Beyond mission drift: understanding the spaces of vulnerability in social enterprises’ missions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Previous literature has emphasized that social enterprises (SEs) are challenged by their pursuit of divergent social and financial goals, often resulting in tensions leading to a mission drift. This study aims to provide an alternative view wherein these organizations fail to make deliberate and exclusive choices between their goals. In this paper, the authors critically review previous findings on mission drift and present a new concept built on the paradox theory. Design/methodology/approach This conceptual paper draws upon previous literature on mission drift in SEs. The authors took an integrative review approach to provide an overview of the topic in which the research is still interdisciplinary. The paradox theory approach has been used to guide the discussion and expand the findings. Findings The authors put forward the concept of spaces of vulnerability, which arise from the tensions faced by SEs between their social and financial objectives and which can lead them to suffer mission drift. The authors propose to shift attention from the sources and strategies of mission drift to the processes involved in the composition of those spaces where missions can become more vulnerable but not necessarily drift. Practical implications This perspective adds value to practitioners by increasing the likelihood of SEs surviving multiple logics and clarifying conflicts between social and financial goals in advance. Founders and managers might not only balance their dual missions but also understand their respective roots underlying typologies with regards to decision-making. Originality/value The authors enrich the literature by exploring how SEs can deal with tensions related to their multiple goals and sustain their social mission in the long term by offering a theoretical discussion and new forms to consider their dual objectives.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".