Next Article in Journal
Dishwashers: Literature Review to Summarise the Multi-Dimensionality of Sustainable Production and Consumption
Next Article in Special Issue
What Drives Social Enterprises to Form Sustainable Values? The Effects of Normative Identity and Social Performance
Previous Article in Journal
Modelling Freight Trip Generation Based on Deliveries for Brazilian Municipalities
Previous Article in Special Issue
Beyond a Balanced View of Social Entrepreneurship within a Social–Commercial Dichotomy: Towards a Four-Dimensional Typology
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 16
10.3390/su141610301
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Building a Taxonomy of Hybridization: An Institutional Logics Perspective on Societal Impact

by
Tasneem Sadiq
1,2,*,†,
Rob van Tulder
1,3 and
Karen Maas
4,5
1
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
2
Rotterdam Business School, Rotterdam University of Applied Sciences, 3063 ND Rotterdam, The Netherlands
3
Partnerships Resource Centre, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
4
Department of Accounting and Finance, Open University, 6419 AT Heerlen, The Netherlands
5
Impact Centre Erasmus, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Current address of first author: Mandeville Building T11-54, Thomas Morelaan, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Sustainability 2022, 14(16), 10301; https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610301
Submission received: 29 April 2022 / Revised: 19 July 2022 / Accepted: 9 August 2022 / Published: 18 August 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Social Entrepreneurship, Hybrid Organizations and Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The hybridization movement reflects the shift and convergence of market-focused corporations on the one hand and social oriented organizations on the other towards more integrated value-creating hybrid arrangements. Hybridity is usually defined as the combination of two different and usually contradicting institutional logics. However, the hybridity literature is incongruent, inconsistent and seemingly addressing different spheres of hybridity, rendering the institutional construct ineffective for empirical analysis between organizations of varied natures. The purpose of this study is to arrive at a conceptualization of hybridity from an institutional perspective that allows for empirical analysis and comparison of the hybrid nature of organizations across time and contexts. Adopting a taxonomical approach based on the societal triangle, a systematic review (n = 109) is conducted to identify characteristics, issues and challenges of eight archetypical hybrid and non-hybrid organizations. Consequently, the authors propose a thematic mapping of relevant issues into five clustered themes. This thematic map can be helpful in guiding the analysis of and comparison between a broad range of different hybrid organizations. This study adds to the existing definitional and terminological debate in the hybridity literature by shifting the focus from a typological classification towards a taxonomical approach of hybridity.

1. Introduction

1.1. Introducing This Study

The hybridization movement reflects the shift of social-oriented organizations on the one hand and purely profit-driven companies on the other towards a mix of social and financial value creation, resulting in a more integrated organizational structure [1]. The hybrid nature of organizations has been studied by various scholars, who have been—for the most part—closely following the institutional logics paradigm. However, a challenging problem that arises with this approach is that this paradigm seems to be too fuzzy to be useful as an analytical tool for hybridization. To our knowledge, no previous study has yielded an empirically useful classification across time, place and contexts aiming to meaningfully compare between various different hybrid arrangements. To overcome this problem, we alternatively propose to adopt the societal triangle paradigm as a point of departure. This approach, based on a taxonomy instead of typology, helps in demarcating hybridity more precisely and minimizes terminological controversy. We describe eight archetypes and perform a systematic literature review to identify issues and challenges of each hybrid and non-hybrid archetype.
This paper is organized as follows. First, we introduce and contextualize hybridity and then follow-up with two theoretical frameworks that are vital to this study, i.e., institutional logics and institutional spheres (organized within a societal triangle). In the next section, the methodology is explained, and insight is provided into the different phases of the systematic review based on the PRISMA diagram. The results section shows our findings. First, the different terms in the reviewed literature associated with hybridity are detailed, and the identified issues and challenges connected to each archetype (1 to 8) are described. In discussing these results, a clustered thematic overview is provided that can be helpful in subsequent empirical investigations. Finally, the main conclusion develops this line of argumentation further, while pointing out limitations and areas for further research.

1.2. Hybridization Movement

The hybridization literature does not regard hybridity as a finite set of possibilities but more as a continuum with possible configurations and dimensions. The first influential attempt to articulate these various dimensions was a study by Battilana and Lee [2] in which they identified five dimensions of hybridity, i.e., inter-organizational relationships, culture, organizational design, workforce composition, and organizational activities. An organization might be pinpointed on each of these dimensions according to a scale between differentiated and integrated, pointing to the integration between commercial and social aspects. They contend that social enterprises are ideal types of hybridity, as they combine and balance the organizational forms of business and charity. Although the idea of these dimensions was well articulated, it had some vagueness to be useful in empirical settings. Taking this up as a challenge, Kolk and Lenfant [3] argued for an empirically somewhat more sensitive model detailing six dimensions that define a hybrid business model. These include addressing social goals in the mission, positive leadership, perception of mutual benefits, long-term relationships with stakeholders, perception of progressive interactions, and balancing business goals with societal contributions. One study took the measurement of hybridity a step further, describing a 3 × 3 cube model classifying sector resources, organizational location, and type of sustainability at its three axes using a set of 15 indicators for the measurement and organizational comparison of hybridity [4]. Looking at the hybridity literature, we find that the different studies and their results are incomparable with each other, not building enough on prior knowledge and seemingly addressing different levels of questions and spheres of hybridity. For the most part, this is a definitional and terminological problem, as the literature describes concurrent approaches towards hybridity. Following the excellent overview of Battilana and Lee [2], and including their own distinct approach to hybridity, at least four types of hybridization are identified in various studies within this field: (1) hybridity in organizational identity [5,6,7], (2) in organizational form [8,9,10], (3) in ways of organizing [2], and (4) hybridity in institutional logics [11,12]. As the current dominant perspective within organizational studies is neo-institutionalism, with institutional logics being the most influential strand compared to ‘institutional work’ and ‘institutional entrepreneurship’ [13], it is not surprising to find hybridity usually defined in terms of institutional logics [9,14,15,16,17,18]. Hybrid forms are accordingly based on at least two different logics, creating an organizational form that allows values and artifacts from different categories to exist in its structures and practices [15]. A non-hybrid is then an organizational form that fully adheres to one logic, an ideal type with distinctive characteristics [8]. It seems that out of the four hybridity types that Battilana and Lee [2] describe, the institutional logics perspective on hybridity is more grounded and accepted within the organizational studies community compared to the perspectives of ‘organizational identity’, ‘organizational form’ and ‘ways of organizing’.

1.3. Institutional Logics

The construct of institutional logics is based on a societal model that divides society into institutional orders or groups of institutions, each with their own distinctive logic and rationality. The literature approaches institutional logics in various ways, calling it ‘humanly devised constraints’ [19], or a ‘set of material practices and symbolic constructions’ [20]. The most elaborate definition of institutional logics was formulated by Thornton and Ocasio [21]: “…socially constructed, historical patterns of cultural symbols and material practices, including assumptions, values and beliefs, by which individuals and organizations provide meaning to their daily activity, organize time and space, and reproduce their lives and experiences.” (p. 101). The development of the institutional logics perspective culminated in its description as a metatheory, conceptualizing it as an ‘inter-institutional system’ consisting of multi-level practices and cross-level mechanisms, reflected in eight ideal-type categories, i.e., the logics of family, community, religion, state, market, profession, and corporation [12]. Each of these ideal-typical logics can be described in a mutual exclusive way by using nine elemental categories, i.e., root metaphor, sources of legitimacy, sources of authority, sources of identity, basis of norms, basis of attention, basis of strategy, informal control mechanisms, and ecosystem. Thus, a corporation might be described with the root metaphor of ‘corporation as hierarchy’, deriving legitimacy from its ‘market position’, using ‘organization culture’ as an informal control mechanism, and having ‘managerial capitalism’ as its economic system [12]. According to this narrative, a thorough conception of institutional logics emerges when elements from various theories and literatures are integrated. In building this metatheory, multiple academic disciplines are therefore involved, in particular behavioral science, but also insights from cognitive and social psychology, supplemented by various literature on sensemaking, decision-making, identity and practice.
From the perspective of the inter-institutional lens, hybridity occurs when the cultural content of two or more orders, constituting symbols, norms and structures, is mixed [22]. Hybridization then should be possible to quantify by measuring and closely following the change of the cultural content at the categorical level of the institutional orders. However, the inter-institutional approach paints a picture of a vibrant and contingent nature of institutional logics, making it nearly impossible to define, compare and/or measure logics across time and contexts. Furthermore, most of the empirical studies within this field take institutional logics as given and pre-determined [23], and change in institutional logics within organizations and within social interactions is hardly studied. Part of the reason is that typological classifications, as is Thornton et al.’s [12], are not necessarily based on empirical facts and realities, nor are the characteristics of ideal-types observable in reality [24,25]. This is evident when, for instance, we look at the category of ‘economic system’ where the cultural content for each of the seven institutional orders is described as family capitalism, cooperative, welfare, occidental, market, personal, and managerial capitalism [12]. These classifications are conceptual and not directly observable in empirical reality, posing many analytical problems. Adding to that, scholars point out that a terminological confusion arises with the use of ‘institutional logics’, ‘institutions’, and ‘institutional orders’, as they seem to do the same thing, namely, influence the behavior of organizations and individuals [26]. Furthermore, the relationship and friction between logics is well understood, but the institutional logics perspective seems to be less concerned with the social consequences and societal impact of the different logics [13]. The fuzziness of the institutional logics construct, at least with the goal in mind to arrive at a useful analytical tool for hybridization, is further attested to by scholars arguing that “… much recent work has invoked logics as analytical tools, focusing on their impacts, and that it would be fruitful to study logics as complex phenomena that are ever changing….” [27] (p. 274). Lounsbury et al. call for a return to studying institutional logics as complex phenomena in their own right instead of treating logics as concrete objects and/or using them as heuristic or explanatory tools. Taking this critique into account, an alternative is sought by using the ‘societal triangle’ paradigm [28,29,30,31,32], instead of Thornton et al.’s [12] interinstitutional system, in order to meaningfully study and analyze the processes, change-trajectories, and challenges that organizations face in their hybridization. The societal triangle approach is based on a taxonomical classification instead of a typological approach of ideal-types. The main differences between both classification approaches is summarized in Table 1.

1.4. Societal Triangle: Identifying Institutional Spheres

The societal triangle taxonomy, i.e., archetypical institutional orders and spheres of the state, market and civil society, assists in approaching hybridity in a more organized and structured manner. Earlier usages of the societal triangle include Roustang et al. [35], who explored the development of a new social contract from the perspective of the monetary economy, dividing it in market economy (private sector), non-market (public sector), and non-monetary economy (private household). Zijderveld [32] applied it as a ‘democratic triangle’ in understanding the decline of the welfare state and viewed morality, defining it as values, norms and meanings, as occupying a central position in the re-institutionalization of the democratic triangle. Pestoff [36] used the societal triangle to delineate the Third sector and used three axes to divide the welfare mix: public/private, profit/non-profit, and formal/informal. In his model, the Third sector is comprised of private, formal, non-profit organizations.
A more elaborate societal model, better suited as an analytical approach for understanding hybridization, was reconstructed on the basis of four basic hybridization interfaces by van Tulder with van der Zwart [31] and upgraded by van Tulder and van Mil [37]. Compared to Pestoff’s model, the ‘formal/informal’ axis was substituted by the ‘governmental/non-governmental’ interface, and the ‘public/private’ dimension was further subdivided into ‘public/private organizations’ and ‘public/private goods’. This restructuring adds to a more precise delineation of organizational forms. Each of the three institutional orders—state, market and civil society—result in three principal, non-hybrid organizational forms: archetype 1 being a state-run public agency, archetype 3 being a non-hybrid societal organization, and archetype 6 as a purely profit-driven, usually publicly listed, corporation (Figure 1). At the interfaces between the three orders, five additional hybrid forms are identified. One is at the state-civil society interface (archetype 2), a private non-profit organization that is usually state-funded but with a management that is relatively independent (e.g., public universities, hospitals and legal institutions). Two hybrid archetypes are identified at the market-civil society interface through delineating along the profit/ non-profit line. Examples of these organizations are cooperatives (type 4), operating as a non-profit private organization and providing private goods. Family-owned firms (archetype 5) are also private organizations providing private goods but operate as a for-profit organization. Social enterprises are usually type 4 organizations, depending on how they deal with profits and profit distribution. The last two hybrid archetypes (7 and 8) are located at the market-state interface: for-profit governmental organizations providing private goods (e.g., state-owned companies, archetype 7), and for-profit governmental organizations providing public goods (e.g., public-private partnerships, archetype 8). Figure 1 summarizes this taxonomy. Adopting this conceptual model adds to the understanding of the specific characteristics, governance challenges, and typical strengths and weaknesses of each of the hybrid arrangements. Although van Tulder with van der Zwart did provide an overview and substantiation of related factors, it is insufficient for our purpose of a structured approach of hybridity. To contribute to this gap and understanding regarding the characteristics and challenges arising from the hybrid nature of diverse hybrid arrangements, a systematic literature review was performed and synthesized into an overview of issues and challenges, useful for empirical analyses.

2. Materials and Methods

The main focus of this systematic review is to understand the hybridization trend in society through the institutional logics lens, focusing on specific characteristics and challenges of the different archetypes, as described in Figure 1. This systematic review was performed during 2019, and the PRISMA reporting standard [38]—an abbreviation of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses—was used as a structured guideline (see Figure 2). Scopus has been used for the systematic literature search. The reason for this, to the exclusion of the Web of Science (WoS) database, was primarily due to the fact that Scopus has a wider coverage of journals, whereas WoS is more selective [39]. Furthermore, Scopus is featured as a single database, without further restrictions regarding the availability of content [40], whereas WoS functions as a platform linking to various other databases with varying degrees of accessibility. The following eligibility criteria were formulated: (a) subject area of ‘business, management and accounting’; (b) English language; and (c) articles published in journals, excluding books and conference papers. It is acknowledged that this choice may have caused a bias in the selection of records. The rationale for excluding books and conference papers is because of our focus on peer-reviewed research only, as to facilitate a strong foundation in building our thematic mapping of the issues and challenges involved. Conference papers are not always peer-reviewed and might contain preliminary results and conclusions with the aim to receive feedback from peers. Based on these eligibility criteria, searching for the keyword ‘institutional logics’ resulted in 238 documents, and searching for ‘hybridization’ resulted in 114 documents. Using the ‘keyword’ functionality in Scopus, thirteen additional keywords were identified for institutional logics, and twelve were identified for hybridization (Table 2).
In the next phase, the institutional logics keyword list was reduced to two keywords, as all other keywords are correlated with either of these, or with both, that described the theoretical lens best: institutional logics and institutional theory. These two keywords were then combined through the Boolean expression AND with each of the fifteen hybridization keywords. Applying the eligibility criteria and excluding duplicates, this keyword combination search resulted in 113 relevant publications. After a first reading of the title and abstract, four articles were identified as probably inadequate for our review. This was confirmed after a full reading, and these items were excluded from the final list. One article only focused on methodologies for entrepreneurship research, and the remaining three articles had no theoretical or empirical relevance. The third phase consisted of closely reading the remaining 109 articles and identifying the archetypical form examined in the article and the discussed issues and/or challenges. Phases one and two of this systematic review, formulating eligibility criteria, keyword identification and selection, and excluding the four items, were performed by the first author and reviewed by the second author. During the third phase of identifying the archetypical form, issues and challenges, all three authors were involved in checking, improving and rearranging the results into clustered themes. See the section on ‘author contributions’ at the end of this article for the division of labor among the authors. An overview of the main results is provided in Appendix A, Table A1. No specific software was used, other than Microsoft Excel, to collect the results of the keyword searches, analyzing the overlap of results, and creating the datamatrix as presented in Appendix A.

3. Results

3.1. Hybridity Terminology

Using the taxonomical approach based on the societal triangle, we first identified the various terms that are used to describe hybridization within these 109 items. We found 16 different terms within our sample, pointing to various levels and categories of hybridization. From the description of each term, as given by the source, we identified the level that the utilized hybridity term was referring to and chose the most appropriate categorical description. Ten terms were categorized under governance, keeping in line with the definition as used internationally by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) [41]. One term was mission-related, three were connected to partnerships, and one term was referring to the business model. See Table 3 for the resulting overview, including the source, a description as mentioned by the author(s) of the source, the hybridity category as identified by us, and the aim of the hybridity. The aim column is derived directly from the mentioned source, so as to contextualize the use of the various hybridity terms.
Categorizing these terms thematically, we find that the majority are linked to the governance of firms, including stakeholder management, strategic planning, monitoring and control, whereas ‘hybrid collaboration’ [42], ‘hybrid organizing’ [43], and ‘shadow hybridity’ [42] are all linked to partnerships. The term ‘interest orientation hybrid’ [44] is used in relation to hybridity at the level of an organization’s mission, linking the choice of scaling strategies to either benefitting their own members or the broader interest of society. At the operational or business model level, the term ‘hybrid organizational form’ [45] is used, and hybridity at socio-cultural level is described by the term ‘cultural hybridization’ [46].
These results demonstrate that hybridity is ambiguously defined, although 10 out of 16 terms are related to governance issues. Even then, adjectives are needed to describe the intent of the researcher(s).
Table
Table 3. Terms connected to hybridization within our sample.
Table 3. Terms connected to hybridization within our sample.
TermSourceDescriptionHybridity CategoryAim: for What?
Blended hybrids[47]Multiple logics are combined uniformly throughout the organization. The logics multiplicity is primarily traced through: goals, target population, management principles, organizational form, governance mechanism and professional legitimacy.GovernanceND 1
Structural hybrids[47]Different logics dominate in different compartments within the organization. Hybridity in this case is traced through the nature of work, task allocations, use of output and individual rewards.GovernanceCommercial benefits
Interest orientation hybrids[44]Mutual interest (providing benefits to the members of the organization) and general (benefits for groups other than the members) interest—continuum.MissionScale-up benefitting either group or society
Hybrid collaboration[48]Alliance between three social enterprises and a local council.PartnershipAttain shared objectives
Hybrid organizing[43]Organizational settings characterized by multiple institutional logics, i.e., an energy corporation engaging in research partnerships.Partnership furthering energy transition
Hybrid organizational form[45]Combining social and welfare logic by looking at who is served, who is employed, what is sold, and to what extent a change is sought and/or revenue generation is pursued.Operational/ businessmodelSecuring funding
Shadow hybridity[42]Informal partnership between local government organization and a football club.PartnershipSustaining value for local community
Symbolic hybrids[49]Adopting (parts of) institutional logics discourse to better appeal to funding agencies but keeping day-to-day operations according to own preferences.GovernanceAchieving SDGs
Integrated hybrids[49]Multiple logics are merged to forge a new way of organizing.GovernanceAchieving SDGs
Dysfunctional hybrids[49]Dysfunction due to contradictory demands from internal stakeholders, creating extensive internal conflicts.GovernanceAchieving SDG’s
Cultural hybridization[46]Mixing, intermingling and fusion of cultures.CultureND 1
Hybridity of form[50]Structure: combination of for-profit with non-profit organization.GovernanceND 1
Hybridity of substance[50]Combination of a for-profit workplace and a human agency service.GovernanceReducing unemployment
Hybrid organization[51]Organizations that incorporate multiple institutional logics. Focusses mainly on governance and legitimacy issues of mutual insurance companies.GovernanceMaximize mutual interest
Welfare hybridity[52]State shows openness to the market as a social services provider, leading to hybrid organizations that possess characteristics/rationalities of more than one sector.GovernanceProving welfare
Hybrid governance[53]Institutional combination of an authority structure and of a coordination architecture in presence of pooled strategic assets.GovernanceMaximizing joint value, minimizing org. costs
1 ND = Not Defined.

3.2. Overview of the Archetypes

Following the identification of hybrid terminology, we then proceeded to the following. Using the societal triangle taxonomy, i.e., state-market-society, the results of our systematic literature review can be plotted according to archetypes 1 to 8. Reading the items, we identified the characteristics of the empirical context. Applying the four interfaces of governmental/non-governmental, public/private organizations, profit/non-profit, and public/private goods, we arrived at a resulting archetype according to our taxonomy. The complete analysis is presented in Appendix A. It was observed that each of the eight archetypes are represented in the publications, with a skew towards social enterprises with 34 publications and family businesses/cooperations with 18 publications (Table 4).

3.3. Aims, Challenges and Issues

Looking at our sample from the perspective of the archetypical forms, we can trace/identify `why’ questions related to hybridization as to what is the purpose of the hybrid arrangement or organizational form in each of the 69 cases where a hybrid arrangement is identified? Hybridity at the state-civil society interface (Type 2, n = 10) usually aims, according to our sample of publications, for effectiveness. This is not surprising, as these type of organizations, e.g., public hospitals, have been privatized with the intent to create more impact but without the usual constraints of a bureaucratic environment. The issues and challenges that are associated with this type of hybridity are typically transparency-related. This could be either at performance assessment level [54], at the powerplay level, with public sector managers or politicians that are either enabling or constraining hybridity [55], and at the work-relational level by employing either collaboration or manipulation strategies [56] but also building or breaking linkages and trust [57].
Type 4 hybrid organizations (n = 34) report dual value creation, or variations of this theme like ‘mutual interest’ and ‘common cause’, as their main goal. Availing of a business opportunity and acting as a change agent are also mentioned. None of the cases in our sample are expressively aiming for societal or institutional impact, with the possible exception of Gidron [50], having ‘reducing poverty’ as one of its dual aims. This type of hybridity prevails in extant studies, judging by the amount of publications in our sample. Reported issues and challenges are thereby primarily related to the mission of the organization: path dependency [58] when past experiences are leading instead of looking for innovative ways to tackle tenacious societal problems; mission drift [59], usually towards commercialization [45]; moral dilemmas that are masked as pricing challenges [60]; and credibility issues that arise due to an absence of mission statements and/or annual reports [61]. Adding to that, dominant stakeholders influencing accountability [62] is also mentioned as a challenge. When looking at legitimacy issues, they are generally connected to identity, ownership and authenticity [46]. The final set of issues for type 4 hybridity are scaling [63] and finance-related issues, e.g., increasing earned income versus other income, balancing social and financial expertise at the board level [15], and hiring and socializing policies [14].
Family firms, art ventures and the like (Type 5, n = 18), are described as aiming for a broad array of aims, including commercial value [44,47,59], artistic goals [64], cooperative payoffs [65], ecological aims [66], and even claiming to pursue a change-agent role towards sustainable entrepreneurship [67]. The literature reports the following issues: change issues towards sustainable entrepreneurship [67], in particular present in businesses that are pushed towards sustainablity; balancing divergent goals of, e.g., family and business [68]; accounting practices taking a mediating role [69]; and incumbent power relations [70].
Within the sample, only three publications were found at the Type 7 hybridity level, i.e., at the state-market interface. Among the aims of this hybridity type are efficiency, dual value, and market orientation. Associated challenges include market decoupling due to legitimacy seeking [71] and management accounting challenges due to multiple pressures and expectations [72]. The second type of hybridity at this interface, Type 8 (n = 8), focuses, according to extant studies, on sustainable partnerships, political gains, stakeholder value, addressing complex problems, and legitimacy. Challenges for this hybridity type are the facilitation of social interaction between partners [73]; political issues, in particular preferred policy cloaked as public interest [74]; business model effectiveness issues [75]; governance complexity [76]; and the paradox of performing: what outcomes represent success/failure [77]. Our findings are summarized in Table 5 for all eight principal and hybrid archetypes. We list characteristics of each, give examples of typical organizations and summarize the issues and challenges that are associated with each archetype.

4. Discussion

This article argued that the literature on hybridity runs the risk of comparing incomparable configurations of hybridity by abstracting away from different levels of analysis, related content questions on the aims of these organizations, and what we call ’spheres of hybridity’. For the most part, this is due to definitional and terminology problems, as hybridity is usually defined using the institutional logics perspective. However, the institutional logics construct is too fuzzy and contingent in time and place in order to be useful for more advanced analytical purposes. Responding to Alvesson and Spicer’s plea to bring analytical clarity and empirical sensitivity in the institutional constructs that are used [26], we argued that a taxonomical approach to hybridization creates a better fit than a typological classification. This is because of its inherent characteristics—preeminently, being based on empirical observations instead of addressing conceptual and abstract concepts. The hybridization model based on the societal triangle of state-market-society, particularly the interfaces (and consequential governance challenges) that exist between these three institutional spheres, serves this purpose and can therefore be considered a more promising point of departure. The classification with eight archetypes, of which three non-hybrid and five are hybrid, allows for a useful comparison and assessment of different hybrid arrangements. Adopting this hybridization model, a systematic literature review was performed to identify the characteristic issues and challenges of each archetype 1 to 8. The findings suggest that each hybrid archetype has motives and specific challenges that can be traced to their interface tension, i.e., the interface between public/private, governmental/non-governmental, and profit/non-profit sectors. Type 2 hybridity usually aims for effectiveness and has typically transparency-related challenges. Archetype 4 has value creation as its main goal, and the literature reports primarily mission-related challenges such as mission drift, path dependency and scaling. Type 5 hybridity is motivated by commercial motives, and reported issues have mainly to do with its change towards sustainable entrepreneurship. Archetype 7 is predominantly efficiency-oriented, and reported issues are, for the most part, related to stakeholders’ expectations. Type 8 hybridity aims for stakeholder value and needs to tackle challenges that are linked to complexity of governance, politics, communication and performing paradoxes. Most, if not all, of the characteristics that were found in this review can be grouped under the umbrella of ‘governance’. The governance concept is, despite its prolific usage in academic and professional literature, not very well defined [88]. For our purposes, we adopt the view of the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): “Corporate governance involves a set of relationships between a company’s management, its board, its shareholders and other stakeholders. Corporate governance also provides the structure through which the objectives of the company are set, and the means of attaining those objectives and monitoring performance are determined.” [41] (p. 9).
Accordingly, the identified issues and challenges can be clustered together and rearranged under the umbrella of five clustered governance themes (Table 6).
We find that all clustered themes are present for type 4 hybrid organizations, with ’mission and balancing divergent goals’ and ’accounting and financial issues’ being the dominant ones. The presence of all themes in type 4 hybridity might be explained by the fact that this type of hybridity is most studied within the social entrepreneurship literature. We found 34 studies out of 109 within our review that were placed within the context of social entrepreneurship. Added to that, SEs are regarded as an ideal setting for studying hybridity, as articulated by Battilana et al. [2]. The mission theme is furthermore present with all archetypes, except archetype 2 hybridity. This could be explained by the (financial) state-dependence of these type of organizations, e.g., public hospitals and universities, implementation bodies and municipal companies, and the clear purpose for their existence, making it unlikely to encounter challenges like mission drift [59] and credibility issues [61].
Theme 2, the leadership theme with its associated challenges, is predominantly found within archetype 4 and 8 hybrid organizations. Governance complexity [76] and the facilitation of social interaction between partners [73] is particularly mentioned as a challenge for public-private partnerships (PPS), which is a type 8 hybridity. These are usually major construction works initiated by the state, where a long-term partnership of 20 to 30+ years is sought.
The third theme, ’hiring and employee involvement’, is only mentioned twice, in connection with type 2 [57] and 4 [14] hybridity. This could be due to the fact that both types of hybridity have strong articulated combinations of logics, and employees need to be able to navigate these logics simultaneously. For type 2 hybridity, this is a combination of a strong state-logic with an equally strong market-logic, while for type 4 hybridity (usually social enterprises), this entails striking a balance between market and welfare logic. The other hybridity types are more cooperation-based, and thus can achieve results by involving different employees that are well-versed in one logic only and facilitate their mutual cooperation. We believe that this theme is underrepresented, at least in the results of our systematic review. The role of employees and their mutual cooperation is a pivotal and driving force of functional companies [89].
As mentioned earlier, the fourth emergent theme, ’accounting and financial issues’, is predominantly found within type 4 hybridity. Social enterprises in their initial start-up phase usually seem to be dependent on non-earned income (subsidies, grants). For their survival, they need to shift to earned income originating from their own products and services [15]. This proves to be a major challenge, especially when coupled with a reported lack of balance between social and financial expertise at the board level. Accountability and governance on both social impact and financial solvency is equally important, but dominant stakeholders are reported to influence the accountability [62] by putting more importance on either one of the two. The reported challenge of the ’mediating role of accounting practices’ [69] is uniquely reported for type 5 hybridity, e.g., cooperatives and family businesses. This element refers to hybrid organizations using accounting practices to lock parties within their own logic by demanding to report according to their own chosen standards, goals and key performance indicators. The final issue ’management accounting challenges’ [72] within this theme refers to multiple pressures and expectations from within and outside an organization, in this case, a listed and partly state-owned enterprise. In our view, this challenge is in line with the previous mentioned issue, albeit within the context of a type 7 hybridity, which has to deal with the state as share- or stakeholder on the one hand and the market-oriented goals as its fiduciary duty on the other.
The final theme is categorized as ’future-outlook’ and refers to issues as scaling and future businessmodel effectiveness. Type 8 hybridity, e.g., state-owned enterprises, multinational energy companies and public-private partnerships, is slightly more present with two challenges. Because of the state involvement, these are usually major companies and projects in terms of their scope but are also more scrutinized because of the public nature of its funding and the concerned societal benefits. The involvement of different stakeholders with different logics makes ’businessmodel effectiveness’ [75] a major concern, i.e., how can the best value be created for all involved parties. This is strongly linked to what outcomes represent success or failure, as projects might, e.g., be financially regarded as successful but seen as a failure from the societal perspective, and vice versa. This is referred to as the paradox of performing [77].

5. Conclusions

The nature of taxonomies is to demarcate one entity from another based on a sufficient number of properties. Its aim is to establish common ground for a term, such that scrutiny or empirical reflection can take place [24], and not necessarily to describe or explain a phenomenon in its entirety. In this case, we add to the existing literature on hybridity by attempting to provide a more precise demarcation of the term ‘hybrid’ when applied to our field of investigation. In doing so, we hope to minimize terminological controversy for scholars of hybridity studies in general and the social entrepreneurship field in particular, so that more effort can be directed towards creating a refined understanding of the hybrid nature of organizations. We also attempt to provide a point of departure for the investigation of factors of success and failure of different types of hybrid organizations. First, we provide an overview of the issues and challenges from the literature that are linked to each of the hybrid archetypes that follow from our adopted taxonomy (see Table 5). Subsequently, we rearrange the issues and present a clustered thematic overview of the reported challenges that can be used for subsequent empirical investigations (see Table 6).
It needs to be emphasized that this study is not without its limitations. The first one is that the literature search was restricted to journal articles only, while disregarding books and conference papers. Linked to that, the keyword search was only confined to the title and abstracts, possibly overlooking studies that did cover the subject but used different keywords to describe their research. The third limitation is that the search was restricted to the field of ‘business, management and accounting’ within Scopus, possibly overlooking relevant studies within, e.g., the wider field of social studies. Nevertheless, the broad range of keywords used in the search operation has enabled us to gain a good overview of hybridization from the institutional perspective. We believe that the adopted taxonomy and empirical conceptualizations can be considered a more promising point of departure for understanding the hybridization movement in society.
Based on the insights from this article, it would be beneficial to direct future research towards a more foundational approach and in-depth study of the identified challenges. The governance themes may be used as a guide to thoroughly investigate the specifics of the themes and identified challenges. However, most of the benefit for hybridity studies lies in a comparative approach by systematically identifying challenges in all eight hybrid and non-hybrid arrangements, taking the perspective as summarized in Figure 1. This requires teamwork, collaboration between scholars, and access to a multitude of cases that can be categorized within the hybridity taxonomy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.S. and R.v.T.; methodology, T.S. and R.v.T.; validation, T.S., R.v.T. and K.M.; data curation, T.S.; writing—original draft preparation, T.S.; writing—review and editing, R.v.T. and K.M.; visualization, T.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Datamatrix detailing the resulting archetypes 1 to 8 for each of the records that was included in the systematic literature review. In case the mission or aim was identifiable, it was also included.
Table A1. Datamatrix detailing the resulting archetypes 1 to 8 for each of the records that was included in the systematic literature review. In case the mission or aim was identifiable, it was also included.
Nr.Private org.Public org.ProfitNon-ProfitGov.Non-gov.Public GoodsPrivate GoodsArchetype IdMission/Aim
1 [67]x x x x5Change agent
2 [47]x x x x5Commercial
3 [73] xx x x 8Sustainable partnership
4 [90] xx x x6NA
5 [59]x x x x4Dual value
6 [91]————————diff 1NA
7 [44]x x x x4Mutual interest
8 [74] xx x x 8Political
9 [92]x x x x4Value creation
10 [93]x x x x4NA
11 [94]x x x x5NA
12 [82]x x x x4Business opportunity
13 [58]x x x x4Common cause
14 [65]x x x x5Commercial
15 [60]x x x x4Dual value
16 [48]x x x x4Common cause
17 [95]x x x x4Change agent
18 [71] xx x x7Dual value
19 [62]x x x x4Dual value
20 [96]x x x x4Dual value
21 [78] x xx x 1NA
22 [97]x x x x4Dual value
23 [98]x x x x4Multiple value
24 [99] xx x x 8Efficiency
25 [100]xxx x x5 or 6NA
26 [43] xx x x6NA
27 [101]x x x x5Dual value
28 [102]x xx x 2NA
29 [45]x x x x4Dual value
30 [103]x xx x 2NA
31 [42]x x xx 3NA
32 [61]x x x x4Dual value
33 [103]x x x x5NA
34 [104]x x x x4Dual value
35 [105]x x x x5NA
36 [49]x x xx 3NA
37 [54]x xx x 2Effectiveness
38 [68]x x x x5Multiple value
39 [75] xx x x 8Stakeholder value
40 [72] xx x x7Efficiency, financial
41 [106]x x x x4Dual value
42 [107]x x x x4Value creation
43 [46]x x x x4NA
44 [108]————————diff 1NA
45 [109]xxx x x5 or 6NA
46 [110]x x x x4Dual value
47 [50]x x x x4Dual value
48 [65]x x x x5Cooperative payoffs
49 [51]x x x x4Multiple value
50 [64]x x x x5Business and artistic goals
51 [69]x x x x5Dual value
52 [56]x xx x 2Effectiveness
53 [111]x x x x5Multiple value
54 [112] xx x x 8Addressing complex problems
55 [113]x xx x 2Science, care goals
56 [114]x x x x4NA
57 [66]x x x x5Commercial, ecological
58 [115]x x x x4Dual value
59 [55]x xx x 2Effectiveness
60 [116]x x x x4Dual value
61 [57]x xx x 2Effectiveness
62 [117]x xx x 2NA
63 [118]————————ND 1NA
64 [119]x x x x5NA
65 [63]x x x x4Dual value
66 [83] xx x x6NA
67 [76] xx x x 8Stakeholder value
68 [120] xx x x6NA
69 [52]x x xx 3NA
70 [121] xx x x6NA
71 [122]————————diff 1NA
72 [123] xx x x7Multiple value
73 [16]x x x x5Multiple value
74 [80]x x xx 3NA
75 [84] xx x x6NA
76 [85] xx x x6NA
77 [70]x x x x5NA
78 [124]————————diff 1NA
79 [15]x x x x4Dual value
80 [125]x xx x 2Dual orientation
81 [9]x x x x4Dual value
82 [79] x xx x 1NA
83 [77] xx x x 8Addressing complex problems
84 [126]————————diff 1NA
85 [127]x x x x4Dual value
86 [53]xxx x x5 or 6NA
87 [128] xx x x6NA
88 [129]x x x x5NA
89 [130]x xx x 2NA
90 [131]xxx x x5 or 6NA
91 [132]x x xx 3NA
92 [133] x xx x 1NA
93 [134] xx x x 8Efficiency, legitimacy
94 [135]x x x x5Dual value
95 [136]x x x x4Dual value
96 [86] xx x x6NA
97 [81]x x xx 3NA
98 [18]x x x x4Dual value
99 [14]x x x x4Dual value
100 [87] xx x x6NA
101 [137] xx x x6NA
102 [138] x xx x 1NA
103 [139]x x x x4Dual orientation
104 [140]xxx x x5 or 6NA
105 [141]xxx x x5 or 6NA
106 [142] xx x x7Efficiency, market orientation
107 [143]xxx x x5 or 6NA
108 [144]xxx x x5 or 6NA
109 [145]xxx x x5 or 6NA
1 In a number of publications, the archetype number was not identified. It was either not clear because of privacy or because multiple cases were used that were divergent in nature. NA = not available.

References

  1. Battilana, J.; Lee, M.; Walker, J.; Dorsey, C. In Search of the Hybrid Ideal. Stanf. Soc. Innov. Rev. 2012, 10, 51–55. [Google Scholar]
  2. Battilana, J.; Lee, M. Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing—Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2014, 8, 397–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kolk, A.; Lenfant, F. Hybrid business models for peace and reconciliation. Bus. Horizons 2016, 59, 503–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Schmitz, B.; Glänzel, G. Hybrid organizations: Concept and measurement. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2016, 24, 18–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Albert, S.; Whetten, D.A. Organizational Identity. In Research in Organizational Behavior; Staw, B.M., Cummings, L.L., Eds.; JAI Press: Greenwich, UK, 1985; pp. 263–295. [Google Scholar]
  6. Corley, K.G.; Harquail, C.V.; Pratt, M.G.; Glynn, M.A.; Fiol, C.M.; Hatch, M.J. Guiding Organizational Identity Through Aged Adolescence. J. Manag. Inq. 2016, 15, 85–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pratt, M.G.; Foreman, P.O. Classifying Managerial Responses to Multiple Organizational Identities. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2000, 25, 18–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Billis, D. Towards a theory of hybrid organizations. Hybrid Organizations and the Third Sector; Palgrave Macmillan: Basingstoke, UK, 2010; pp. 46–69. [Google Scholar]
  9. Pache, A.C.; Santos, F. Inside the Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling as a Response to Competing Institutional Logics. Acad. Manag. J. 2013, 56, 972–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Powell, W.W.; Sandholtz, K.W. Amphibious entrepreneurs and the emergence of organizational forms. Strateg. Entrep. J. 2012, 6, 94–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Besharov, M.L.; Smith, W.K. Multiple Institutional Logics in Organizations: Explaining Their Varied Nature and Implications. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2014, 39, 364–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Thornton, P.H.; Ocasio, W.; Lounsbury, M. The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process; Oxford University Press: Oxford, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  13. Johansen, C.B.; Waldorff, S.B. What are Institutional Logics - and where is the perspective taking us? In New Themes in Institutional Analysis-Topics and Issues from European Research; Krücken, G., Mazza, C., Meyer, R.E., Walgenbach, P., Eds.; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  14. Battilana, J.; Dorado, S. Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 2010, 53, 1419–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Doherty, B.; Haugh, H.; Lyon, F. Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: A Review and Research Agenda: Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2014, 16, 417–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mair, J.; Mayer, J.; Lutz, E. Navigating Institutional Plurality: Organizational Governance in Hybrid Organizations. Organ. Stud. 2015, 36, 713–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Skelcher, C.; Smith, S.R. New development: Performance promises and pitfalls in hybrid organizations—five challenges for managers and researchers. Public Money Manag. 2017, 37, 425–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tracey, P.; Phillips, N.; Jarvis, O. Bridging Institutional Entrepreneurship and the Creation of New Organizational Forms: A Multilevel Model. Organ. Sci. 2011, 22, 60–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. North, D. Institutions and Economic Theory. Am. Econ. 1992, 61, 72–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Friedland, R.; Alford, R. Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions. In The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis; Powell, W.W., DiMaggio, P.J., Eds.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1991; pp. 232–267. [Google Scholar]
  21. Thornton, P.H.; Ocasio, W. Institutional Logics. In The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism; Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Suddaby, R., Sahlin-Andersson, K., Eds.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 99–129. [Google Scholar]
  22. DiMaggio, P.J.; Powell, W.W. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 48, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zilber, T.B. How Institutional Logics Matter: A Bottom-Up Exploration. In Research in the Sociology of Organizations; Gehman, J., Lounsbury, M., Greenwood, R., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2016; Volume 48, pp. 137–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hodgson, G.M. Taxonomic definitions in social science, with firms, markets and institutions as case studies. J. Institutional Econ. 2019, 15, 207–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Marradi, A. Classification, typology, taxonomy. Qual. Quant. 1990, 24, 129–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Alvesson, M.; Spicer, A. Neo-Institutional Theory and Organization Studies: A Mid-Life Crisis? Organ. Stud. 2019, 40, 199–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lounsbury, M.; Steele, C.W.; Wang, M.S.; Toubiana, M. New Directions in the Study of Institutional Logics: From Tools to Phenomena. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2021, 47, 261–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Donk, W.B.H.J. De Gedragen Gemeenschap: Over Katholiek Maatschappelijk Organiseren de Ontzuiling Voorbij; Sdu Uitgevers: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  29. Evers, A. Mixed welfare systems and hybrid organizations: Changes in the governance and provision of social services. Int. J. Public Adm. 2005, 28, 737–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pestoff, V. Beyond the Market and State: Social Enterprises and Civil Democracy in a Welfare Society; Ashgate: Brookfield, VT, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  31. van Tulder, R.; van der Zwart, A. International Business-Society Management: Linking Corporate Responsibility and Globalization; Routledge: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  32. Zijderveld, A. The Waning of the Welfare State: The End of Comprehensive State Succor; Transaction: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  33. Bailey, K. Typologies and Taxonomies; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liebergesell, A. Morphology, Taxonomy and Typology—An Overview. 2019. Available online: https://www.academia.edu/35522955/Morphology_Taxonomy_and_Typology_An_Overview (accessed on 14 August 2019).
  35. Vers un Nouveau Contrat Social; Roustang, G.; Laville, J.L.; Eme, B.; Mothé, D.; Perret, B. (Eds.) Sociologie économique; Desclée de Brouwer: Paris, France, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  36. Pestoff, V.A. Third sector and co-operative services—An alternative to privatization. J. Consum. Policy 1992, 15, 21–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. van Tulder, R.; van Mil, E. Principles of Sustainable Business: Frameworks for Corporate Action on the SDGs; The Principles for Responsible Management Education Series; Routledge: Abingdon, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  38. Fink, A. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper, 4th ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  39. Singh, V.K.; Singh, P.; Karmakar, M.; Leta, J.; Mayr, P. The journal coverage of Web of Science, Scopus and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 5113–5142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pranckutė, R. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World. Publications 2021, 9, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. OECD. G20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance 2015; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gillett, A.G.; Tennent, K.D. Shadow hybridity and the institutional logic of professional sport: Perpetuating a sporting business in times of rapid social and economic change. J. Manag. Hist. 2018, 24, 228–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Svenningsen-Berthelem, V.; Boxenbaum, E.; Ravasi, D. Individual responses to multiple logics in hybrid organizing: The role of structural position. M@n@gement 2018, 21, 1306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bauwens, T.; Huybrechts, B.; Dufays, F. Understanding the Diverse Scaling Strategies of Social Enterprises as Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Renewable Energy Cooperatives. Organ. Environ. 2019, 33, 108602661983712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Litrico, J.B.; Besharov, M.L. Unpacking Variation in Hybrid Organizational Forms: Changing Models of Social Enterprise Among Nonprofits, 2000–2013. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 159, 343–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Coskuner-Balli, G.; Ertimur, B. Legitimation of hybrid cultural products: The case of American Yoga. Mark. Theory 2017, 17, 127–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Perkmann, M.; McKelvey, M.; Phillips, N. Protecting Scientists from Gordon Gekko: How Organizations Use Hybrid Spaces to Engage with Multiple Institutional Logics. Organ. Sci. 2019, 30, 298–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gillett, A.; Loader, K.; Doherty, B.; Scott, J.M. An Examination of Tensions in a Hybrid Collaboration: A Longitudinal Study of an Empty Homes Project. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 157, 949–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Svensson, P.G. Organizational hybridity: A conceptualization of how sport for development and peace organizations respond to divergent institutional demands. Sport Manag. Rev. 2017, 20, 443–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gidron, B. The Dual Hybridity of Social Enterprises for Marginalized Populations. J. Soc. Entrep. 2017, 8, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lallemand-Stempak, N. Rethinking hybrids’ challenges: The case of French mutual insurance companies. M@n@gement 2017, 20, 336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hustinx, L.; De Waele, E. Managing Hybridity in a Changing Welfare Mix: Everyday Practices in an Entrepreneurial Nonprofit in Belgium. Voluntas 2015, 26, 1666–1689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sauvée, L. Hybrid governance: Sketching discrete alternatives. J. Chain Netw. Sci. 2013, 13, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Olsen, T.H.; Solstad, E.; Torsteinsen, H. The meaning of institutional logics for performance assessment in boards of municipal companies. Public Money Manag. 2017, 37, 393–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Rossi, P.; Rannisto, P.H.; Stenvall, J. Creating Innovative Public Services by Fostering Conflicts. South Asian J. Bus. Manag. Cases 2016, 5, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Aagaard, P. How to Make the Mix Matter: A Case Study of Post-Transformational Leadership in Hybrid Public Management. Int. J. Public Adm. 2016, 39, 1171–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cloutier, C.; Denis, J.L.; Langley, A.; Lamothe, L. Agency at the Managerial Interface: Public Sector Reform as Institutional Work. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2016, 26, 259–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Parekh, N.; Ashta, A. An institutional logics perspective to evolution of Indian microcredit business models. Strateg. Chang. 2018, 27, 313–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Wolf, M.; Mair, J. Purpose, Commitment and Coordination Around Small Wins: A Proactive Approach to Governance in Integrated Hybrid Organizations. Volunt. Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 2019, 30, 535–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. McMullen, J.S.; Bergman, B.J. The promise and problems of price subsidization in social entrepreneurship. Bus. Horizons 2018, 61, 609–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cetindamar, D. Designed by law: Purpose, accountability, and transparency at benefit corporations. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2018, 5, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bradford, A.; Luke, B.; Furneaux, C. Social enterprise accountability: Directions, dominance and developments. Soc. Enterp. J. 2018, 14, 156–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Voltan, A.; De Fuentes, C. Managing multiple logics in partnerships for scaling social innovation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2016, 19, 446–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Lindqvist, K. Art ventures as hybrid organisations: Tensions and conflicts relating to organisational identity. Int. J. Entrep. Ventur. 2017, 9, 242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. David, F.; van der Sijde, P.; van den Besselaar, P. Academics coping with business logic: A study at Indonesian universities. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 2018, 49, 91–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. York, J.G.; Hargrave, T.J.; Pacheco, D.F.P. Converging Winds: Logic Hybridization in the Colorado Wind Energy Field. Acad. Manag. J. 2016, 59, 579–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. de Lange, D.E. A paradox of embedded agency: Sustainable investors boundary bridging to emerging fields. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 226, 50–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Aparicio, G.; Basco, R.; Iturralde, T.; Maseda, A. An exploratory study of firm goals in the context of family firms: An institutional logics perspective. J. Fam. Bus. Strategy 2017, 8, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Busco, C.; Giovannoni, E.; Riccaboni, A. Sustaining multiple logics within hybrid organisations: Accounting, mediation and the search for innovation. Accounting Audit. Account. J. 2017, 30, 191–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mangen, C.; Brivot, M. The challenge of sustaining organizational hybridity: The role of power and agency. Hum. Relations 2015, 68, 659–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Alexius, S.; Grossi, G. Decoupling in the age of market-embedded morality: Responsible gambling in a hybrid organization. J. Manag. Gov. 2018, 22, 285–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Dai, N.T.; Tan, Z.S.; Tang, G.; Xiao, J.Z. IPOs, institutional complexity, and management accounting in hybrid organisations: A field study in a state-owned enterprise in China. Manag. Account. Res. 2017, 36, 2–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Matinheikki, J.; Aaltonen, K.; Walker, D. Politics, public servants, and profits: Institutional complexity and temporary hybridization in a public infrastructure alliance project. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2019, 37, 298–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Opara, M.; Rouse, P. The perceived efficacy of public-private partnerships: A study from Canada. Crit. Perspect. Account. 2019, 58, 77–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Villani, E.; Greco, L.; Phillips, N. Understanding Value Creation in Public-Private Partnerships: A Comparative Case Study: Understanding Value Creation in PPPs. J. Manag. Stud. 2017, 54, 876–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Panda, D. Organizational Collaboration, Hybrid Structure, Governance and Value Creation: Evidence from Indian Public-Private Partnerships. Emergence: Complex. Organ. 2015, 17, 1–18. Available online: https://journal.emergentpublications.com/Article/2f633a8e-5cdd-4837-9266-bdffb834e786/academic (accessed on 28 April 2022).
  77. Jay, J. Navigating Paradox as a Mechanism of Change and Innovation in Hybrid Organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 2013, 56, 137–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Khodachek, I.; Timoshenko, K. Russian Central Government Budgeting and Public Sector Reform Discourses: Paradigms, Hybrids, and a “Third Way”. Int. J. Public Adm. 2018, 41, 460–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Dormady, N.C. The Political Economy of Collaborative Organization. Adm. Soc. 2013, 45, 748–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Amans, P.; Mazars-Chapelon, A.; Villesèque-Dubus, F. Budgeting in institutional complexity: The case of performing arts organizations. Manag. Account. Res. 2015, 27, 47–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Chemin, C.; Vercher, C. The Challenge of Activist Coalition Governance: Accommodating Diversity to Create Institutions—An Approach Via the Inter-Relationships Between Action, Project and Instrument. Volunt. Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 2011, 22, 682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Gümüsay, A.A. Unpacking entrepreneurial opportunities: An institutional logics perspective. Innovation 2018, 20, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Riaz, Z. A hybrid of state regulation and self-regulation for remuneration governance in Australia. Corp. Governance: Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2016, 16, 539–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Greco, G.; Ferramosca, S.; Marchi, L. Governance codes and types of issuer: A global study. Int. J. Bus. Gov. Ethics 2015, 10, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Roh, J.J.; Yang, M.G.; Park, K.; Hong, P. Stakeholders’ pressure and managerial responses: Lessons from hybrid car development and commercialisation. Int. J. Bus. Inf. Syst. 2015, 18, 506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Jamali, D.; Neville, B. Convergence Versus Divergence of CSR in Developing Countries: An Embedded Multi-Layered Institutional Lens. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 102, 599–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Gifford, B.; Kestler, A.; Anand, S. Building local legitimacy into corporate social responsibility: Gold mining firms in developing nations. J. World Businessmatinh 2010, 45, 304–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Ruhanen, L.; Scott, N.; Ritchie, B.; Tkaczynski, A. Governance: A review and synthesis of the literature. Tour. Rev. 2010, 65, 4–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Mura, L.; Zsigmond, T.; Machova, R. The effects of emotional intelligence and ethics of SME employees on knowledge sharing in Central-European countries. Oeconomia Copernic. 2021, 12, 907–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Karlsson, B.; Hersinger, A.; Kurkkio, M. Hybrid accountants in the age of the business partner: Exploring institutional drivers in a mining company. J. Manag. Control 2019, 30, 185–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Alsharari, N.M. Management accounting and organizational change: Alternative perspectives. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2019, 27, 1124–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Spieth, P.; Schneider, S.; Clauß, T.; Eichenberg, D. Value drivers of social businesses: A business model perspective. Long Range Plan. 2019, 52, 427–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. McMullin, C.; Skelcher, C. The Impact of Societal-Level Institutional Logics on Hybridity: Evidence from Nonprofit Organizations in England and France. Volunt. Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 2018, 29, 911–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Ahmad, A.J.; Thornberry, C. On the structure of business incubators: De-coupling issues and the mis-alignment of managerial incentives. J. Technol. Transf. 2018, 43, 1190–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Rossignoli, C.; Ricciardi, F.; Bonomi, S. Organizing for Commons-Enabling Decision-Making Under Conflicting Institutional Logics in Social Entrepreneurship. Group Decis. Negot. 2018, 27, 417–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wry, T.; Zhao, E.Y. Taking Trade-offs Seriously: Examining the Contextually Contingent Relationship Between Social Outreach Intensity and Financial Sustainability in Global Microfinance. Organ. Sci. 2018, 29, 507–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Pullman, M.; Longoni, A.; Luzzini, D. Emerging discourse incubator: The Roles of Institutional Complexity and Hybridity in Social Impact Supply Chain Management. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2018, 54, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Castellas, E.I.; Stubbs, W.; Ambrosini, V. Responding to Value Pluralism in Hybrid Organizations. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 159, 635–650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Arena, M.; Azzone, G.; Mapelli, F. What drives the evolution of Corporate Social Responsibility strategies? An institutional logics perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 171, 345–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Styhre, A. Unified economic ideas and their hybrid policies: The case of Swedish life science innovation work. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2018, 30, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Xing, Y.; Liu, Y.; Lattemann, C. Institutional logics and social enterprises: Entry mode choices of foreign hospitals in China. J. World Bus. 2018, 55, 100974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kaufman, M.; Covaleski, M.A. Budget formality and informality as a tool for organizing and governance amidst divergent institutional logics. Accounting, Organ. Soc. 2019, 75, 40–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Alvehus, J. Conflicting logics? The role of HRM in a professional service firm. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2018, 28, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Vickers, I.; Lyon, F.; Sepulveda, L.; McMullin, C. Public service innovation and multiple institutional logics: The case of hybrid social enterprise providers of health and wellbeing. Res. Policy 2017, 46, 1755–1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Roundy, P.T. Hybrid organizations and the logics of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2017, 13, 1221–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Huybrechts, B.; Nicholls, A.; Edinger, K. Sacred alliance or pact with the devil? How and why social enterprises collaborate with mainstream businesses in the fair trade sector. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 2017, 29, 586–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Mongelli, L.; Rullani, F.; Versari, P. Hybridisation of diverging institutional logics through common-note practices—An analogy with music and the case of social enterprises. Ind. Innov. 2017, 24, 492–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Schildt, H.; Perkmann, M. Organizational Settlements: Theorizing How Organizations Respond to Institutional Complexity. J. Manag. Inq. 2017, 26, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Jamali, D.; Karam, C.; Yin, J.; Soundararajan, V. CSR logics in developing countries: Translation, adaptation and stalled development. J. World Bus. 2017, 52, 343–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Teixeira, M.G.; De Déa Roglio, K.; Marcon, R. Institutional logics and the decision-making process of adopting corporate governance at a cooperative organization. J. Manag. Gov. 2017, 21, 181–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Raynard, M. Deconstructing complexity: Configurations of institutional complexity and structural hybridity. Strateg. Organ. 2016, 14, 310–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Bishop, S.; Waring, J. Becoming hybrid: The negotiated order on the front line of public–private partnerships. Hum. Relations 2016, 69, 1937–1958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Lander, B. Boundary-spanning in academic healthcare organisations. Res. Policy 2016, 45, 1524–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Dufays, F.; Huybrechts, B. Where do hybrids come from? Entrepreneurial team heterogeneity as an avenue for the emergence of hybrid organizations. Int. Small Bus. J. 2016, 34, 777–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Mason, C.; Doherty, B. A Fair Trade-off? Paradoxes in the Governance of Fair-trade Social Enterprises. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 136, 451–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Nicholls, A.; Huybrechts, B. Sustaining Inter-organizational Relationships Across Institutional Logics and Power Asymmetries: The Case of Fair Trade. J. Bus. Ethics 2016, 135, 699–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Gooneratne, T.N.; Hoque, Z. Institutions, agency and the institutionalization of budgetary control in a hybrid state-owned entity. Crit. Perspect. Account. 2016, 36, 58–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Martin, G.; Farndale, E.; Paauwe, J.; Stiles, P.G. Corporate governance and strategic human resource management: Four archetypes and proposals for a new approach to corporate sustainability. Eur. Manag. J. 2016, 34, 22–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Nicolini, D.; Delmestri, G.; Goodrick, E.; Reay, T.; Lindberg, K.; Adolfsson, P. Look What’s Back! Institutional Complexity, Reversibility and the Knotting of Logics: Look What’s Back! Br. J. Manag. 2016, 27, 228–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Atkins, J.F.; Solomon, A.; Norton, S.; Joseph, N.L. The emergence of integrated private reporting. Meditari Account. Res. 2015, 23, 28–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Biniari, M.G.; Simmons, S.A.; Monsen, E.W.; Pizarro Moreno, M.I. The configuration of corporate venturing logics: An integrated resource dependence and institutional perspective. Small Bus. Econ. 2015, 45, 351–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Johansen, S.T.; Olsen, T.H.; Solstad, E.; Torsteinsen, H. An insider view of the hybrid organisation: How managers respond to challenges of efficiency, legitimacy and meaning. J. Manag. Organ. 2015, 21, 725–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Klenk, T. Accountability in Practice: Organizational Responses to Public Accountability Claims. Int. J. Public Adm. 2015, 38, 983–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Carayannis, E.; Del Giudice, M.; Rosaria Della Peruta, M. Managing the intellectual capital within government-university-industry R&D partnerships: A framework for the engineering research centers. J. Intellect. Cap. 2014, 15, 611–630. [Google Scholar]
  125. Broek, J.v.d.; Boselie, P.; Paauwe, J. Multiple Institutional Logics in Health Care: ‘Productive Ward: Releasing Time to Care’. Public Manag. Rev. 2014, 16, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Ansari, S.S.; Wijen, F.; Gray, B. Constructing a Climate Change Logic: An Institutional Perspective on the “Tragedy of the Commons”. Organ. Sci. 2013, 24, 1014–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Smith, W.K.; Gonin, M.; Besharov, M.L. Managing Social-Business Tensions: A Review and Research Agenda for Social Enterprise. Bus. Ethics Q. 2013, 23, 407–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Aoki, K.; Lennerfors, T.T. Whither Japanese keiretsu? The transformation of vertical keiretsu in Toyota, Nissan and Honda 1991–2011. Asia Pac. Bus. Rev. 2013, 19, 70–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. He, X.; Brouthers, K.D.; Filatotchev, I. Resource-Based and Institutional Perspectives on Export Channel Selection and Export Performance. J. Manag. 2013, 39, 27–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Pache, A.C.; Chowdhury, I. Social Entrepreneurs as Institutionally Embedded Entrepreneurs: Toward a New Model of Social Entrepreneurship Education. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 2012, 11, 494–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Gauzente, C.; Dumoulin, R. Franchising choice in retail networks: A multi-level institutional framework. Int. Rev. Retail. Distrib. Consum. Res. 2012, 22, 385–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Richardson, A.J.; Kilfoyle, E. Merging the Profession: A Historical Perspective on Accounting Association Mergers in Canada. Account. Perspect. 2012, 11, 77–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Özen, S.; Akkemik, K.A. Does Illegitimate Corporate Behaviour Follow the Forms of Polity? The Turkish Experience. J. Manag. Stud. 2012, 49, 515–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Zapata, M.J.; Hall, C.M. Public–private collaboration in the tourism sector: Balancing legitimacy and effectiveness in local tourism partnerships. The Spanish case. J. Policy Res. Tour. Leis. Events 2012, 4, 61–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Landry, P. A Conceptual Framework for Studying Succession in Artistic and Administrative Leadership in the Cultural Sector. Int. J. Arts Manag. Montréal 2011, 13, 44–58, 71. [Google Scholar]
  136. Gençer, M.; Oba, B. Organising the digital commons: A case study on engagement strategies in open source. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2011, 23, 969–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Turrent, G.d.C.B.; Linares, E.A.; Pérez, M.V.L.; Ariza, L.R. Corporatie governance in Latin America and Spain: A comparative study of regulatory framework. Corp. Ownersh. Control 2010, 7, 427–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Hyvönen, T.; Järvinen, J.; Pellinen, J.; Rahko, T. Institutional Logics, ICT and Stability of Management Accounting. Eur. Account. Rev. 2009, 18, 241–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Mars, M.M.; Lounsbury, M. Raging Against or With the Private Marketplace?: Logic Hybridity and Eco-Entrepreneurship. J. Manag. Inq. 2009, 18, 4–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Boland, R.J.; Sharma, A.K.; Afonso, P.S. Designing management control in hybrid organizations: The role of path creation and morphogenesis. Accounting, Organ. Soc. 2008, 33, 899–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Yoshikawa, T.; Tsui-Auch, L.S.; McGuire, J. Corporate Governance Reform as Institutional Innovation: The Case of Japan. Organ. Sci. 2007, 18, 973–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Hua, J.; Miesing, P.; Li, M. An Empirical Taxonomy of SOE Governance in Transitional China. J. Manag. Gov. 2006, 10, 401–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Delmestri, G. Streams of inconsistent institutional influences: Middle managers as carriers of multiple identities. Hum. Relations 2006, 59, 1515–1541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Burns, J.; Baldvinsdottir, G. An institutional perspective of accountants’ new roles—The interplay of contradictions and praxis. Eur. Account. Rev. 2005, 14, 725–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Osborn, R.N.; Hagedoorn, J.; Denekamp, J.G.; Duysters, G.; Baughn, C.C. Embedded Patterns of International Alliance Formation. Organ. Stud. 1998, 19, 617–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 10301 g001 550
Figure 1. Taxonomy of hybridity from the perspective of the societal triangle of state, market and civil society based on van Tulder with van der Zwart [31] and van Tulder and van Mil [37]. It results in three principal non-hybrid archetypes (1, 3 and 6) and five hybrid archetypes (2, 4, 5, 7 and 8). Reprinted/adapted with permission from [31].
Figure 1. Taxonomy of hybridity from the perspective of the societal triangle of state, market and civil society based on van Tulder with van der Zwart [31] and van Tulder and van Mil [37]. It results in three principal non-hybrid archetypes (1, 3 and 6) and five hybrid archetypes (2, 4, 5, 7 and 8). Reprinted/adapted with permission from [31].
Sustainability 14 10301 g001
Sustainability 14 10301 g002 550
Figure 2. PRISMA diagram for identifying, screening and including records in systematic reviews.
Figure 2. PRISMA diagram for identifying, screening and including records in systematic reviews.
Sustainability 14 10301 g002
Table
Table 1. Main differences between a typology and taxonomy, based on [24,33,34].
Table 1. Main differences between a typology and taxonomy, based on [24,33,34].
TypologyTaxonomy
Conceptual, addressing abstract conceptsBased on empirical observations
MultidimensionalOften hierarchical
Highlights characteristics not existing in realityDescribes measurable dimensions and characteristics
Not reliably predictiveProvides prescriptions rather than explanations
Table
Table 2. Identified keywords for ’institutional logics’ and ’hybridization trend’ through Scopus database.
Table 2. Identified keywords for ’institutional logics’ and ’hybridization trend’ through Scopus database.
Institutional LogicsHybridization Trend
Institutional logic(s)
Conflicting institutional logics
Competing institutional logics
Institutional change
Institutional complexity
Institutional approach
Institutional theory
Institutional work
Institutional entrepreneurship
Organizational institutionalism
Institutional framework
Institutional voids
Institutionalization		Hybridization
Hybridity
Hybrid(s)
Hybrid organization(s)
Hybrid organizing
Hybrid model
Economic and social effects
Environmental impact
Societies and institutions
Hybrid governance
Hybrid method
Hybrid management
Table
Table 4. Results of the systematic literature review arranged according to archetypical classification 1 to 8 of all 109 items.
Table 4. Results of the systematic literature review arranged according to archetypical classification 1 to 8 of all 109 items.
Archetype NumberType of OrganizationNumber of Articles
1State4
2Public hospitals, universities and implementation bodies10
3Civil society/communities6
4Social enterprises/hybrid organizations34
5Family businesses, cooperations18
5 or 6Profit/nonprofit orientation not defined9
6Firms, corporations11
7Partly or wholly state-owned public organizations3
8Public-private partnerships and state-owned enterprises with a public utility function (e.g., electricity, water, rails)8
DiffNot defined within the publication6
Total109
Table
Table 5. Description and main issues/challenges of the archetypical organizational forms 1 to 8, based on the systematic literature review.
Table 5. Description and main issues/challenges of the archetypical organizational forms 1 to 8, based on the systematic literature review.
ArchetypeDescriptionIssues/ Challenges
1 (Non-hybrid)Public organizations, non-profit oriented, governmental, providing public goods. Example: government, defense force, regional greenhouse gas initiative, public sector.Bureaucratic challenges, reliance on legislation, centralization of power, focus on hierarchy and vertical subordination [78]; restrictive regulatory power [79].
2 (Hybrid)Private organizations, non-profit oriented, governmental dependent, providing public goods. Example: public universities/hospitals, implementation bodies, municipal companies, crime prevention council.Transparency of performance assessment [54]; collaboration vs. manipulation strategies [56]; influence of public sector managers/politicians that can be either enabling or constraining for hybridity [55]; relational work challenges: building linkages, trust, and collaboration [57].
3 (Non-hybrid)Private organizations, non-profit oriented, non-governmental, providing public or social/club goods. Example: civil society organizations, football clubs, activist coalitionsIssues regarding utility maximization instead of profit maximization [48]; commodification of participants’ needs, pragmatic management of issues [52]; uncertainty of funding [80]; role of expert employees, rigidity of governance instruments that are otherwise effective in for-profit environments [81].
4 (Hybrid)Private organizations, non-profit oriented, non-governmental, providing private goods. Example: renewable energy cooperatives, social enterprises, microfinance organizations, fair-trade organizations, mutual insurance companiesMission drift [59]; commercialization [45]; credibility issues due to absence of mission statements and/ or annual reports [61]; entrepreneur ability and desirability [82]; path dependency [58]; moral dilemmas masked as pricing challenges [60]; influence of dominant stakeholders in accountability [62]; legitimacy issues: identity, ownership, authenticity [46]; scaling issues [63]; earned income vs. other income, balance between social and financial expertise at board level [15]; hiring and socializing policies [14].
5 (Hybrid)Private organizations, profit oriented, non-governmental, providing private goods. Example: family-owned enterprises, art ventures, university-business cooperation, sustainable business investors.Change issues towards sustainable entrepreneurship [67]; balancing divergent goals of, e.g., family and business [68]; mediating role of accounting practices [69]; incumbent power relations [70].
6 (Non-hybrid)Public organization, profit oriented, non-governmental, providing private goods. Example: firms, joint-stock companies, corporate venturing programs, business incubators.Remuneration governance issues [83]; effectiveness of governance practices [84]; competitive advantage issues [85], e.g., profit-driven, value creation issues, high risk-taking; CSR pressures [86]; local legitimacy for MNCs [87].
7 (Hybrid)Public organizations, profit oriented, (partly) governmental ownership, providing private goods. Example: listed state-owned companies and enterprises, privatized businesses with the state as shareholder.Market decoupling due to legitimacy seeking [71]; management accounting challenges due to multiple pressures and expectations [72].
8 (Hybrid)Public organizations, profit oriented, (partly) governmental ownership, providing (semi) public goods. Example: public-private partnerships, full state-owned enterprises, state-owned multinational energy companies.Facilitation of social interaction between partners [73]; political issues: preferred policy cloaked as public interest [74]; business model effectiveness issues [75]; governance complexity [76]; paradox of performing: what outcomes represent success/failure [77].
Table
Table 6. Clustered governance themes with rearranged issues and challenges, as derived from the literature review.
Table 6. Clustered governance themes with rearranged issues and challenges, as derived from the literature review.
Clustered ThemesReported Challenges from Literature, including Source
Mission and balancing divergent goalsMission drift [59]
Commercialization [45]
Credibility issues [61]
Legitimacy issues: identity, ownership and legitimacy [46,71]
Balancing divergent goals [68]
Preferred policy cloaked as public interest [55,74]
Transparency of performance assessment [54]
LeadershipEntrepreneur ability and desirability [82]
Path dependency [58]
Incumbent power relations [70]
Facilitation of social interaction between partners [73]
Governance complexity [76]
Collaboration vs. manipulation strategies [56]
Hiring and employee involvementHiring policies and socializing policies [14]
Relational work challenges [57]
Accounting and financial issuesMoral dilemmas masked as pricing challenges [60]
Earned income vs. other income [15]
Balance between social and financial expertise at board level [15]
Mediating role of accounting practices [69]
Management accounting challenges [72]
Influence of dominant stakeholders in accountability [62]
Future outlookScaling [63]
Change issues towards sustainable entrepreneurship [67]
Business model effectiveness [75] Paradox of performing: what outcomes represent success/failure? [77]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sadiq, T.; Tulder, R.v.; Maas, K. Building a Taxonomy of Hybridization: An Institutional Logics Perspective on Societal Impact. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10301. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610301

AMA Style

Sadiq T, Tulder Rv, Maas K. Building a Taxonomy of Hybridization: An Institutional Logics Perspective on Societal Impact. Sustainability. 2022; 14(16):10301. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610301

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sadiq, Tasneem, Rob van Tulder, and Karen Maas. 2022. "Building a Taxonomy of Hybridization: An Institutional Logics Perspective on Societal Impact" Sustainability 14, no. 16: 10301. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610301

APA Style

Sadiq, T., Tulder, R. v., & Maas, K. (2022). Building a Taxonomy of Hybridization: An Institutional Logics Perspective on Societal Impact. Sustainability, 14(16), 10301. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610301

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop