on addressing significant and
social problems is shared by both social enterprises interest
and social marketing, the purpose of this paper is to s as
better understand social enterprises as a potential introdu
vehicle for social marketing practice. Social ced in
enterprises are a unique organizational context the
focusing on generating social and economic value introdu
(Porter and Kramer, 2011), and value creation and ction to
dissemination lies at the core of an organizations this
marketing capabilities (Smith et al., 2010b). The paper.
purpose of this paper is twofold. First, we seek to We
build understanding of the concept of social extend
enterprise in the social marketing community. In this
addition, we report on empirical research that review
investigates how social enterprises perceive and to
practice marketing. This addresses a significant gap discuss
in the current literature base and also provides ions of
insights for social marketers seeking to pursue marketi
social change initiatives through social enterprise. ng
The literature review begins by introducing the practic
literature on social enterprise and focuses in es and
particular on the definition(s) of social enterprise. strateg
This is followed by a brief examination of y
background literature concerning marketing and within
marketing strategy in social enterprises. The social
qualitative methodology and data analyses enterpr
approaches used in this research are then ises to
described, followed by the presentation of research establis
findings. The concluding section of the paper h the
discusses the key findings as well as implications for current
theory, future research and, in particular, state of
implications for social marketing practice. this
literatu
Literature review re, and
We begin by briefly reviewing the concept of social end
enterprise. An interested reader can explore this with a
literature in detail elsewhere, but we draw out the discuss
ion of research linking social marketing and social Mark
enterprise.
eting
and
Social enterprises
Social enterprises are organizations seeking to social
address social issues through the application of enter
business practices and principles (Dacin et al., prises
2010). Although these types of organizations have
existed for many years for example, the term
tentmaking refers to Christians ministering for the
church who support themselves through their own 2
labour rather than relying on church support, and
dates back to the Bible (Siemens, 1997) there has
8
been recent upsurge in the quantity, type and 7
societal impact of social enterprises worldwide.
Examples of social enterprises include the Salvation
Army, who finance their social mandate at least
partially through Salvation Army Thrift Stores;
Potluck Caf in Vancouver, Canada
(www.potluckcatering.org); and The Big Issue in the
United Kingdom (www.bigissue.com), all
organizations with different legal incorporations that
derive some portion of their operational budgets
from revenue-generating activity. Dart (2004b, p.
413) refers to these types of organizations as
frame breaking in that they challenge the social
and cultural norms associated with both commercial
organizational approaches, as well as activities
consistent with
JSOCM not-for-profit organizations. Social enterprises, then, are those organizations that
pursue
5,4 double bottom-lines combining economic and social goals, as well as those that include
a third accountability to the environment (Pealoza and Mish, 2011; Mish and
Scammon,
2010).
Social enterprises can be conceived as the organizations or programs within
which
social entrepreneurs accomplish their work. However, such a narrow view has
been
288 criticized as emphasizing the heroic social entrepreneur while obscuring the
social benefits generated by groups and organizations as collectivities (Dacin et
al., 2011). While there exists a plurality of views concerning the definition of
social enterprises (Dacin et al., 2010), this research adopts the Thompson and
Dohertys (2006, p. 362) conception and focuses on the subset of such
organizations that have a social purpose and pursue this purpose at least in part
through trade in a market place. Defining social enterprise too broadly can be
problematic (Dart et al., 2010), however, this definition provides suitable
flexibility in terms of the types of organizations to sample, given that social
enterprises may be legally incorporated as not-for-profits, charities or for-profit
ventures. Support for this definition can be found in the academic literature
(Quarter et al., 2009, pp. 107-108; Smith et al., 2010a) as well as from
practitioner organizations such as enterprising non-profits
(www.enterprisingnonprofits.ca).

Legitimacy and social enterprise

Institutional approaches to conceptualizing organizational environments theorize
that organizations exist only to the extent that they are deemed to comply with
various social and cultural norms (Dart, 2004b; Handelman and Arnold, 1999;
Suchman, 1995; Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975). In this sense, organizations seek to
be perceived as legitimate by relevant societal stakeholders. Simply, legitimacy
refers to the need for organizations to achieve congruence between the social
values associated with or implied by their activities and the norms of acceptable
behaviour in the larger social system of which they are a part (Dowling and
Pfeffer, 1975, p. 122). Success for firms stems, in part, from demonstrating
congruence through conformity or isomorphism (Dacin, 1997) with the
dominant social values of their environment.
One challenge with social enterprises is that these organizations face myriad,
potentially conflicting, social values linked with the economic, social and
environmental aspects of their missions. Marketing as an organizational activity
plays a central role in terms of how the organization communicates its
congruence with environmental norms, both through value creation and the
manner of engagement with relevant stakeholders (Pealoza and Mish, 2011;
Mish and Scammon, 2010). In spite of current and projected growth in both the
formation and role of social entrepreneurs and social enterprises, academic
research has been largely focused on definitional and conceptual issues (Dacin
et al., 2010, p. 38), with little research investigating marketing in general, and
marketing strategy specifically, within these domains (Bloom, 2009). A search of
academic journals done in an attempt to review the literature regarding
 marketing strategy in social enterprises yielded surprisingly few results. In the
words of Bloom (2009, p. 133): Unfortunately, business and marketing scholars
have yet to turn much attention to how to improve the effectiveness and impact
of social entrepreneurs. We review this literature next, and because of the
limited evidence available on marketing in social enterprises, we then move to a
very brief consideration of the extant literature on marketing in not-for-profit
organizations to borrow knowledge that might apply to
gain
social enterprises. We expect marketing in social enterprises to be different from financial
marketing in not-for-profit and for-profit organizations in that social enterprises, autonomy
according to our conceptualization, will have a significant for-profit commitment that through
is not traditionally part of the mission for not-for-profit organizations, and they have a generating
significant commitment to a social mission, which is not traditionally part of the profits from
mission of for-profit firms. As the literature has established differences in marketing in income
organizations with differing commitments to social and for-profit missions, we expect generating
that these hybrid social enterprise organizations will utilize marketing in ways activities.
different than the traditional organizations on the for-profit and not-for-profit Madill et al.
spectrum. (2010)
argue that
adoption of
Marketing in social enterprises commercial
In general, the term marketing strategy refers to a connected set of marketing
decisions an organization makes with respect to the value it will create and strategies in
deliver to achieve its objectives (Varadarajan, 2010). Social enterprises social
complicate traditional notions of value creation and delivery because of the enterprises
dual focus on both social and economic objectives. This dual focus echoes is necessary
recent literature in marketing which argues that marketing practices need for them to
to be geared towards customers primarily, but also be oriented to a range achieve
of other organizational stakeholders (Bhattacharya, 2010; Ferrell et al., financial
2010; Gundlach and Wilkie, 2010; Smith et al., 2010b). self-
Boschee (2006), in discussing the perils faced by social enterprises, cites a sufficiency.
One
number of key strategic marketing questions that these organizations must
possibility for
answer. These questions revolve around defining who the customers are, what
generating
they value, whether the organization can and should provide what the
insight and
customers are looking for and how the social enterprise should position itself.
understandin
Based on the answers to these questions, Boschee asserts that social
g concerning
enterprises can use two fundamental marketing strategies:
marketing in
(1) market push (the introduction of a product or service that has social
not previously been commercialized into a market); and enterprises
(2) market pull (firms deliver products or services to a market due (in the face of
to a recognized need). a lack of
research and
While Boschee provides a valuable conceptualization of customer targeting
writing on
issues as well as product introductions and positioning, this work does not
marketing in
consider how other key dimensions of marketing strategy play out in social
these
enterprises.
organizations
The literature has also begun to give attention to the notion of marketing
) is to explore
in achieving financial self-sufficiency in social enterprises (Madill et al.,
marketing
2010). Financial self-sufficiency refers to the ability of a social enterprise to
strategy, as it
has developed in other organizations with social missions. Specifically, a great deal of Marketing
literature exists with respect to exclusively not-for-profit organizations, which are
and social
similar to social enterprises in their desire to pursue a social mission, but differ in that
social enterprises pursue profit-generating activities. Exploring marketing strategy in enterprise
not-for-profit s

28
9
JSOCM organizations may help anticipate what might be expected with respect to
social
5,4 enterprises, but how closely the two are related is not clear.

Marketing strategy in not-for-profit organizations

The concept of utilizing marketing in not-for-profit organizations has a long
history
290 (Kotler and Levy, 1969). Current research into marketing in not-for-profit
organizations suggests that while marketing is viewed in a positive light in many
not-for-profits (Pope et al., 2009), it may still be considered undesirable by some
members of that sector. In particular, three stigmas can hamper the adoption of
marketing approaches (Andreasen and Kotler, 2003). The first is waste of money.
This is particularly important in not-for-profits that receive public funding, as
there is a perception that marketing is a superfluous activity that diverts
financial resources from achieving the primary mission of the organization. The
second is intrusiveness. Market research can include interviewing customers or
potential customers to better understand their needs and goals. Some view this
type of data collection as an undue burden on individuals, which leads to
accusations that marketers invade the privacy of others. The third is
manipulation. Marketing activities, especially advertising, can be viewed as
being misleading or manipulative, if those activities are not planned and
executed correctly. These stigmas can lead not-for-profit organizations to adopt
approaches to marketing that do not place enough emphasis on understanding
the target market, but rather focus internally on the organization itself (Dolnicar
and Lazarevski, 2009). A number of researchers have investigated the need for
not-for-profits to address this deficiency directly by adopting more market-
oriented approaches (Gainer and Padanyi, 2002; Zhou et al., 2009).
Mottner and Ford (2005) attempt to measure marketing strategy within
not-for-profit organizations. The authors develop a model for museum
stores, based on the extant literature, where educational strategies and
financial strategies (although separate) each impact both educational
performance and financial performance. The authors invoke the 7Ps
(product, price, place, promotion, people/participants, process and physical
evidence) to outline the tactics a museum stores marketing strategy might
use. A key finding is that the adoption of financial marketing strategies
actually improves the altruistic educational strategy of museum stores
and, hypothetically, the social missions of not-for-profit organizations.
However, emphasis on the educational strategy, which aligns closely with
the social mission of a not-for-profit, actually has a negative impact on
financial performance. Lougheed and Dankervoort (2002) voiced a similar
negative relationship in discussing their experiences leading the social
enterprises Inner City Renovations (Winnipeg, Canada) and Potluck Caf
Society (Vancouver, Canada).
Supporting earlier work in the field of marketing in not-for-profit organizations,
such as Andreasen and Kotler (2003), a paper by Dolnicar and Lazarevski (2009)
comparing not-for-profit organizations in the UK, the USA and Australia found that
not-for-profit managers have not yet developed strong knowledge and skills
concerning the marketing approach. The results of their research reveal that not-for-
profit managers view the most important marketing activities as being promotional in
nature. Very few of the managers acknowledged the importance of activities such as
 market research and strategic marketing. Dolnicar and Lazarevski (2009) also report
that not-for-profit organizations typically still have an organization rather than a
customer-centric mindset.
in general
Recently, Pope et al. (2009) show that growth in the non-profit sector has been we do not
accompanied by greater support and interest from that sector concerning the have a clear
importance of marketing. However, they also show (in support of others such as understandi
Andreasen and Kotler, 2003; Dolnicar and Lazarevski, 2009), that while non-profit ng of the
managers see marketing as important, they do not use key marketing approaches to marketing
a great degree. For example, while a majority of the managers in the study viewed practices
marketing as important, more than 80 per cent failed to define target markets. and
Contrasted with statistics for small businesses suggesting that market assessment technologies
and definition account for between 14 and 24 per cent of marketing-related issues social
across all lifecycle stages of a small business (Dodge and Robbins, 1992), this enterprises
suggests that not-for-profit managers may lack a depth of marketing knowledge implement.
required for economic success in the marketplace. To further
Pope et al. (2009), noting the lack of available theory with respect to marketing the potential
strategy in not-for profit organizations, examine how marketing strategies develop in for social
such organizations. Aligning with earlier work on marketing in not-for-profit marketers to
organizations (Andreasen and Kotler, 2003; Herron, 1997; Oster, 1995), the authors leverage
recognize that not-for-profit organizations typically have a myriad of target markets social
or customer groups, including clients, volunteers and donors/funders. Building upon enterprise as
this marketing tradition of considering different target markets, a recent trend in a vehicle to
marketing literature as been to elevate the importance of considering non-customer pursue
stakeholder groups, while retaining a core focus on delivering value to customers social
(Bhattacharya, 2010; Ferrell et al., 2010; Gundlach and Wilkie, 2010; Smith et al., change
2010b). In the not-for-profit literature, there is recognition not only that multiple initiatives,
stakeholders exist but also that multiple marketing strategies are necessary to reach this research
these divergent audiences (Andreasen and Kotler, 2003; Padanyi and Gainer, 2004). seeks to
The results and recommendations of the Pope et al. (2009) exploratory study reflect understand
a sector still learning about marketing. what
marketing
practices
Social marketing in social enterprises and
The authors were able to locate only one paper exploring the use of social technologies
marketing in social enterprise (Madill and Ziegler, 2012). This paper showed social
that a large Canadian social enterprise trying to change behaviour around enterprises
water usage utilized many of the approaches and thinking behind social leverage,
marketing. However, while the organization appeared to recognize the and the
benefits of their orientation to behaviour change, it did not explicitly identify operational
with a social marketing strategic approach. However, the organizations constraints
focus on changing behaviours through strategic exchanges with final under which
customers (Andreasen, 2002, p. 8) is consistent with a commercial, those
market-oriented perspective (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990). practices
Social marketing is a fundamentally strategic undertaking, using marketing and
practices to achieve outcomes measured in the behavioural changes of select technologies
target segments (Andreasen, 1994, 2002). Social enterprises are forms of are
collective action organizations that practitioners interested in achieving deployed.
transformational social changes increasingly seek to leverage. While social
enterprises may turn to social marketing approaches (Madill and Ziegler, 2012),
Marketing and social enterprises 29
1
JSOCM Context and methodology
5,4 This research asks how marketing approaches used in social enterprises can help
inform social marketing. There is a dearth of research with respect to marketing in
social
enterprises; so, it is both appropriate and necessary to undertake qualitative research
to
build understanding of this phenomenon (Creswell, 2007; Charmaz, 2006; Glaser
and
Strauss, 1967). We conducted a comparative study of 15 cases of social
enterprises. The
292 cases we studied are located in Canada. No formal legal designation
and no comprehensive sampling frames exist for social enterprises in
Canada. To draw a sample for study, the research team created a database
consisting of 46 social enterprises in the geographical proximity of the
teams home university. This database was constructed by amalgamating
existing databases known to the researchers and by searching the Internet
for enterprises that met the definitional criteria. To be included in the
database, an enterprise had to:
demonstrate an underlying drive to create social value rather
than just personal or shareholder value; and
utilize private sector business practices to achieve organizational
goals.
The team then utilized purposeful sampling (Miles and Huberman, 1994) in
selecting 15 cases, which represented the variety of social enterprises, for in
depth study.
Table I provides summary data concerning the participating
organizations. Three of the organizations, Org01, Org06 and Org11
operate multiple social enterprises under the umbrella of a parent.
Conceptually, these social enterprises act almost as discrete business
units, with dedicated management staff and budgets, but with overall
reporting and accountability feeding into the umbrella organization. To
disambiguate between the different social enterprises, a unique letter is
appended to the end of the organization code name, for example
Org01a versus Org01b and Org01c. The three organizations that
operate multiple social enterprises are in contrast to the other 12
organizations in this study that operate single social enterprises.
Table I also presents information regarding the founding of each of the
organizations as well as the social enterprise component in each organization. In
the case of four of the not-for-profits, the social enterprise component developed
after the initial founding of the organization. Table II provides additional
comparative information concerning the size of the organizations involved, while
Table III provides comparisons of the annual marketing budgets against the
overall revenue for the organizations.
Consistent with qualitative research, and grounded theory approaches
(Charmaz, 2006; Creswell, 2007), we sought rich sources of data consisting
of interviews, field notes and information in reports and websites. The
primary source of data for our study consists of interviews with participants.
All participants were senior decision-makers within their organizations, and
all were responsible for marketing decisions. Participant tenure averages for
 current role with the organization were 5.25 and 6.43 years, respectively.
Participants were well able to provide the information sought in this
research study. Semi-structured interviews (Patton, 2002), lasting an
average of 90 minutes, were conducted with participants. Interviews were
digitally recorded and transcribed for analysis.
In addition to conducting interviews, the research team collected other
forms of qualitative data through taking notes while participating in two
social enterprise
Org Social enterprise
Code name Mission Industry (business activity) founded founded Legal stru
Pre-employment and employment
Org01* services N/a 1977 Not-for-p
Org01a Food services (catering) 1999
Org01b Property and lawn maintenance services 2005
Org01c Bicycle refurbishment and sales 2010
Org02 Laundry services Laundry services 1999 Not-for-p
Promoting social causes and
Org03 organizations Software (online advertising) 2009 2009 Incorpora
Org04 Counseling, education and support Employment assistance program (services) 1914 1989 Registere
services
Org05 Development of nations Software (public financial management) 1984 1984 Incorpora
Org06 Employment services N/a 2004 Not-for-p
Org06a Food services (restaurant) 2008
Org06b Printing services 2006
Org06c Housekeeping and grounds keeping services 2004
Org06d Coffee and chocolate products 2004
Org06e Antique refinishing and restoration services 2004
Org06f Packaging solutions (shipping) 2004
Commercial recycling services (paper, plastic, metal
Org06g and 2008
electronics)
Org06h Agricultural labour services 2005
Org06i Woodworking services 2004
Org07 Affordable housing Home improvement and dcor products 1993 Not-for-p
Org08 Community outreach services Retail (clothing, household goods, and childrens) 1986 Not-for-p
For-profit w
Org09 Equitable trade and community Fair trade, organic food products 1999 1999 cooperativ
development
Org10 Resource conservation Community-based social marketing 2005 2005 Not-for-p
Org11 At-risk youth services N/a 1971 Not-for-p
Org11a Jewellery 2009
Commercial bottle collection and recycling
Org11b services 2009
Org12 Financial services Financial services 2000 2000 Not-for-p
Food services (restaurant, catering and
Org13 Sustainable food supply wholesale) 2001 2001 Privately
Environmental consulting and contracting (auto
Org14 Environmental sustainability services) 2000 2000 Incorpora
Day supports and services for
Org15 disabled Packaging and distribution services 1982 Not-for-p
adults cooperat

Notes: * Highlighted rows represent the three parent organizations and their SEs to indicate that they are related to one another; SEs operate under a parent
organization to support the mission of the parent
 .
TableI
Organization
y
summar
indicators
size
summary:
Organization
Table II.
29
4

5
,
J

O
Employees Volunteers r
Social enterprise (
Code name (full and part time) Volunteers (Org) (social enterprise) revenue s
Did
Org01 Did not disclose Yes dis
Org01a 44 No $200,000
Org01b 15 No $60,000
Org01c 11 No $53,000
Org02 2 Yes No $104,000
Ou
Org03 4 No No Out of business bus
Org04 60 Yes No $800,000 $
Did
Org05 Did not disclose No No Did not disclose dis
Org06 Did not disclose No No $1,407,158 $
Org06a
Org06b
Org06c
Org06d
Org06e
Org06f
Org06g
Org06h
Org06i
Org07 14 Yes Yes $281,975 $
Org08 8 Yes Yes $200,000
Org09 13 No No $6,148,890 $
Did
Org10 17 Yes (per campaign) Yes (per Did not disclose dis
campaign)
Org11 Did not disclose Yes
Org11a 2 No $15,000
Org11b 16 No $40,000
Org12 2 Yes Yes $7,000
Did
Org13 Did not disclose No No Did not disclose dis
Org14 5 No No $1,000,000 $
Org15 31 Yes No $60,350 $

Notes: * Org03 went out of business in December 2010; revenue figures provided for Org06 were
taken from the organizations 2010 annual financial statement, and that statement did not break
down the revenue derived from each SE
Marketing
Org revenue (all and social
Organization Annual marketing budget sources) enterprise
Org01 $12,164 Did not disclose s
Org01a $5,100
Org01b $3,600
Org01c $7,500
Org02 $1,000 $200,000 29
Org03 $0 Out of business 5
Org04 $5,000 $3,200,000
Org05 Did not disclose Did not disclose
Org06 $43,657 $1,407,158
Org06a $2,000
Org06b $2,000
Org06c $2,000
Org06d $2,000
Org06e $2,000
Org06f $2,000
Org06g $2,000
Org06h $2,000
Org06i $2,000
Org07 $6,000 $1,186,045
Org08 $1,000 Did not disclose
Org09 $89,000 $6,148,890
Org10 Did not disclose Did not disclose
Org11 $6,100 $752,659
Org11a
Org11b
Org12 Did not disclose Did not disclose
Org13 $7,000 Did not disclose Table
Org14 $1,000 $1,000,000 III.
Marketing budgets
Org15 $10,000 $1,766,069
and organizational
revenues

conferences attended by several of the participating organizations, a tenth anniversary

open house event conducted at one of the participant organizations and gathering
relevant media and additional documentation from organization websites and third-party
outlets, such as newspapers and online publications. Further, during most site visits and
interviews, study participants passed on electronic and or paper copies of
previous/current marketing strategies and campaigns as well as other key-related
documents. These sources allow for triangulation of data gathered during the interviews,
both to confirm participant accounts and to add depth to the primary data.
Data for each case were coded first using initial or descriptive coding (Charmaz, 2006;
Miles and Huberman, 1994) to establish categories of analysis representing very closely the
views of participants. Subsequently, theoretical or inferential coding (Charmaz, 2006; Miles
and Huberman, 1994) was conducted to aggregate codes created in the earlier phase of the
coding process and to move to a more conceptual level of analysis. Throughout the analytical
phases of the study, the research team pursued memo writing (Creswell, 2007; Miles and
Huberman, 1994) to conduct comparisons across the data, to draw out relevant themes.
JSOCM Research findings
5,4 We unpack our findings using a legitimacy perspective as a structuring and interpretive
strategy, with respect to the perceptions and focus of marketing in social
enterprises,
promotional strategies and branding. Communicating and maintaining
congruence
with the norms of an organizations environment, through how value is created and
how
firms engage with relevant stakeholders, are central to the marketing function
(Pealoza
296 and Mish, 2011; Mish and Scammon, 2010). Viewing marketing thought and
practice in social enterprises through a legitimacy lens attunes our findings to
the particular constraints and opportunities available within the unique
organizational environments these firms inhabit. In addition, this lens provides a
shared platform for relating the insights from investigations of social enterprise
to social marketing.

Perceptions and focus of marketing in social enterprises

Participants in 14 of the 15 social enterprises in this research view
marketing as a positive endeavour, even if there were lingering
doubts stemming from more general negative perceptions of using
marketing approaches. The participant representing Org02 put it like
this:
You know, branding and marketing are not sins []. It doesnt have to go
against the vision and the mission of social enterprises or social areas or
social organizations or people themselves (Org02).
Her view illustrates an understanding that marketing is not inherently something
to avoid, and yet the wording demonstrates awareness that negative
perceptions do linger in the social enterprise community. Further, the participant
from Org10, a community-based social marketing organization (Mackenzie-Mohr,
2011), offered this assessment:
[] we are a charity that acts in a commercial way sometimes so were conscious
of that. And the tax regulators, theyre schizophrenic in those sorts of things, they
dont like you to look too business-like, and we say, well were sorry but we have
to be (Org10).
These quotes illustrate underlying moral legitimacy (Dart, 2004b; Suchman, 1995)
influences that contribute to the perceptions of marketing activities within social
enterprises. Moral legitimacy refers specifically to the influence of normative
expectations on activities undertaken by individuals or groups (Dart, 2004b, p. 416).
Such norms are external to both the evaluators and the individuals or groups being
evaluated, and act to structure the environment collectively faced by all
stakeholders. In the case of marketing in social enterprises, moral legitimacy is partly
based on normative pressures linking commercial marketing to more sinful
connotations. Such connotations are historically rooted in divisions that linked for-
profit and not-for-profit activities with lower- and higher-class pursuits, respectively
(DiMaggio, 1982). To undertake commercial activities, with which marketing is
inextricably linked, is to be associated with the lower class vulgarity of the
marketplace, whereas not-for-profit activities carry the association of being external,
 and thus morally superior, to the marketplace. Social enterprises oppose these
notions through appeals designed to alter these legacy associations:
Marketing [] is our presence in the community. Whether its newspaper articles in the large
circulated papers like the Herald or local community papers, telling a story as to what our
services are (Org04).
minimize
[] what we really thought that we needed to do at the very start was to have spending.
people take us seriously as a business and not see us as a social service agency Accordingly,
(Org01a). the majority
of
Social enterprises specifically targeted their environment with direct challenges
promotional
to legacy notions of socially oriented organizations as commercially inferior,
activities
similar to empirical findings related to not-for-profit organizations (Dart, 2004a).
used low-
In the case of Org04, being present in the community ties directly with both their
cost tools
social and commercial missions as trusted providers of employment assistance
consistent
services. Org01a competes directly against a number of for-profit catering
with word-of-
services, but found that emphasizing the social mission diminished their ability
mouth
to secure clients. In their case, the normative expectations pushed them to
tactics. In
adopt an almost exclusively commercial orientation with respect to their clients,
total, 10 of
while the social directives were undertaken internally as human resource
the 15
management considerations.
participants
Our findings suggest that social enterprises are both familiar with and experienced
involved in
in the application of, marketing practices and approaches. In addition, these types of
this study
organizations are familiar with the challenges of juggling the demands linked to
directly
addressing social and economic goals. For social enterprises, this means pursuing
mentioned
activities perceived as primarily legitimate to more financially oriented audiences as
word-of-
a direct challenge to legacy notions of more socially oriented organizations (Dart,
mouth as a
2004a). We suggest that the high degree of marketing competence among social
currently
enterprises makes them an ideal organizational approach within which to develop
used,
social marketing applications.
successful
marketing
Promotional strategies
The participants in the study reported that the number one constraint in terms of activity
their marketing activities is lack of financial resources. Overall, the data suggest that utilized in
social enterprises simply do not have money for marketing. The data show that while their
marketing budgets vary among the social enterprises, only three of the enterprises enterprises.
had budgets exceeding $10,000 per year (Table III for budget comparison to overall The
organizational revenue). One organization (Org09) is a major outlier with a importance
substantially larger annual marketing budget of $89,000. The key informant from this of this
organization was also able to articulate that $30,000 of the budget was set aside approach
specifically for advertising and promotion. No other organization in the sample was not only
provided budgetary numbers that distinguished between promotion and non- limited to
promotion marketing activities in terms of costs indicating a greater level of driving sales
sophistication with respect to understanding of marketing, marketing planning and or
reporting costs associated with marketing activities in this organization than is developing
common generally in social enterprises. new
The overall sentiment of austerity in social enterprises was linked by customers,
participants directly to constraints on promotional activities, such as advertising but was also
and events. In keeping with this austerity theme, the majority of social linked to
enterprises selected and utilized promotional approaches that attempted to relationships
with other stakeholders such as employees, partner organizations and Marketing
volunteers:
and social
enterprise
s

29
7
[Word-of-mouth], in my opinion thats the best way of doing business, thats the best way of marketing your
business. At the end of the day it all comes from the relationship you are able
 to establish with your partners, with your customers, with your employees, with
JSOCM your
colleagues, and thats the best promotion you can have []
5,4 (Org06).
The implication is that social enterprises perceive that word-of-mouth style
approaches
to promotional activities lead to the establishment of more durable,
meaningful
relationships with key stakeholder groups. There are connotations of
pragmatic
298 legitimacy concerns (Dart, 2004b; Suchman, 1995) informing this form of social
enterprise activity. Pragmatic legitimacy is self-interested in the sense that
groups undertake activities, vis--vis their most important stakeholders, that are
calculated to lead to the outcomes of the greatest immediate value (Suchman,
1995, p. 578). By engaging in promotional strategies consistent with word-of-
mouth approaches, social enterprises simultaneously acknowledge their
financial constraints while pursuing forms of promotion consistent with
normative perceptions of socially oriented organizations previously discussed. In
other words, pursuing inexpensive forms of promotion is both an operational
necessity and a normative imperative:
[] you do not want the perception that youre spending a lot of money on
advertising or marketing your product or service or whatever. Because when
people [pay] they want it to go to [] whatever they think the [social enterprise]
is all about (Org11).
With respect to specific promotional tools, it is clear there is a trend among
participants towards greater adoption of social media. In total, 9 of the 15 social
enterprises were currently using social media (Facebook or Twitter) while 12 of
them had plans for future use of these tools in their enterprises. When probed
about what they hoped to achieve with social media specifically, participants
generally discussed the desire to use the technology as a way to keep interested
stakeholders, such as customers, volunteers (if applicable), and broader
community members, apprised of organization activities:
We really do it mostly to support campaigns that are live so that the staff, the volunteers, the
funders always have a place to go and see whats going on and get a sense of the excitement
(Org10).
Practical and moral legitimacy concerns are evident here, as social media becomes a
medium through which adherence to normative expectations can be directly
conveyed to relevant groups and automatically archived for the future. While the
quote above does not refer directly to commercial clients, leveraging social media as
a conduit to form and maintain a relationship with commercial clients was a capacity
social enterprises were interested in building, if they did not already possess such
capabilities.
Concerns over legitimacy also manifested in how social
enterprises tend to downplay their social mission in promotional
materials for their revenue-generating activities, in favour of
emphasizing their products or service benefits. As the participant
from Org09 put it:
Historically the social mission was emphasized in promotional material. From now on
the organization recognizes that they need to compete now based on product quality,
as that is what the mainstream consumer is going to be concerned with. In the past
 there was a perception that consumers might perceive fair trade/organic products as
being of a lower quality, and so should be cheaper. But in reality the product is
generally of the same or higher quality, so the price should be competitive and
representative of that. In general, there is a move away from emphasizing the social
mission specifically and focusing instead on product benefits (Org09).
This type of approach is consistent with a market oriented strategic approach (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990)
where the focus of the firm is on emphasizing product characteristics

[O]ur brand
that align with customer desires. Pricing, as a form of market signaling, is
reinforces those characteristics where it portrays a compatible framing: higher everything
price aligns with appeals suggesting higher quality. Emphasis of a social mission about our
was thought to detract from customer perceptions of quality, consistent with the reputation
idea that social enterprises must first establish consumer trust through a [].
commitment to product and service quality (Morgan and Hunt, 1994), which may [T]here are
then allow for a social enterprise to reintroduce messaging regarding the social visible
mission (Lougheed and Dankervoort, 2002). This suggests that, rather than aspects of
social enterprise success deriving from moral legitimacy rooted in changing the brand,
marketplace values and ideals (Dart, 2004b), instead success of social we have
enterprises stems from focusing primarily on addressing pragmatic legitimacy our logo
(Suchman, 1995) by producing meaningful value for consumers. As the and some
participant from Org06 commented, a corollary to downplaying the social of the
mission in promotional materials is a desire to emphasize product quality rather imagery
than focusing on and labeling beneficiaries of the social mission: that we use
If people are buying from us out of charity because were a social business we wont survive. has some
People need to buy something because they need it and they need to purchase something meaning.
according to their needs and they want something that will last a long time if thats what they Thats part
are looking for, and thats what we promote. We dont want people buying out of pity [] or to of what the
say, oh its done by people with an intellectual disability; I dont want to label the people brand is.
(Org06). But for us
[our brand
Similar to not-for-profits (Pope et al., 2009; Mottner and Ford, 2005), social
is] our
enterprises leverage an array of promotional activities with respect to their
internation
commercial activities. Social enterprises in this study had substantial experience and
al
skill at executing such activities as part of focused campaigns. Our findings suggest
reputation
that social enterprises face significant financial constraints with respect to developing
and so
promotional activities. Participants in this study linked the austerity to legitimacy
everything
concerns at the interface of social and commercial interests. These concerns would we do is
likely carry over into social marketing activities, suggesting that social marketing about
activities undertaken through social enterprise would need to focus on lower cost making
alternatives to strategies that use more for-profit commercial approaches. These sure that
would be consistent with community-based social marketing (Mackenzie-Mohr, 2011) our team,
in terms of prioritizing inclusive, distributed approaches to behavioural change that wherever
eschew more media-heavy promotional activities. they may
be, are
Branding supporting
In general, study participants discuss branding primarily in terms of that
visual logos, organization naming and organization slogans. reputation
However, participants expressed several other notable concepts (Org05).
with respect to branding, including reputation and organizational
values:
I guess in hard terms were always looking to brand. Were looking to with Marketing
that brand, be able to use strategies like telling stories and providing
and social
meaningful approaches to convince an audience that we are worthy of their
business (Org04). enterprise
s

29
9
JSOCM Here notions of legitimacy are more overt, as the identity of the organization is
explicitly
5,4 linked with particular meanings and values. Suchman (1995, p. 582) discusses cognitive
legitimacy as, in part, tied to the degree to which individual and group activities
are
comprehensible to others. This means not only that social enterprise
actions
are interpretable by others but also that those interpretations will fit within an
acceptable
range with respect to the social enterprises prior history. Part of the challenge with
social
300 enterprises specifically is that they may push the boundaries of
comprehensibility by blending commercial and social missions. Overall,
understanding of branding and use of the term appears to be relatively strong
among the social enterprises in the research. However, what may be missing is
deeper examination of how to manage the brand based on understanding how
consumers and other stakeholders perceive the brand given that it is a social
enterprise. To this point, participants appear to understand the risks of failure of
a commercial product or service on the social mission:
[Y]ou need to be careful how youre presenting yourself and how youre
representing yourself because if something happened at [Org01a] it could
ultimately cost a lot of other programs. [] if we werent really careful [], it
wouldnt just be [Org01a] that would feel those repercussions, it would be
every program in (Org01a).
There is consideration here of how one commercial activity can impact other
commercial activities, which is consistent with legitimacy threats imposed by
organizational failures to execute on brand promises. However, we did not see a
consideration of whether the social mission affects the branding of the economic side
of the enterprise or indeed the economic side might affect the branding of the social
side. For example, would a social enterprise be seen as more or less credible in
helping tackle social problems given that they are earning their own keep on the
economic side? This latter point is particularly important for social marketing, which
has been predominantly undertaken by publicly funded organizations, such as
departments of health. Moving to leverage social enterprise as a method of
organizing to achieve social change means actively generating financial resources to
support social marketing activities. Organizations such as Org01a explicitly
understand the potentially negative impact of commercial failure on the social
mission, in part because of the reliance on the financial resources generated by the
commercial activities. However, it is unclear whether failure in pursuing social
activities can harm the commercial mission or how far social and commercial
activities can be decoupled and still maintain desired brand associations.

Strategic social marketing

Within the sample, one organization (Org10) explicitly identified as using a
community-based social marketing approach aimed at altering consumption
practices. While officially registered as a not-for-profit charity in both Canada
and the USA, they self-identified unabashedly as a marketing organization
targeting energy consumption:
 I mean really were a marketing organization, we are promoting energy efficiency
behaviour change []. And so we are promoting ourselves to the marketing arms of the
utilities and the regulators etc. And even home energy audits is a big thing in the USA
right now, theres a huge amount of government funding available for that, and their
problem is having programs that people will buy into that are effective and attracting
interest without subsidizing the heck out of them. Because most of what [utilities and
regulators have] done so far is theyve said, okay we cant get anybody to do a home
energy retrofit unless we give them a huge amount of money, and so they distort the
market completely when they do that (Org10).
situations
Similar to previous findings, Org10 displays pragmatic legitimacy (Dart, 2004b; where it may
Suchman, 1995) with respect to how it identifies and targets potential customers of be deemed
its social marketing programs. This aligns with what Boschee (2006) described as most useful
market pull approaches to identifying and fulfilling market needs, and is consistent has been
with a market-oriented strategy (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990). There is also a moral hindered by a
legitimacy (Dart, 2004b; Suchman, 1995) appeal here in that alternative approaches number of
to modifying consumer behaviours, through subsidizing, are antithetical to ensuring factors,
proper market functioning. Here the social enterprise not only acts as a provider of including lack
more traditional socially-oriented benefits but also positions itself as offering value in of knowledge
alignment with, and in defence of, free-market mechanisms. This strategic positioning about social
affords the organization a value proposition that aligns across their primary marketing.
stakeholders needs, in this case encompassing utility companies, regulation agencies Following
and government departments. from
Andreasen
(2002), in
Summary, discussion and implications considering
In recognition of the potential for linkages between social enterprises and social the
marketing in achieving social change, the research described in this paper has application of
developed a deeper understanding of how marketing is perceived and used in social social
enterprises. As discussed in the presentation of findings, an institutional perspective marketing to
focused on legitimacy highlights challenges faced by social enterprises in their social
utilization of marketing. In so doing, the paper provides deeper insights into social enterprises, it
enterprises for social marketers who might consider using social marketing in such is likely that
organizations to achieve social change. The findings suggest that social marketing social
may be viewed as a very legitimate approach in the eyes of stakeholders in terms of marketing
its consistency with the social mission of the social enterprise organizational may not be
approach. Further, the research shows that while social enterprises wrestle with the used heavily
legitimacy of commercial marketing approaches, social enterprises do view marketing in social
positively and see marketing strategies and tactics as useful tools for achieving the enterprises
economic side of their missions. because they
While our research shows that currently, the social enterprises in our study have do not have
not widely adopted the social marketing approach (we report on one case from our strong
sample of 15 in which a combination of social marketing and a social enterprise knowledge
approach was implemented and found to be an effective strategic pairing), the about social
positive views of commercial marketing held within social enterprises and widespread marketing.
utilization of commercial marketing to support social enterprise economic missions Our
suggest a context where social enterprises may be both positively predisposed to, as
research has
well as experienced with utilizing commercial marketing. Following from this, we
useful
contend that social enterprises may be viewed as potential adopters of the social
implications
marketing approach to effect social change and achieve their social missions.
for the
Andreasen (2002) has noted that adoption of social marketing in organizations and
practice of social marketing. In considering the goals of social enterprises and the Marketing
approaches of social marketing, it appears that adoption of social marketing thinking
and social
may be usefully applied in at least some social enterprises. As discussed earlier in
this paper, virtually all social enterprises attempt to achieve social transformation. enterprise
However, the range of ways that social enterprises work to s

30
1
achieve such transformation is extremely varied. For example, the social enterprise
JSOCM included in our research study Project Porchlight (which self identified as a social
enterprise utilizing the social marketing approach to effect social changes to support
5,4
the environment) utilizes a campaign to distribute energy-efficient light bulbs and
provide conservation messages door to door. The strategy of the organization is that
the act of changing one bulb opens the door for consumers to more positively receive
other program messages and to make other conservation changes in support of the
302 environment.
One key implication from our work for social marketing practitioners is recognition
that it is likely that social marketing will have the greatest potential in those social
enterprises whose goals are to encourage behaviour changes among targeted
audiences social enterprises with social change goals similar to One Change and the
Project Porchlight campaign. Knowledge gained by social marketing researchers
and writers in developing market segmentation approaches to encourage household
waste recycling (Jesson, 2009) or developing safety awareness among coal miners
(Cullen et al., 2008) would appear to have useful implications for developing effective
marketing strategies for social enterprises such as One Change. Utilizing social
marketing in a social change campaign would require the social enterprise to
emphasize strategic thinking and develop strategic marketing plans built on a solid
foundation of consumer and market research.
On the other hand, social marketing may be less appropriate in social
enterprises such as Landscape with Heart, which focuses on employing
disadvantaged employees to provide landscaping services
(www.coastmentalhealth.com/landscaping.html). One important implication of
the current research is that careful understanding of the social transformation
goals of social enterprises will be necessary to target social enterprises as
potential adopters of the social marketing approach.
The research also has potential implications for theory and, in particular, how
we frame social marketing definitions and discussions. Social enterprises quite
clearly utilize the language of seeking social transformation and change in
solving social problems (Madill et al., 2010; Quarter et al., 2009). While recent
literature in social marketing has discussed and utilized the term social
marketing transformation (Lefebvre, 2012), the majority of writings focus on
achieving behaviour change via social marketing (Kotler and Lee, 2015). It may
be appropriate to consider whether social marketing is indeed being used as a
tool of social transformation as some have argued (Jordan, 2015; Lefebvre,
2012). If so, then aligning the terminology of social marketing with that used in
social enterprise approaches may help to foster increased awareness and
adoption of social marketing in social enterprises.
 The useful to consider, including social enterprises, as part of a discussion concerning
research organizations that currently utilize and could potentially utilize social marketing. The
has work presented here provides useful material to utilize in such discussions in the
useful classroom.
implicati However, all implications must be viewed as preliminary (due to the relatively
ons for small sample size and limited geographic area of study). However, this research
the serves to open an avenue for future research, discussion and analysis. The current
teaching work is exploratory and provides empirical baseline data on marketing practices used
of social within the social enterprise context and a theoretical context for viewing marketing in
marketin those organizations. Given that social marketers face financing challenges for
g. It developing social marketing programs to help solve social problems, the findings from
would this research provide a baseline upon which to begin to build both our theoretical and
be practical understanding of the potential utilization of social
No. 4,
marketing in social enterprises a sector of the economy that is growing in pp. 2-
importance in most nations worldwide and worthy of our attention and 21.
consideration. Future research is required to explore both the specific use of Dacin, M.T.
(1997),
social marketing within social enterprises, as well as extending research into
Isomorphism
marketing and social marketing practices used by social enterprises in other in context: the
parts of the world. power and
prescription of
References institutional
norms,
Andreasen, A.R. (1994), Social marketing: its definition and domain, Acade
Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 108-114. my of
Andreasen, A.R. (2002), Marketing Social marketing in the social change Manag
marketplace, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 3- ement
13.
Journal
Andreasen, A.R. and Kotler, P. (2003), Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit , Vol.
Organizations, 6th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
40 No.
Austin, J., Stevenson, H. and Wei-Skillern, J. (2006), Social and commercial
1, pp.
entrepreneurship: same, different, or both?, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
46-81.
Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Dacin, M.T.,
Bhattacharya, C.B. (2010), Introduction to the special section on Dacin,
stakeholder marketing, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 29 P.A.
No. 1, pp. 1-3. and
Bloom, P.N. (2009), Overcoming consumption constraints through social Tracey,
entrepreneurship, P.
Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 128-134. (2011),
Boschee, J. (2006), Social entrepreneurship: the promise and the perils, in Social
Nicholls, A. (Ed.), Social Entrepreneurship: New Models of Sustainable entrepr
Social Change, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 356-390. eneurs
hip: a
Charmaz, K. (2006), Constructing Grounded Theory, Sage, Thousand Oaks, critiqu
CA.
Christie, M.J. and Honig, B. (2006), Social entrepreneurship: new research
findings, Journal of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 1-5.
Creswell, J.W. (2007), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing
Among Five Approaches, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Cullen, E.T., Matthews, L.N.H. and Teske, T.D. (2008), Use of occupational
ethnography and social marketing strategies to develop a safety
awareness campaign for coal miners, Social Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 14
 e and future directions, Organization Science, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 1203- Marketing
1213.
and social
Dacin, P.A., Dacin, M.T. and Matear, M. (2010), Social entrepreneurship:
why we dont need a new theory and how we move forward from enterprise
here, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 37-57. s
Dart, R. (2004a), Being business-like in a nonprofit organization: a grounded and
inductive typology, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp.
290-310.
Dart, R. (2004b), The legitimacy of social enterprise, Nonprofit 30
Management Leadership, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 411-424.
Dart, R., Clow, E. and Armstrong, A. (2010), Meaningful difficulties in the
3
mapping of social enterprises, Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp.
186-193.
Dees, J.G. (1998), The meaning of social entrepreneurship, available at:
http://sehub.stanford. edu/sites/default/files/TheMeaningofsocialEntrepreneurship.pdf
(accessed 20 April 2015).
Dees, J.G. and Anderson, B.B. (2003), Sector-bending: blurring lines
between nonprofit and for-profit, Society, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 16-27.

DiMaggio, P. (1982), Cultural entrepreneurship in nineteenth-century

JSOCM Boston: the creation of an organizational base for high culture in
America, Media, Culture & Society, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 33-50.
5,4
Dodge, H.R. and Robbins, J.E. (1992), An empirical investigation of the
organizational life cycle model for small business development and
survival, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 27-
37.
304 Dolnicar, S. and Lazarevski, K. (2009), Marketing in non-profit organizations: an
international perspective, International Marketing Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp.
275-291.
Dowling, J.B. and Pfeffer, J. (1975), organizational legitimacy: social values and
organizational behavior, Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp.
122-136.
Ferrell, O.C., Gonzalez-Padron, T.L., Hult, G.T.M. and Maignan, I. (2010),
From market orientation to stakeholder orientation, Journal of Public
Policy and Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 93-96.
Gainer, B. and Padanyi, P. (2002), Applying the marketing concept to cultural
organisations: an empirical study of the relationship between market orientation and
performance,
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol.
7 No. 2, pp. 182-193.
Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory:
Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine Transaction, New York, NY.
Gundlach, G.T. and Wilkie, W.L. (2010), Stakeholder marketing: why
Stakeholder was omitted from the American Marketing Associations
official 2007 definition of marketing and why the future is bright for
stakeholder marketing, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 89-92.
Handelman, J.M. and Arnold, S.J. (1999), The role of marketing actions with a social
dimension: appeals to the institutional environment, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63
No. 3, pp. 33-48.
Herron, D.B. Jesson, J. (2009), Household waste recycling behavior: a market
(1997), segmentation model, Social Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp.
Marketin 25-38.
g Jordan, J. (2015), Can we start over? Understanding distinct behaviour
Nonprofit change pathways and when to use them, Keynote Presentation at the
Program World Social Marketing Conference, 19-22 April, Sydney.
s and Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), Market orientation: the construct, research
Services: propositions, and managerial implications, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 1-
Proven 18.
and Kotler, P. and Lee, N. (2015), Social Marketing: Changing Behaviors for
Practical Good, 5th ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Strategie Kotler, P. and Levy, S.J. (1969), Broadening the concept of marketing,
s to Get Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 10-15.
More Kotler, P. and Zaltman, G. (1971), Social marketing: an approach to
Custome
planned social change, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 3-12.
rs, Lefebvre, R.C. (2012), Transformative social marketing: co-creating the social
Members
marketing discipline and brand, Journal of Social Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp.
118-129.
, and
Donors, Lougheed, G. and Dankervoort, M. (2002), Marketing social enterprise: to
sell the cause, first sell the product, Making Waves, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp.
Jossey-
16-19.
Bass,
Mackenzie-Mohr, D. (2011), Fostering Sustainable Behavior: An Introduction to
San
Community-Based Social Marketing, 3rd ed., New Society Publishers, Gabriola
Francisco
Island, BC.
, CA.
No. 6,
Madill, J., Brouard, F. and Hebb, T. (2010), Canadian social enterprises: an pp.
empirical exploration of social transformation, financial self-sufficiency, and 829-
innovation, Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2, 840.
pp. 135-151. Oster, S.M.
Madill, J. and Ziegler, R. (2012), Marketing social missions-adopting social (1995),
marketing for social entrepreneurship? A conceptual analysis and case Strate
study, International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. gic
17 No. 4, pp. 341-351. Manag
Mair, J. and Mart, I. (2006), Social entrepreneurship research: a source of ement
explanation, prediction, and delight, Journal of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, for
pp. 36-44. Nonpr
ofit
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Organi
Expanded Sourcebook, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. zations
Mish, J. and Scammon, D.L. (2010), Principle-based stakeholder marketing: :
insights from private triple-bottom-line firms, Journal of Public Policy Theory
& Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 12-26. and
Mitchell, A., Madill, J. and Chreim, S. (2014), Marketing strategy in Canadian social Cases,
enterprises, Oxford
Social Marketing Advances in Research and Theory Conference, 17-19 Univer
October, Lake Louise. sity
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), The commitment-trust theory of Press,
relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38. New
York,
Mottner, S. and Ford, J.B. (2005), Measuring nonprofit marketing strategy
NY.
performance: the case of museum stores, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58
Padanyi, P. and Gainer, B. (2004), Market orientation in the nonprofit Marketing
sector: taking multiple constituencies into consideration, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 43-58. and social
Patton, M.Q. (2002), Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed., enterprise
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. s
Pealoza, L. and Mish, J. (2011), The nature and processes of market co-
creation in triple bottom line firms: leveraging insights from consumer
culture theory and service dominant logic, Marketing Theory, Vol. 11
No. 1, pp. 9-34.
Pope, J.A., Isely, E.S. and Asamoa-Tutu, F. (2009), Developing a marketing
strategy for nonprofit organizations: an exploratory study, Journal of
Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 184-201.
Porter, M.E. and Kramer, M.R. (2011), Creating shared value, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 89 Nos 1/2, pp. 62-77.
Quarter, J., Mook, L. and Armstrong, A. (2009), Understanding the Social
Economy: A Canadian Perspective, University of Toronto Press, Toronto,
ON.
Rangan, V.K., Leonard, H.B. and McDonald, S. (2008), The future of social
enterprise, Working paper No 8-103, Harvard Business School, Harvard
University.
Siemens, R.E. (1997), The vital role of tentmaking in pauls mission
strategy, International Journal of Frontier Missions, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp.
121-129.
Smith, B.R., Knapp, J., Barr, T.F., Stevens, C.E. and Cannatelli, B.L. (2010a), Social
enterprises and the timing of conception: organizational identity tension,
management, and marketing,
Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 108-
134.
Smith, N.C., Drumwright, M.E. and Gentile, M.C. (2010b), The new
marketing Myopia, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 29 No.
1, pp. 4-11.
Suchman, M.C. (1995), managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 571-610.
Thompson, J. and Doherty, B. (2006), The diverse world of social enterprise: a collection of social enterprise
stories, International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 33 Nos 5/6, pp. 361-375.
Varadarajan, R. (2010), Strategic marketing and marketing strategy: domain, definition, fundamental issues
and foundational premises, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 119-140.
Zhou, Y., Chao, P. and Huang, G. (2009), Modeling market orientation and organizational antecedents in a
social marketing context: evidence from China, International Marketing Review, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 256-
274.

Further reading
Bennett, R.J. and Robson, P.J.A. (2004), The role of boards of directors in small and medium-sized firms, Journal of Small Business
and Enterprise Development, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 95-113.
Bhattacharya, C.B. and Korshun, D. (2008), Stakeholder marketing: beyond the four ps and the customer, Journal of
Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 113-116.
Chakravorti, B. (2010), Stakeholder marketing 2.0, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp.
97-102.
de Lencastre, P. and Crte-Real, A. (2010), One, two, three: a practical brand anatomy, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 17 No. 6, pp. 399-412.
Dees, J.G. (2007), Taking social entrepreneurship seriously, Society, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 24-31.
Lee, N. and Kotler, P. (2015), Social Marketing: Influencing Behaviors for Good, Sage, Los Angeles, LA.
Martin, R.L. and Osberg, S. (2007), Social entrepreneurship: the case for definition, Stanford Social
Innovation Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 29-39.
Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), The effect of a market orientation on business profitability, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 20-35.
Neck, H., Brush, C. and Allen, E. (2009), The landscape of social entrepreneurship, Business Horizons, Vol.
52 No. 1, pp. 13-19.
Peredo, A.M. and McLean, M. (2006), Social entrepreneurship: a critical review of the concept,
Journal of World Business, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 56-65.

About the authors

Alex Mitchell is a PhD candidate in Marketing at the Queens School of Business, Queens University.
Judith Madill is a Professor and Holder of the Desmarais Professorship in Marketing at the Telfer School of
Management, University of Ottawa. Judith Madill is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
madill@telfer.uottawa.ca
Samia Chreim is an Associate Professor of Management at the Telfer School of Management, University of
Ottawa.