Communicating a social agenda within HEIs: the role of the social enterprise mark

Abstract

Structured AbstractPurpose Using the lens of the Social Enterprise Mark (SEM) accreditation which enables social enterprises to 'prove' that the interests of people and planet are put before shareholder gain, this study sought to enhance our knowledge of how effectively the social agenda is communicated by Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). Design/methodology/approachUsing a qualitative research design, this exploratory study uses a combination of both a focus group and in-depth interviews with HEI holders of the SEM. FindingsWith a particular focus on University A, this study advances our knowledge around how social agendas and the role of the SEM in particular, are used to communicate to HEI employees as a key stakeholder group. Research LimitationsAt the time of this study, fewer SEM accredited HEIs existed and therefore, the following conclusions are based upon a small select sample of HEIs that held the SEM. Further studies are needed to provide a more representative view of each University's use of and commitment to the SEM/SEGM. Practical/Social limitations/implicationsBuilding on Powell & Osborne's (2015) observations regarding the role of marketing in social enterprises, the findings of this study offer practical insight to current and/or prospective HEI SEM holders as to the role of 'social' accreditations; stakeholder perceptions of such marketing initiatives; and how they can be used effectively as a vehicle to improve social communications in the future. Originality/valueThe area of social enterprise and social impact has been evolving in recent decades, but academic studies in relation to the promotion and communication of certification schemes such as the SEM in the higher education sector remains scant. This study responds to this gap in the literature by providing greater insight into how social agendas and engagement with the SEM specifically, are communicated by HEIs. HEI 1 FG P1Focus Group (face-to-face) Participant 1 University A/SEGM HEI 1 FG P2 Focus Group (face-to-face) Participant 2 University A/SEGM HEI 1 FG P3 Focus Group (face-to-face) Participant 3 University A/SEGM HEI 1 FG P4 Focus Group (face-to-face) Participant 4 University A/SEGM HEI 1 FG P5 Focus Group (face-to-face) Participant 5 University A/SEGM HEI 1 FG P6 Focus Group (face-to-face) Participant 6 University A/SEGM HEI 1 A HEI Interview (face-to-face) University A/SEGM HEI 1 B HEI Interview (face-to-face) University A/SEGM HEI 1 C HEI Interview (face-to-face) University A/SEGM HEI 2 HEI Interview (telephone) University B/SEGM HEI 3 HEI Interview (telephone) University C/SEM HEI 4 HEI Interview (telephone)

From social activism to active socialization: The evolution of football ideology in community‐owned football clubs

“…Given this rationale, the work adopts an interpretive, inductive approach with an emphasis on the collation of subjective accounts. The work builds on recent qualitative explorations into SE (Bradford et al, 2018; Meltzer et al, 2018; Sutton, McEachern, & Kane, 2018), and SE and sport (Reid, 2017). Ultimately, these methods offer “flexibility in questioning and the opportunity to direct the conversation to draw out experiences, while maintaining consistency over the concepts discussed” (Sutton et al, 2018, p. 332).…”

Social enterprise marketing: review of literature and future research agenda

“…A well thought out marketing strategy enables the SEs to build awareness and to diffuse these innovative solutions to the target customers (Bhattacharya, 2013;Roundy, 2017). Marketing communication helps SEs to emphasize the social impact of their offerings and offset any negative feeling among the stakeholders (Sutton et al, 2018;Wong and Tse, 2016). Hence, a communication process aligned toward the local culture of target communities makes it easier for the people to follow and accept the SE offerings (Singh et al, 2015).…”

Marketing Scottish social enterprises using a label?

“…Marketing and consumer behaviour theories have been explored in for-profit and ethical businesses, but scholars (Bull and Crompton, 2006;Osborne, 2015, 2018;Shaw, 2004;Sutton et al, 2018) have noted that there are relatively few studies that have investigated the contribution marketing could make to social enterprises. Bull (2007) found that many social enterprises perceived marketing to be an activity which only "big businesses" do, or they were too busy to create a marketing strategy.…”

“…Literature continues to debate issues such as the motivations, structures and success of social enterprises (Dacin et al, 2010;Mair and Marti, 2006). Yet little research exists exploring the marketing or promotional methods of such organisations (Powell and Osborne, 2018;Shaw, 2004;Sutton, McEachern and Kane, 2018). One concept that has been explored is the Unique Selling Point (USP) of a business and its impact on competitive advantage (Chell, 2007).…”