How community-based social enterprises struggle with representation and accountability

Abstract

Purpose Community-based social enterprises (CBSEs), a spatially defined subset of social enterprise, are independent, not-for-profit organisations managed by community members and committed to delivering long-term benefits to local people. CBSEs respond to austerity and policy reforms by providing services, jobs and other amenities for residents in deprived communities, thus contributing to neighbourhood regeneration. This paper aims to develop a better understanding of how CBSEs perceive accountability, how they apply it in the management and representation of their business and why. Design/methodology/approach Nine case studies of CBSEs across three European countries (England, the Netherlands and Sweden) are analysed, using data from semi-structured interviews with initiators, board members and volunteers in CBSEs. Findings CBSEs shape accountability and representation in response to the needs of local communities and in the wake of day-to-day challenges and opportunities. Apart from financial reporting, CBSEs apply informal strategies of accountability which are highly embedded in their way of working and contingent upon their limited resources. Originality/value Although research has shown the complex governance position of CBSEs, their application of accountability to target communities and other stakeholders is unclear. The paper coins the term “adaptive accountability,” reflecting a relational, dialectic approach in which formal, costly accountability methods are only applied to legally required forms of accounting, and informal practices are accepted by funding agencies and governments as valid forms of accountability, assessing CBSEs’ societal value in more open terms.

Roles of Accounting for the Contested Terrain of Social Enterprises

“…Prior research has drawn attention to how particular accounting tools may serve particular understandings of SEs, drawing attention to the risk of disabling rather than enabling the social values (Gibbon and Dey 2011;Vik 2017). Then again, accounting may serve to strengthen organisational purpose (Chenhall, Hall, and Smith 2013) and to enable stakeholder engagement and social values through socialising forms of giving an account (Kleinhans, Bailey, and Lindbergh 2019;Oakes and Young 2008;Roberts 2001;Timming and Brown 2015).…”

“…Different approaches to accounting and accountability have been offered by, for instance, Brown and Wong (2012), Dillard and Pullman (2017), Angier (2011), Kleinhans, Bailey, andLindbergh (2019) and Oakes and Young (2008), emphasising processual, discursive and socialising forms of accountability. These studies argue that accounting and accountability should be based on an ongoing process that incorporates the shared activity of establishing the goals to be met, as well as serious attention to the question of who to include in this activity and how social accounts enable the development of accountability relationships over time.…”

“…However, accounting may also be seen as a positive force in facilitating stakeholder engagement (Roberts 2001;Wouters and Wilderom 2011). Engaging stakeholders in the accountability processes creates more socialising forms of accountability, which are not so much focused on the final report and formal accounts but on the entire process of accountability and the role of stakeholders and stakeholder relationships (Kleinhans, Bailey, and Lindbergh 2019;Roberts 2001). Respecting stakeholders is seen valuable in itself and as part of the democratic and participatory governance mechanisms of SEs.…”

‘That’s Witchcraft’: Community entrepreneuring as a process of navigating intra-community tensions through spiritual practices

“…Specifically, these tensions surface in communities seeking to turn themselves into enterprises, in particular, as external actors -such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and/or international donors -intervene within communities and purposively alter their structures (Qureshi, Sutter, & Bhatt, 2018; van Wijk, van Wijk, Drost, & Stam, 2020;Venkataraman, Vermeulen, Raaijmakers, & Mair, 2016) as has occurred in the Chewa community in this study. Even to a lesser extent the CBE literature has explored how communities and their members deal with the socio-economic inequalities (Chemouni, 2018) and power dynamics that underpin these tensions (Kleinhans, Bailey, & Lindbergh, 2019).…”

Interpreting community enterprises’ ability to survive in depleted contexts through the Humane Entrepreneurship lens: evidence from Italian rural areas

“…CEs are usually framed within the larger concept of social enterprises (SEs) (Leadbeater, 1997;Shaw and Carter, 2007), but it is necessary to acknowledge that they differ for at least three reasons (Kleinhans et al, 2020). Unlike most SEs, CEs define their social purpose concerning a population living in a spatially defined area (Bailey, 2012).…”