By now, the becoming business-like of nonprofit organizations (NPOs) is a wellestablished global phenomenon that has received ever-growing attention from management and organization studies. However, the field remains hard to grasp in its entirety, as researchers use a multitude of similar, yet distinct, key concepts. The considerable range and complexity of these overlapping notions create major challenges: Scholars struggle to position their work in a larger context; it is not easy to build on previous findings and methodological developments; and research gaps are difficult to identify. The present article presents the first systematic literature review to confront those challenges by reviewing 599 relevant sources. In a first step, various key concepts are clarified. Second, the field is mapped according to three research foci: causes of NPOs becoming business-like, organizational structures and processes of becoming business-like, and effects of becoming business-like. From this, we draw conclusions and make suggestions for further research.

Please direct correspondence to florentine.maier@wu.ac.at.Abstract: NPOs and their funders are increasingly drawn to the Social Return on Investment (SROI) method to evaluate the social impact of programs, organizations or organization networks. While many claims about the benefits of SROI have been expressed, various points of criticism have also been raised.On the basis of both current research and our own experience in conducting SROI analyses, we develop a comprehensive assessment of this method, which is structured along two dimensions: the observer's paradigmatic perspective, on the one hand, and positive or negative valuation, on the other. We identify two major merits: SROI analysis can provide legitimacy to NPOs or their funders, and it can assist in allocating resources. We identify limitations from three perspectives: From an interpretative-sociological perspective, criticism of commensuration and utilitarianism calls the method as a whole into question.From a technical-instrumental perspective, there are a number of difficulties that could however be overcome as the method matures. From an intermediary perspective, a number of limitations become apparent that, while inherent to SROI analysis, are no reason for abandoning it, as long as they are thoroughly understood. We conclude by providing suggestions for the responsible use of SROI analysis.The question of how to advance the common good is increasingly seen as a matter of finding out and implementing "what works" rather than of following ideologies. Among NPOs and government institutions that consider themselves cutting-edge, the formulation of explicit theories of change (see, for example, Fulbright-Anderson & Auspos, 2006) as well as the regular development of evidence-based policies (Pawson, 2006:vii) are expected. In managing performance, the focus has clearly shifted from inputs and outputs to impacts and public value (Barman, 2007; Lynch-Cerullo & Cooney, 2011; Moore, 2013). On the one 1 hand, these developments are to be welcomed as progress towards more open-mindedness and discursive rationality. On the other hand, the ideology of anti-ideology comes with its own trappings. The old quip that "[p]ractical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist" (Keynes, 1965:383) still applies. The present article contributes to a deeper understanding of this dilemma by focusing on a particular method that is widely used in the search for impact and evidence: the analysis of Social Return on Investment (SROI). It is the aim of this paper to contribute to a balanced and comprehensive understanding of its merits and limitations.Out of more than 40 approaches that have been developed for measuring social impact (Stevenson, Taylor, Lyon, & Rigby, 2010), SROI analysis is one of the most widespread. It is a mixed-method-approach to assess the social, economic, and environmental impact of interventions. Its most prominent feature is the SROI ratio. This ratio aims to dete...

The rapid rise of alternative organisations such as social enterprises is largely due to the promotional activities of intermediary organisations. So far, little is known about the affective nature of such activities. The present article thus investigates how intermediary organisations make social entrepreneurship palatable for a broader audience by establishing it as an object of desire. Drawing on affect-oriented extensions of Laclau and Mouffe's poststructuralist theory, hegemonisation is suggested as a way of understanding how social entrepreneurship is articulated through a complementary process of signification and affective investment. Specifically, by examining Austrian intermediaries, we show how social entrepreneurship is endowed with a sense of affective thrust that is based on three interlocking dynamics: the articulation of fantasies such as 'inclusive exclusiveness', 'large-scale social change' and 'pragmatic solutions'; the repression of anxiety-provoking and contentious issues (constitutive quiescences); as well as the use of conceptually vague, floating signifiers (moments of indeterminacy). Demonstrating that the hegemonisation of social entrepreneurship involves articulating certain issues whilst, at the same time, omitting others, or rendering them elusive, the article invites a counter-hegemonic critique of social entrepreneurship, and, on a more general level, of alternative forms of organising, that embraces affect as a driving force of change, while simultaneously affirming the impossibility of harmony and wholeness.

Different disciplinary, theoretical, and empirical lenses have contributed to a kaleidoscopic picture of CSO governance. Most of the time, CSO governance is contrasted with corporate governance in business organizations; only rarely is the broad variety of CSOs taken into account. To widen this perspective, we develop an empirically grounded typology of five discourses of organization in CSOs: managerialist, domestic, professionalist, grassroots, and civic discourse. We argue that each of these discourses gives specific answers to the three core questions of governance: To whom is the CSO accountable, i.e., who are the key actors who need to be protected by governance mechanisms? For what kind of performance is the CSO accountable? And which structures and processes are appropriate to ensure accountability? The way in which different discourses answer these questions provides us with a deeper understanding of the reasons behind the manifold notions of governance in CSOs.2

No abstract