Page | 1

A Study of Succession Planning in New Zealand Social Enterprise

Mark Jack

University of Auckland MBA, 2018

Page | 2

Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................. 4

The concept of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise................................................................................................. 5

The resurgence of social entrepreneurship ............................................................................................................................. 6

The social entrepreneur ........................................................................................................................................................... 7

Why succession planning (SP) important for social enterprise (SE) ...................................................................................... 7

The cult of the founding social entrepreneur ...................................................................................................................... 9

Succession increasing the chance of mission drift ............................................................................................................ 10

Continuing successfully managed innovation .................................................................................................................. 10

The combined age, experience and entrepreneurial spirit (factor).................................................................................... 10

An industry that is growing .............................................................................................................................................. 11

NZ business size may engender a SME mind set ............................................................................................................. 11

Further research .................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Research Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................... 12

Candidate coding .............................................................................................................................................................. 14

Findings ................................................................................................................................................................................ 15

Theme 1: Choosing the right SE leader ............................................................................................................................ 16

Theme 2: Focus on the business without losing sight of the mission ............................................................................... 19

Theme 3: Supporting structures including partnerships are essential ............................................................................... 22

Discussion and implications ................................................................................................................................................. 24

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................................................ 27

Further research .................................................................................................................................................................... 28

References ............................................................................................................................................................................. 29

Page | 3

Abstract

There is a muted strategic response to succession planning in the social enterprise sector in New Zealand.

Research from interviews with four industry CEOs indicate that the continuity of these enterprises is due

largely to a strong commitment to sustainability rather than succession planning strategies. The research

identifies three emerging factors that lead to sustainability in the sector. These are: choosing the right

leader, running the enterprise as a business, and maintaining strong support structures and partnerships.

Page | 4

Introduction

There is a growing global concern for the absence of good succession planning to equip staff for future leadership

roles across a number of industries (Brundrett et al, 2006). While there has been much research (discussed further

in this paper) of the challenge for succession planning in established industries, more research should be

undertaken to understand the issue for new and emerging industries.

One such industry is social entrepreneurship which is becoming one of the fastest growing business models in

New Zealand (NZ). Even though this new iteration of social enterprise is still in its infancy, incorporating good

succession planning is an essential business strategy to deploy limited resources effectively and increase

competitive advantage.

Social entrepreneurship is focussed on delivering positive social and environmental solutions for vulnerable

members of society in an innovative and commercially managed manner. Some of the social issues it is addressing

include homelessness, the growing reliance on food donations, and flow effects - like children going hungry at

school, and the lack of good healthcare for all New Zealanders. The growing wealth gap and increasing poverty

in NZ is one cause of many of the social issues. It is also providing solutions to global environmental problems

like pollution and water restrictions.

It is typically the job of government agencies and charities to alleviate these growing social and environmental.

However, the sheer scale of these issues is overwhelming the limited resources of these organisations. This has

seen the re-emergence of social entrepreneurship which is a blend of social mission mixed with commercial

enterprise and management nous. The societal impact of these hybrid organisations is far reaching and are critical

in addressing pressing global social problems at a local level. The impact of these organisations has far reaching

positive generational implications.

Social entrepreneurship and enterprise have generated a growing body of management literature and

investigation. This is in part due to the seemingly contrary goals of making economic profits while simultaneously

working to support or reduce social and environmental problems. And there is also a view that the current for-

profit business model is the major contributing factor to the problems. So, any opportunities to improve the

Page | 5

current model should be understood better. It is the application of for-profit business model principles that enable

social enterprise to be sustainable and self-reliant.

Given the wider beneficial impact and the emphasis on positive outcomes, the capability for social enterprise to

continue to ‘trade’ (beyond the impact of the founding entrepreneur) is important in continuing to support their

stakeholders. Succession planning - the process for identifying and developing new leaders to replace old ones

as they move on, or retire – is a critical element of this continuation.

An initial review of the literature on social entrepreneurship and enterprise; will define what it is, and introduce

the concept of succession planning and its importance within this type of emerging business model – specifically

ensuring the continuation of the social mission within a NZ context. Much of the background literature provided

is based on overseas research as social enterprise in NZ is a developing area of entrepreneurship. However, the

research does identify common themes common across the spectrum of this form of enterprise worldwide.

The assessment of the literature provides the backdrop for future research to understand how NZ social enterprise

approach succession planning and its implication for this industry.

The concept of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise

The concept if social entrepreneurship and enterprise go back more than a hundred years and some even hundreds

of years (Dees, 2001; Dart in Luke & Chu, 2013). Even with an entrenched existence deriving a clear definition

of social entrepreneurship is in itself a challenge. Especially when looking to add to the body of knowledge

surrounding it. Zahra (2009) presents over twenty variations of the term concepts and Dees (2001, p 22) notes

that "...it means different things to different people". What is obvious from all the literature however, (Dees, 2001,

Zahra et al, 2009, Luke & Chu, 2013, Blount, & Nunley, 2014) is that there are recurring common themes in the

defining the concept. Inherent in all interpretations is the underlying ‘mission' to engender some form of social

change or as Dees (2001, p 28) describes it "…a mission to create and sustain social value".

But it is the notion of opportunity recognition that links the overarching social mission to entrepreneurial

creativity that defines social entrepreneurship (Corner & Ho, 2010, Dees, 2001, Mort, & Weerawardena, 2002).

This is not dissimilar to commercial entrepreneurship - in having the ability to see opportunities and act on them

Page | 6

for some form of gain in a manner that may be better than the current actors in the market. The business in this

instance is referred to as a social enterprise - best described by Luke and Chu (2013, p765) "…an organisation

for a social purpose and engages to fulfil its mission, using market-based techniques to achieve social ends."

This hybrid business model (Battilana, 2012) can be fully self-funding, or rely on a mixture of self-generated

funds, government grants and donations. For the most part, social enterprises strive to be self-sustainable through

economic activities that generate cash flows and ultimately support the social mission – this is distinctly different

from the charity operational model.

There is an inherent tension in all social enterprise that undertake economic activity of whether to pursue profit

opportunities at the expense of the social mission. Social accounting is one tool that can keep mission drift in

check under an increasing divergent commercial pressure (Tracey and Phillips, 2007 in Ramus & Vaccaro, 2014).

However, research by Ramus et al (2014) suggest that social accounting mechanisms are not enough to contain

mission drift once it has begun.

The resurgence of social entrepreneurship

The re-emergence and growth of the social entrepreneurship phenomenon is due in part to external events

including:

Having to fill the gap of reduced governmental social services (like free healthcare, education and basic

welfare) due to lower tax regimes and open markets (Roper, 2005, Peredo & McLean, 2006).

The financial fallout of the 2007-08 global financial crisis (Battilana et al, 2012).

Climate change affecting weather patterns causing environmental issues like water shortages impacting

people’s lives.

The growing disparity in wealth and increasing poverty that mean people cannot address basic needs

(Oxfam, 2018).

In the UK alone there have been over 13,000 community interest companies founded since 2013 (State of Social

Enterprise Survey, 2017), and across the globe 3.2% of the world’s population is starting some form of social

Page | 7

enterprise (2016 Global Entrepreneurship Monitor Social Entrepreneurship Report). In New Zealand we are also

seeing a similar emergence of social enterprise to address growing social disparities.

The social entrepreneur

Central to the concept of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise is the social entrepreneur. It is this

individual that has the vision to see the opportunity and to act on them in an innovative manner. Think Muhamad

Yunus, Nobel Prize winner and founder of micro lender Grameen Bank or Bill Drayton and Asoka or New

Zealander of the year Dr Lance O’Sullivan and iMoko. All social enterprises are intrinsically linked to the

founding entrepreneurs from the literature reviewed.

Much of the literature (Dees, 2001, Martin & Osberg, 2007, Peredo and McLean, 2006) recognises that the natural

behaviour of these social entrepreneurs embodies the main defining characteristics of the for-profit entrepreneur.

This includes the ability to recognise and grab an opportunity; and being innovative and resourceful in taking

advantage of this opportunity.

The key differentiator is that the social entrepreneur has a passion for positive social outcomes (the social mission)

that benefit a disenfranchised group of people (the client) in some way. Success is measured by how effective a

SE is in achieving the social outcome, not by bottom-line profits.

It is important here to make the distinction between the leading individual or leadership group and the enterprise.

It is the social entrepreneur or group that undertake all those tasks that run the enterprise. Thus, creating social

value. More importantly, it is the founding individual or leadership group that define and maintain primacy of

the social mission.

Why succession planning (SP) important for social enterprise (SE)

Succession planning is a business strategy (Barnette and Davis, 2008, Redman, 2006). It aligns an organisation’s

intent and focus with that of leadership know-how. It clearly sets out what an organisation is looking for in its

leaders – competencies, values and overall organisational fit, and effectively manages an organisation’s pipeline.

It is important to examine the broader definition of the SP concept and not just think of it as a business function

that replaces one manager or leader with another or an exit plan. It is a staff development plan that allows new

Page | 8

managers and leaders to emerge, and transition into co-ordinating and managing multiple team members. This

ensures the continued smooth functioning of the business. It includes CEO replacement - the act of installing new

leadership vision. It may be the actual financial transference of ownership of the business to a new principle.

Succession planning plays an important role in every business or organisation. It ensures continuation and long-

term sustainability for owners and staff who derive economic benefit from being gainfully employed, their

dependents, customers who rely on a firm’s output; and also, society at large who may receive any number of

benefits from the continued existence of a business.

From an internal perspective, succession planning ensures that when staff reach retirement age or staff move on,

knowledge is handed down, and the organisation continues to function smoothly. It reduces conflicts and affected

morale brought on by uncertainty and ultimately will prevent the closure of any business or organisation.

SE is an emerging business model (Maier, 2014, Battilana, 2012 Yunus et al, 2010, Mulgan, 2007), and must be

run in a manner that incorporates business strategies in order to achieve their core strategic objectives. Attaining

a competitive advantage is as integral a success factor for social enterprise as it is for any other organisation (Roy

and Karna, 2015, Mort et al, 2002). The resourced-based view of the firm asserts that it is the deployment of

resources and capabilities that define its business model which drives competitive advantage. This is no different

in a social enterprise – any organisation in this sector must be economically viable in order for it to pursue its

social value proposition.

The comparable body of NZ and overseas non-profit and ‘third sector’ literature (McKee & Froelich, 2016,

Stewart, 2016 Santora et al, 2015, Elkin et al, 2012) notes that there is a significant lack of proper SP in these

organisations. This can have a negative impact on the sustainability of the organisation. And, for smaller non-

profits who have precarious existences the impact can by increased many times over. Evidence from non-profits

suggest new leadership disrupts the day to day functioning of an organisation and may reduce its effectiveness

over a prolonged period.

Page | 9

The non-profit literature informs the conversation for succession planning in a SE. Especially as non-profits and

SE share two key defining organisational characteristics in a shared view of core values and ideologies that define

them; and more importantly the concept of pursuing a social mission that is the principal measure of success.

There is an opportunity to add to the wider body of knowledge of SP within the context of the SE business model

based on a number of unique business traits. These are discussed in more detail below.

The cult of the founding social entrepreneur

The role of the founding social entrepreneur is critical to the sustainability of a SE. It is not only the vision to see

the opportunity and address it in an innovative manner that is significant, but importantly it is the reputation of

the founder that brings credibility to the SE. Overseas evidence (Roy & Karna, 2015, Austin et al, 2006) suggests

that SEs have been successful because:

Founding entrepreneurs have had a long affiliation with the root cause of an issue,

And are known by others for their abilities.

One NZ example that supports this view is the success of Dr Lance O’Sullivan’s iMoko SE. Dr O’Sullivan has

long been associated with providing free health care in the poorest NZ areas, and is a noted and highly respected

child physician.

The cult of the founding social entrepreneur poses significant challenges to the sustainability of a SE. In the three

Indian SEs studied by Roy and Karna (2015), the founding entrepreneurs are still firmly entrenched in the SEs

for over twenty years and one of them for over forty years. This kind of longevity makes new leadership

transitions even harder to manage.

Another challenge highlighted from the non-profit literature is that for these organisations their existence is

aligned to maintaining strategic partnerships. SEs also depend on similar relationships (Prabhu, 1999) – typically

managed by the leadership team. Successful transition is an important element in continuing these often

(informal) relationships.

Page | 10

Succession increasing the chance of mission drift

While SEs must be careful not to encourage a dependency from their clients, there will always be longer term

stakeholder reliance on the SE’s outputs. Comparable evidence from non-profits would suggest that minimising

leadership disruption changes to services may be paramount. So, for SE continued delivery of desired social

outcomes will avoid mission drift.

Balancing the pursuit of wealth (from the economic activities of a SE) and delivering to the social mission, means

that mission drift is always a business challenge. The intention of incumbent managers or owners can also increase

the friction. This means that the selection and training of incumbent leaders has to be well thought out to ensure

continuation of not just the economic enterprise but also the fundamental element – the social mission.

Understanding the motivation of the new owner or manager can allow the enterprise to assess the potential impact

on mission drift.

Continuing successfully managed innovation

SEs need to be creative and innovative in order to be sustainable. It is leadership that steers an organisation’s

competitive advantage through the innovative utilisation of resources (Porter, 1990, Luke & Chu, 2013). The

allocation of resources for a SE is highly dependent on the ability of the social entrepreneur and the leadership

team (Roy and Karna, 2015, Mort et al, 2002). SEs operate in ambiguous environments, so decision making

requires both an element of risk as well as vision to achieve desired outcomes. It is important that the SEs have a

systematic approach to maintaining innovation – be it through training or business improvement.

The combined age, experience and entrepreneurial spirit (factor)

A particular challenge in the non-profit sector is replacing aging managers and leaders – especially ones with

accumulated experience. Overseas evidence would suggest that successful social entrepreneurs have typically

developed their SE towards middle to late age but have tended to remain on board for many decades (Roy and

Karna, 2015, Corner and Ho 2010). However, NZ media reporting (NZ Herald, The Listener) and evidence from

the UK (Social Enterprise UK, 2017) suggest that many new SE are led by young, dynamic individuals.

Page | 11

This raises a different SP issue to the non-profits namely that are younger entrepreneurs likely to remain in the

SE through to retirement or will their curiosity as an entrepreneur mean they seek other ventures after a shorter

period of time from its inception? Dr Lance O’Sullivan (in a recent University of Auckland Graduate School talk)

noted that he is now an entrepreneur (not a practicing medical doctor); and will be moving on from his current

iMoko SE within the next two years into something quite different. He did not elaborate on how his SE will

continue to be managed in his absence.

Further, if the SE is the sole income for a younger entrepreneur, how do they manage the long-term exit plan?

An industry that is growing

Social Enterprise UK (2017) notes that there is a growing shortage of skilled SE staff. This is creating a barrier

to sustainability and growth. In NZ this is an emerging business model so it is unlikely to have many skilled or

well-versed practitioners in this field. A good SP framework may be the key to maintaining a steady flow of

qualified staff in the industry. This is even more challenging in an industry where pay rates have been typically

lower than the market (Oster, 1995 in Austin et al, 2006). If SEs choose to pay market rates the tension between

the for-profit element of the organisation and a divergence from its social focus can cause friction. A well thought

out succession plan may mitigate this potential disruption and also provide employees with long term career

options.

NZ business size may engender a SME mind set

Most new SEs are likely to fall into the SME business category. If they adopt similar business practices then SP

will not even be part of the overall business planning because SMEs generally tend to give very little thought to

this business strategy (Nuthall and Old, 2017, Dobbs and Hamilton, 2007, Sambrook, 2005). This is quite a

problem for NZ SMEs (Small Business Development Group report, 2016)

SP is important because it drives business performance by specifying growth objects. And, achieving these are

largely dependent on a firm’s ability to maintain, develop and retain skilled and capable employees. Within the

framework of business size succession planning for SEs is the key driver for improved performance which is

Page | 12

critical to ensuring SEs continue to strive to be self-reliant. It will be important for SEs to align their business

model to the right SP approach and not just assume that as a ‘SME’ business they behaviour similarly.

Further research

Social enterprise is re-emerging business model in NZ. While not a panacea to social issues, it is becoming a

critical provider of essential social services where government and charities seem unable to keep up. Importantly,

it is creating social value in innovative and self-reliant ways and is finding a growing customer base for its services

as well as its economic products.

Even in an emerging market, organisations should start succession planning as soon as they become established

(Price 2016 in Elkin et al. 2012). For SEs in NZ more research into the priority given to succession planning

would enable a richer understanding of social enterprise in general.

To increase this understanding, I propose undertaking more empirical research into the New Zealand approach

to succession planning by established and newer SEs. Specifically focussing on increasing the literature on the

unique business elements discussed of SEs in a New Zealand context.

It is envisaged that this research may provide a better understanding of how the industry views longevity as well

as how it addresses the issue of legacy of the social mission and be of value to practitioners, incumbent social

entrepreneurs and educators.

Research Methodology

Given the underlying need to create context for organisational decision-making surrounding SP strategies, it was

felt the best option would be to take a qualitative research approach for this study. Qualitative research provides

the organisational ‘how’ and the ‘why’ by talking to relevant people to create understanding (Myers, 2009). And,

as Granados et al (2011) observes, this is the most commonly used methodology when undertaking SE research.

The overarching philosophical perspective of qualitative research is of an interpretive nature – as a “focus of

meaning in context” (Myers, 2009, p 39). In this instance understanding a NZ approach to SP in the context of a

SE. And, the underlying local organisational structures or behaviours that underpin a strategic response to SP.

Page | 13

Approval from the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee (UAHPEC) was sought and

received to “ensure that all research with human participants that is conducted by members of the University

conforms to the highest ethical standards”, UAHPEC (2016). All data obtained in this study will be treated in a

confidential manner.

Given the decision to do face-to-face interviews it was considered applicable to focus on SEs based in the

Auckland region. These were identified through consultation with Social Enterprise Auckland (SEA).

Potential candidates were emailed a copy of the participant information sheet outlining the project description

and inviting them to take part in the research. Three positive responses were received, with a further participant

identified through the researchers’ own University of Auckland MBA affiliation.

This brought the total of number of research interviews to four. Based on the available research time-frame it was

agreed with my supervisor that this would be an adequate study size for the scope of this research.

Three of the interviewees are CEOs, with one having the title ‘general manager’, but for all intents and purposes

is the CEO of his organisation.

The interviewees work for a range of different SEs and none of the services or activities they deliver overlap.

Correspondingly, the social outcomes delivered were of a heterogeneous nature as well.

Participants all signed or gave oral consent to take part in the research; and permission for the interviews to be

digitally recorded. The interviews were semi-structured, and the all initial recordings transcribed. The research

applied a general inductive approach (Thomas, 2006) to data analysis.

The small sample size and constrained regional variance in the chosen candidates limits the breadth of research

data collected. Myers (2009) notes that where a few organisations are being studied or if the research is of an

exploratory nature qualitative research is most appropriate.

A further risk in agreeing to accept these SEs as research candidates was that they were all well-established

entities. A comparison between a start-up’s SP behaviour versus that of an established SE could have provided a

richer depth to the overall study.

Page | 14

The approach taken to analyse, as well as manage the data limitations is narrative analysis. A narrative in its

broadest sense attempts to give order and make sense of what has happened. It is a way of communicating

meaning, and a Myers (2009 p 212) notes it is a “common way of presenting data about organisations”.

The semi-structured interview approach to gather the data further lends itself to the use of narrative analysis;

largely as the interviews have invited organisational SP stories from the candidates.

Candidate coding

As part of the ethics approval it was agreed that each participant would be allocated a code, so their name and the

name of their organisation will not be recorded in the transcripts or in the final report.

Table 1: Candidate codes

Organisation description Candidate

code

Organisation

code

A thirty-plus year not-for-profit mental healthcare charity

providing one-on-one treatment and support. Using fees

from its services to cover ongoing costs as well as providing

free community education and a volunteer-manned helpline.

CEO is a manager.

CEO1 SE1

An eleven-year old charitable hospitality business doing

“good”, and connecting the community in a largely transient

part of Auckland City. Creating a sense of belonging,

whanau and making the neighbourhood a better place to live.

CEO is founding entrepreneur.

CEO2 SE2

Page | 15

A seventy plus year old charitable enterprise that provides

work, training and work experience for people with

disabilities. CEO is a manager.

CEO3 SE3

A SE that connects the haves with those that need it.

Currently working to re-distribute reusable medical

equipment and resources that can no longer be used in NZ

to organisations working with those in need in Asia-Pacific.

CEO is founding entrepreneur.

CEO4 SE4

Findings

The interviews revealed that NZ social enterprise do not have structured SP strategies. This is similar to the

overseas SP literature reviewed for SEs and not-for-profits.

The relative infancy of NZ social enterprise, where the overriding need to put the social story front and centre of

the SE placed less value on the business acumen of its leader, may partly explain this lack of SP strategy.

However, given the continued longevity of SE1, SE2 and SE3 the researcher was surprised to find that there isn’t

a structured SP process in these enterprises. SE4 is effectively still a part-time enterprise, and has yet to yet to

decide what the SE will look like on a more long-term basis.

In response to the question “Do you understand what is meant by the term succession planning?” all CEOs showed

a clear awareness of the term.

CEO1:

“Planning for who will take a leadership role in the organisation when the one in the leadership role leaves.

So, I guess that could be for my role; that could be for the board…”

CEO2:

“My understanding of succession planning is in a social enterprise context, how we keep the mission of

what we do active when I, as a key person, leaves. How does the business stay in business?”

Page | 16

Moreover, all these CEO’s have a strong grasp of underlying business theory, and its importance to their

respective organisations through experience and learning:

CEO1 has previously worked in the private sector and has a business degree,

CEO2 and CEO4 are qualified, experienced entrepreneurs,

CEO3 has a long history of senior for-profit management roles.

Yet, despite the absence of a defined SP strategy these enterprises continue to trade and deliver social outcomes.

SE1 and SE3 having remained in continuous operations for over thirty and seventy years respectively. SE2

continues to grow having recently opened a much larger café as well as meeting spaces. And, what had started as

a “one-off project” for SE4 has is now an on-going five-year old enterprise.

The research had to focus beyond the context of the New Zealand approach to SP. The analysis moved towards

understanding the underlying long-term sustainability of NZ social enterprise in the absence of structured SP.

Three themes have emerged from the primary data as discussed below.

Theme 1: Choosing the right SE leader

From the interviews there is an overwhelming sense of the importance of each CEO in the continued success of

their respective SE. They appear to sit at the operational centre of the enterprise and manage all aspects of the

business to an extent. It is this commitment and passion that enables their respective SEs to continue to trade.

Funding constraints and the hybrid nature of the SEs mean that they do not have a typical business management

structure. There is no shared responsibility of normal business tasks like marketing, sales, or human resources.

The CEO of each of these SEs tend to carry out all these functions.

While SE2 had a clear organisational structure with defined roles and responsibilities, as well as founding partners

working in the business there is still a sense that CEO2 currently wore a number of functional administration hats

– “…where I sort of would go down and did it all”.

Given that the candidates understood the importance of SP to the future sustainability of their enterprises, they

were asked why no time was dedicated to developing this strategy. The CEOs of the two older SEs candidly

Page | 17

replied that while this was always back of their mind there was always something more operationally critical to

deal with.

CEO1:

“…but it (SP) also gets knocked down the rung really far because there is so much other stuff that happens

– that has to happen…”

While it may be argued that all CEOs are dedicated to their roles it is important to appreciate that typical social

enterprise CEO roles are not highly rewarded in terms of pay and bonuses. There may be a fundamental difference

that contributes to this behaviour in SEs.

Through the interview process two commonalities emerge from the data that explain this:

1. A strong belief in the fundamental social outcomes of their SE including an extended affiliation with the

SE; and

2. The sustainability of the enterprise is important because there is a continuing need and relevance for the

services offered.

All four CEOs have some form of historical relationship with either the SE, or its outcomes.

Table 2: CEO affiliation to SE

CEO Describes their history or affiliation to the SE’s social outcomes

CEO1 Joined the organisation as a volunteer eight years ago. Has a long association with

the SE’s founder.

CEO2 Founding SE entrepreneur eleven years ago. Continues to spread the social

mission of engaging and connecting people to make their neighbourhood more

liveable by dedicating a day every week to connecting with different stakeholders

– not to miss the point of what they are there for.

“Like in terms of working for social good, I have done 20 years of stuff”

Page | 18

CEO3 Wanting “to contribute more” after twelve years on the Board of Autism NZ. “It

dawned on me one day employment is a fundamental issue with people with

autism”

CEO4 An extension of her core beliefs that value should be measured more than in just

financials and that SE “absolutely has a part to play in creating social change or

environmental change”

Closely related to the CEOs affiliation to the cause is the overall consideration of whether the social impact or

service of the SE continues to be relevant and needed by its customers. All candidates cited an increasing need

for their core services.

CEO2 discussed two new SE ventures it is undertaking; emphasising growing and continued customer demand

for their products which meant that the SE was sustainable long term.

CEO1 expressed the view that “DHBs are struggling” and that the SE should be still here in five to ten years’

time.

CEO4 puts forward a keen observation of the role of the leader in ensuring the continuation of the SE noting “you

have to keep doing what you are doing”, consider the risk, implement plans to mitigate them, and set up the

processes that will prevent mission drift.

Understanding the importance of the right leader when there isn’t a clear succession plan may be may further be

exemplified the appointments of CEO1 and CEO4.

CEO1 took on the role of CEO with the SE Board’s intention that the SE be wound up within a very short time

because of its precarious financial state. Moreover, there was no one in the organisation primed to take on the

leadership role, and CEO1 had no previous CEO experience. Yet despite these setbacks CEO1 has re-organised

the SE and it has continued to offer its services.

Page | 19

Similarly, CEO3 was brought on board when the SE had been losing money for a considerable period while

relying on its built-up asset base to keep trading. But it’s through the work of the new CEO that the business is

now self-sufficient.

The data suggests that for these CEOs there appears a vested interest beyond just an organisational leader making

the right calls and ensuring the business operates efficiently. In this instance it is irrelevant if the CEO is a

founding entrepreneur or a professional manager.

Each CEO demonstrates a keen and discerning appreciation of the continued importance of the SE to its

stakeholders. And their actions indicate that they are setting up their respective SEs to be sustainable even if there

isn’t a structured SP process.

Overall, the data shows that choosing the right leader for a SE is critical because the CEO defines how the

enterprise will trade, and how it will continue to deliver its social impact. Moreover, by choosing a CEO who is

affiliated with the SE or even its social outcome there appears a much higher probability that they are more likely

to work harder to keep the SE going in the event of financial crisis or otherwise. Importantly, the right leader

could bring the same ‘ownership’ as a founding social entrepreneur to the enterprise which can only help

sustainability.

Theme 2: Focus on the business without losing sight of the mission

For any enterprise being able to come up with new ideas to keep operations, products and services ahead of the

competition is crucial to continued success. This innovation also includes modifying business models and

adapting to changes to achieve better products and services.

The hybrid nature of SE means that it is its main purpose to promote, encourage, and make social change that

largely defines it. And as a result, the business or self-funding nature of the organisation could take a backseat to

the social outcomes.

CEO2

Page | 20

“So, what we have seen in a lot of places is that people have this heartbeat – this social heartbeat and the

business or part of the service is like a means to achieve this heartbeat and they don’t really care about

the product or the service.”

Given the paucity of SP in this group of SEs, the researcher sought to understand if it was the innovative nature

of the offering that drove their continued sustainability. How each did the SE operate so that their competitive

advantage was part of what made them also sustainable in this environment?

Table 3: How do the SEs Innovate?

CEO Describes how the SE is innovative

CEO1 “We are always looking (to be innovative) … at a minimum be a fast follower”

“We have been in the past really innovative”.

“I like to think we are innovative but there are also some structural constraints

around money and resources”

CEO2 “We innovate as a social enterprise organisation like it would be – this would

sound stupid, right, but by doing a really good job with our products; by not

getting too carried away with the heartbeat”

CEO3 Well, innovation in the sense of the core activity which is this out-sourced labour

is very limited…”

“Our biggest innovation I would say is the idea that we want to go towards a

situation where we have got a second or a third income stream really – having our

own products because…. when times are tough, the work doesn’t come to us…”

CEO4 Is your ability to draw on these partners and use their spare capacity part of your

innovation?

“I would like to think so. I think people do it in different ways but…what we try

to do with our approach is treat it as a partnership of mutual benefit”

Page | 21

“…we want to be able to feed into their value chain by providing stories and the

impact that they are contributing to…”

A further view sought was even if the SE was innovative what was the possibility of another organisation

providing a similar social impact in a similar manner?

Table 4: Can someone else do what you do?

CEO Describes if someone else can do what the SE does

CEO1 “With great difficulty I think because – to the extent that we do it like we are of a bit like a one-stop-

shop”

CEO2 “…there are heaps of cafes that exist…”

CEO4 “Totally – piece of cake, not rocket science. It just takes a bit of effort and putting together”

The evidence does not point to specific innovation strategies or competitive advantage that cannot be copied.

However, when you look at the whole – social impact plus commercial outcomes, a wider picture of what SP or

rather sustainability emerges. At the centre of each of these SEs, it is essentially getting the business right that

ensures sustainability and ultimately the continued delivery of the social impact.

CEO2

“So, for us, we are saying, we only have sustainability; we only have longevity if the business is good, if

the product is good. So that a) the café has to make money; b) the coffee has to be great and the food has

to be on point.”

“If the stuff wasn’t very good, the heartbeat doesn’t matter.”

CEO1

“We always are thinking lean and thinking smart…”

CEO3

“…we do however operate 100% on business lines.”

Page | 22

“We have got to find customers; get revenue; make a margin; operate efficiently…”

“…we are a business, but we are a business with heart.”

In the case of SE2, as a café they are competing with all food outlets in its near vicinity. Not only this, the lack

of parking space in and around the café means that it is imperative that their product at the very least is as good

as or better than any competitors in the first instance.

SE1 operates a lean business model because of resource constraints. This can be seen from the innovative way it

manages its call centre. All of the call centre volunteers work remotely saving the SE overhead costs.

SE4 also operates a lean business model. This may be a result of the founder being an entrepreneur and having

another for-profit business that she runs on a full-time basis.

From the data gathered there is a suggestion that the sustainability of a SE lies in the combination of both the

social impact or product and the business model. It is unlikely that uniqueness of the social product or innovation

will ensure sustainability because the very factors that restrict structured SP also hamper the former. But it is the

emphasis of effecting good business behaviours that ensures longevity in the first instance.

It is important that SEs establish or plan how they fund, how they work and how the deliver their social impact.

But being able to get the funds through the door is the key step in this and how this is managed is crucial for a

sustainable SE. Focussing too much on the social outcomes may sometimes put the enterprise in strife because at

the end of the day if you cannot keep the lights on, you are unable deliver socially.

Theme 3: Supporting structures including partnerships are essential

Through the conversations much was made of different types of support structures surrounding each of the

enterprises. The supporting structures appeared to reflect the business of the SE or indeed the founding ethos of

the SE. The structure manifested itself both internally and externally. Internally this is how the business is

organised – through teams, strategic team leaders, or empowering broader decision-making delegations. Key to

this supporting structure are the strategic external partnerships who are key contributors to the outcomes and

sustainability of the business.

Page | 23

It was through discussions with all of the CEOs that importance of this structures emerged.

All CEOs acknowledged the strong support of their respective boards. More than just being committed to the

SE’s aims and values the researcher got the impression that board support really gives these CEOs confidence to

effectively operate their respective SEs.

For CEO1 and CEO3 it has been the significant amount of trust their boards put in them when their respective

SEs were facing crises that has kept them trading. CEO1 had never previously held a CEO position, yet her board

made her acting CEO when the SE was experiencing financial difficulty. CEO3 had the support and trust of his

board to continue to trade and improve the business when they were considering the very legitimacy of such an

enterprise in today’s world. Both instances show the not only the importance of board support in SE but also how

board trust plays a significant role of empowering the CEO to make the right calls as required.

When asked “Do you consider the consequence of mission drift in the event of you leaving the SE?” CEO4 was

adamant that the right board of trustees and terms of reference would prevent this from happening.

SE2 is slightly different in some ways to the other SEs in that as a collective it already has a significant internal

support mechanism. All of the founding collective are all still active in the SE in some way – through working in

the business or sitting on the board to taking on the CEO’s role of “neighbourhood connector” when he took a

sabbatical. This support of the collective is what epitomises the social impact of connecting people in some ways.

On an ongoing basis the founding collective sit across the SE’s governance and support the CEO when there is a

decision that may have significant risk for the SE.

For SE4 its “long term partnerships” are essential in getting its product to the end users - “PBT Transport have

been providing their spare capacity and that kind of thing for over five years now”. And, it is logistics that is at

the heart of this SE – getting useable discarded medical equipment from NZ to recipient organisations or

“partners” in the Pacific. For SE4 it is the support of these and a range of other partners that ensure it can be

sustainable. Especially as it collects the equipment across a number of different places with key partners offering

free space for collection containers.

Page | 24

Similarly, SE2 also has a key strategic partnership with its landlord. Having facilitated a move to larger premises

in the past, their landlord will be key to expanding their presence in the coming years with further opportunities

to develop a nearby site into apartments that fit SE2’s social ethos.

For SE1 and SE3 there are also key commercial arrangements that provide revenue for its services. SE1 derives

a significant amount of its revenue from a government contract, while SE3 derives much of its revenues from a

range of NZ businesses that have partnered with them over a long period.

Each SE in this study has a range of key supporting structures and long-term partnerships that ensure they

continue to operate. Even the most recently established enterprise, SE4, already has a range of strategic

relationships that are crucial to delivering its social outcomes.

These supporting structures are an important element for SE. The partnerships can help fill the gap where the SE

does not have expertise and this activity is likely to be outside of their social outcome. The structures will support

the outcomes through a range of actions – from advice to being a key component of the delivery of the social

outcome. The partnerships must be maintained to ensure continuity. More important is that they allow leaders to

concentrate on managing the business short-handed as it were without adding more stress to the running of the

SE.

Discussion and implications

Similar to the evidence by McKee & Froelich, 2016, Stewart, 2016 and others there is an absence of succession

planning in NZ social enterprises. However, NZ enterprises continue to trade despite a lack of SP strategies. The

three factors discussed above imply that continuation is as a result of focussing on sustainability rather than

succession.

More recent evidence by Clark (2018) noted that the inability to prioritise time for strategic thinking is because

executives are too “busy”. She contends that American executives’ proxy long hours for productivity, and thus

don’t have time to work out what is important next for their business. From this research, this is not the case in

NZ. The CEOs interviewed are truly “the manager of everything” (BDO, 2018). Everyday tasks in running the

Page | 25

business take precedence over setting aside time to concentrate on developing a SP strategy – but they do spend

a lot of genuinely productive hours on ensuring that the social impact and the business are sustainable.

Succession planning is not prioritised because it may not be that relevant in a NZ social enterprise context.

Currently the NZ social enterprise sector is made up of a number of small community, niche, and local social

organisations. There is little, if any need for a management structure where a number of different managers are

specialised in a singular management discipline – especially given their size and revenues. These type of

enterprises have flat organisational structures. Meaning that staff are more empowered, resources may be better

managed and organisations are productive without a SP strategy. This is different to what was asserted in the

introduction of this paper that SP is an essential business strategy to deploy limited resources effectively and

increase competitive advantage.

There are underlying themes from the literature that sit alongside what makes an enterprise successful, or

sustainable. For example, tenure with the cause – see discussion below. Similarly it can be argued a transitioning

manager is more likely to be successful if he or she has had a long association with the SE or cause.

Making the right choice of new leadership is key to not only avoiding mission drift but also ensuring future

sustainability.

Froelich et al (2011) notes that in a shrinking non-profit leadership (experience) market there is still a reluctance

to bring in leadership from other sectors of the economy. But in NZ given the infancy and niche of SEs this is

unavoidable. Therefore, the choice of new SE leader is key and requires good judgement. This has significant

implications where a founding social entrepreneur is exiting the enterprise. Especially if the enterprise and the

entrepreneur are seen as one and the same. SEs in this instance can flounder, specifically in managing partnerships

that have been aligned with the founder from the outset.

Roy & Kana (2015) and others note that successful SEs typically have founding entrepreneurs that have a long

association with the root cause of an issue. This is an important criteria when considering incumbent professional

managers – especially those aspiring to join this sector or when replacing a founding entrepreneur. SEs are more

Page | 26

likely to be sustainable in the long-term if in lieu of a SP, if the new CEO has a long association or are affiliated

to the SE in some way.

For SE boards this means looking beyond a manager’s credentials to run the enterprise on a day-to-day basis.

They need to understand a new CEO’s motivation in order to know the level commitment they bring to the role.

This will also have implications for human resources in this sector when assessing credentials of future leaders.

Human resources may need to work much more closely with boards as well as reconsider candidate screening

criteria.

For private sector managers wanting to transition into the SE sector there may be a need to connect with the social

outcomes of the SE over a period prior to seeking a management role in the industry. Merely having strong

management credentials will not be enough, and the association is likely to avoid career derailment.

A good leader is more likely to ensure a SE is sustainable through a combination of strong affiliation to the social

outcomes sought as well as good business practice. Where SP isn’t a key strategy SE must focus on ensuring new

leaders bring the right attributes to their roles in the first instance.

Clearly articulating the SEs’ business model is crucial.

Maier, 2014, Battilana, 2012 and others noted that SEs must be run as a business in order to be successful

(sustainable) in achieving their core social objectives.

This has important implications for SEs transitioning from founding entrepreneurs and new start-up enterprises.

Entrepreneurial businesses derive their competitive advantage from a founding entrepreneur’s own actions and

behaviours in carrying out the business. Froelich et al (2011) notes the importance of “shoring up internal

structures and processes” to be attractive to executive candidates. If the entrepreneur’s way of doing things cannot

be replicated through process and procedure there is the possibility a SEs cannot be competitive in the long-term.

Chell (2007) argues that historical behaviours of social and community businesses in the past have imperilled

their continuation. New SEs use up a lot of energy in getting people behind the cause. As discussed previously

Page | 27

one advantage of SP is the continuation of good resource allocation. For new SEs clearly defining its business

model at the outset will be imperative to sustainability – especially in how limited resources can be allocated.

SE cannot focus just on its social outcomes, especially in a competitive funding environment. Being able to

operate each aspect of the enterprise in a business-like factor is more likely to see it continue to deliver its social

impact over time. This includes closer scrutiny on revenues, costs and outcomes and a defined notion of these are

measured. This will provide a benchmark for the enterprise measure progression going forward.

Structure and strategic partnerships sustain SEs.

As Prabhu (1999) noted there is a dependency of non-profits on their strategic partnerships, and their existence

is aligned in maintaining them. These partnerships are part of the wider supporting structure surrounding SEs that

ensure sustainability. Again, this must be considered in the wider context of a missing SP strategy. Typically,

these partnerships are managed through the leadership team.

It can be argued that given the importance of this association, how these relationships are managed will impact

long-term sustainability. There may be a role here for trustees or board members to take a more active

management or at least shared management of these partnerships in ensuring sustainability. The researcher would

argue that the supporting structure must be considered holistically in that none of them stand alone in achieving

the outcomes of the SE. But rather it is through their interrelations that the SE derives an advantage that delivers

entrepreneurial behaviour and social outcomes. Articulating how this works is essential to sustainable behaviour.

Conclusion

The lack of structured succession planning in New Zealand social enterprise does not impede the continued

existence and successful delivery of their social outcomes. This resilience may be attributed to a focus on

sustainability rather than succession planning.

Choosing the right CEO, running the enterprise as a business and building and maintaining strategic long-term

partnerships are three emergent themes from this study supporting sustainability of social enterprise. The research

would suggest that social enterprises and entrepreneurs would do well to ensure these activities are well managed

in order to be sustainable, ensure longevity and avoid mission drift.

Page | 28

Further research

Boards, play a significant part of the continued success of these SEs. While their importance was noted, it wasn’t

clear how active they were in the day-to-day running of the enterprise, how much guidance they gave the CEOs,

or what special skills they bring to these SEs. More research in SE boards’ SP can offer better insight into how

these NZ social enterprises or non-profits continue to exist.

There was not enough evidence to fully discuss the tension between profits and mission drift. This may be largely

due to the charitable nature of SEs in NZ. More research into how NZ social enterprise balance these within a

much larger organisation may help bridge this information gap.

Page | 29

References

Anderson, S. E., Betty S., Coffey B. S. & Dixon‐Fowler, H. (2014). The Empty Bowls Project: Creating, Leading,

and Sustaining a Social Enterprise. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, Volume 38, Issue 5, pp 1237-

1245.

Austin, J. Stevenson, H. & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006) Social and Commercial Entrepreneurship: Same, Different, or

Both? Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, January, 1-22.

Battilana, J., Lee, M., Walker, J., & Dorsey C. (2012). In Search of the Hybrid Ideal. Stanford Social Innovation

Review, summer 2012, 51-55.

BDO (Brand insight). (2018). Strategy vital but few make time. NZ Herald, 19 October 2018.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/bdo/news/article.cfm?c_id=1504111&objectid=12136810.

Bhowmick, S. (2011) Social Cause Venturing as a Distinct Domain, Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 2:1, 99-

111.

Blount J., & Nunley, P. (2014). What is a "Social" Business and Why Does the Answer Matter? Brooklyn Journal

of Corporate Financial & Commercial Law, 2/2, pp. 279-316.

Blundell S. (2017). The rise of the social enterprise. November 11, 2017 issue of the New Zealand Listener online.

https://www.noted.co.nz/money/business/the-rise-of-the-social-enterprise/.

Brundrett, M., Rhodes, C. & Gkolia, C. (2006). Planning for leadership succession: creating a talent pool in

primary schools. Education, 34:3, 259-268.

Chell, E. (2007). Social enterprise and entrepreneurship: towards a convergent theory of the entrepreneurial

process. International Small Business Journal 25(1).

Clark, D. (2018). If strategy is so important, why don’t we make time for it? Harvard Business Review (online),

21 June 2018. https://hbr.org/2018/06/if-strategy-is-so-important-why-dont-we-make-time-for-it

Corner, PD. & Ho, M. (2010). How opportunities develop in Social Entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory

and Practice - Special Issue: Social Entrepreneurship, Volume34, Issue4, July 2010, Pages 635-659.

Dees, JG. (1998). The meaning of “social entrepreneurship”. Entrepreneur in Residence Kauffman Centre for

Entrepreneurial Leadership Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and Miriam and Peter Haas Centennial

Professor in Public Service Graduate School of Business Stanford University.

Page | 30

Dickerson C. & Hassanien A. (2018). Restaurants’ social enterprise business model: Three case studies. Journal

of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 19:2, 192-216.

Driver, M. (2012). An Interview with Michael Porter: Social Entrepreneurship and the Transformation of

Capitalism. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(3), 421-431.

Durst, S. & Gueldenberg, S. (2010). What makes SMEs attractive to external successors? The Journal of

information and Knowledge Management Systems, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 108-135.

Ebrashi, R. E. (2013). Social entrepreneurship theory and sustainable social impact. Social Responsibility Journal,

9(2), 188-209.

Elkin, G., Smith, K., & Zhang, H. (2012). Succession planning in the third sector in New Zealand. New Zealand

Journal of Employment Relations (Online), 37(3), 34-49.

Froelich, K., McKee, G. & Rathge, R. (2011). Succession planning in non-profit organisations. Non-profit

Management & Leadership, Vol. 22, no 1.

Garg AK & Van Weele E. (2012). Succession Planning and Its Impact on the Performance of Small Micro

Medium Enterprises within the Manufacturing Sector in Johannesburg. International Journal of Business

and Management, Vol. 7, No. 9, pp 96-107.

Granados, M.L., Hlupic, V., Coakes, E. Mohamed, S. (2011). Social enterprise and social entrepreneurship

research and theory: A bibliometric analysis from 1991 to 2010. Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 7 Issue:

3, pp.198-218, https://doi.org/10.1108/17508611111182368.

Henderson, T. (2017). Why innovation is crucial to your organisation’s long-term success. Forbes online,

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2017/05/08/why-innovation-is-crucial-to-your-

organizations-long-term-success/#5a15dff33098

Kesner, IF & Sebora TC. (1994). Executive Succession: Past, Present & Future. Journal of Management, Vol.

20, No. 2, 327-372.

Lee, S., Bolton, L. E., & Winterich, K. P. (2017). To Profit or Not to Profit? The Role of Greed Perceptions in

Consumer Support for Social Ventures. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(4), 853-876.

Luke B and Chu V. (2013). Social enterprise versus social entrepreneurship: An examination of the ‘why’ and

‘how’ in pursuing social change. International Small Business Journal 31(7) 764–784.

Page | 31

Maier, F. Meyer, M. & Steinbereithner, M. (2014). Nonprofit Organizations Becoming Business-Like: A

Systematic Review, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol 45, Issue 1, pp. 64 – 86.

Martin, RL, & Osberg, S. (2007). Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition. Stanford Social Innovation

Review, spring, 29-39.

Mckee, G. & Froelich, K. (2016). Executive succession planning: barriers and substitutes in non-profit

organisations. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Volume 87, Issue 4, 587-601.

Meewella J. & Sandhu M. (2012). Commercial benefits of social entrepreneurship. World Review of

Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, vol. 8, issue 3, 340-357.

Mort, GS., Weerawardena, J. & Carnegie, K. (2002). Social entrepreneurship: towards conceptualisation.

International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Volume 8, Number 1, 76-88.

Mulgan, G., Tucker, S., Ali, R. & Sanders B (2007). Social innovation: what it is, why it matters and how it can

be accelerated Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship,

http://eureka.sbs.ox.ac.uk/761/1/Social_Innovation.pdf

Myers, M.D. (2009). Qualitative research in business & management. Trowbridge, Wiltshire, Sage

Publications.

Oxfam report - Huge wealth gap in New Zealand where richest 1% own 28% of wealth. New Zealand Herald, 22

January 2018, https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11979151

Patricia Doyle Corner Marcus Ho. (2010). How Opportunities Develop in Social Entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice: Special Issue: Social Entrepreneurship. 34(4), 635-659.

Peredo AM. & McLean M., (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World

Business, Volume 41, Issue 1, February 2006, Pages 56-65.

Porter, M., (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Harvard Business Review, March/April 1990, 73-91.

Prabhu, GN. (1999). Social entrepreneurial leadership. Career Development International, Vol. 4 Issue: 3,

pp.140-145, https://doi.org/10.1108/13620439910262796

Ramus, T. & Vaccaro, A. (2017). Stakeholders Matter: How Social Enterprises Address Mission Drift. Journal

of Business Ethics, Volume 143, Issue 2, pp 307–322.

Page | 32

Redman, RW. (2006). Leadership Succession Planning: An Evidence-based Approach for Managing the Future.

The Journal of Nursing Administration, volume 36, Number 6, pp 292-297.

Rego L. & Bhandary A. (2006) New Model: A Social Entrepreneur Changes the Landscape. Leadership in Action,

Volume 26, No. 1, 8-11.

Roper, J., & Cheney, G. (2005). Leadership, learning and human resource management: The meanings of social

entrepreneurship today. Corporate Governance International Journal of Business in Society, 5(3), 95-104.

Roy, K. & Karna, A. (2015). Doing social good on a sustainable basis: competitive advantage of social businesses.

Management Decision, Vol. 53 Issue: 6, pp.1355-1374, https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2014-0561

Santora, JC., Sarros, JC., Bozer, G., Esposito, M., & Bassi, A. (2015). Nonprofit Executive Succession planning

& Organisational Sustainability, A Preliminary Comparative Study in Australia, Brazil, Israel, Italy,

Russia, and the United States. The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, Volume 20,

Number 4, October 2015, pp. 66-83.

Sen, P. (2007). Ashoka's big idea: Transforming the world through social entrepreneurship. Futures, 39(5), 534-

553.

Sengupta, S., & Sahay, A. (2017). Social entrepreneurship research in Asia-Pacific: Perspectives and

opportunities. Social Enterprise Journal, 13(1), 17-37.

Small and Medium Businesses in New Zealand, Report of the Small Business Development Group, 2016

Temple, N. for Social Enterprise UK. (2017). The future of business - State of Social Enterprise Survey 2017,

published by Social Enterprise UK.

http://sewfonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2017-State-of-Social-Enterprise.pdf

Thomas D.R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analysing qualitative evaluation data, American Journal

of Evaluation, Vol. 27, Issue 2, pp. 237-246.

Thompson, J. Alvy, G. & Lees, A. (2000). Social entrepreneurship – a new look at the people and the

potential". Management Decision, Vol. 38 Issue: 5, pp.328-338,

https://doi.org/10.1108/00251740010340517

Trevett, C. (2018) PM Jacinda Ardern sets 'ambitious' short-term child poverty goals. New Zealand Herald, 27

March 2018.

Page | 33

University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee (UAHPEC). Guiding Principles for Conducting

Research with Human Participants, 7 March 2016.

Yong Wang, David Watkins, Neil Harris, Keith Spicer, (2004). "The relationship between succession issues and

business performance: Evidence from UK family SMEs", International Journal of Entrepreneurial

Behaviour & Research, Vol. 10 Issue: 1/2, pp.59-84.

Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L., (2010). Building Social Business Models: Lessons from the

Grameen Experience. Long Range Planning, Volume 43, Issues 2–3, Pages 308-325.

Zahra, SA. Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, DO., & Shulman, JM. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: Motives,

search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of Business Venturing: Special Issue Ethics and

Entrepreneurship. Volume 24, Issue 5, pp. 519-532.