Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship (벤처창업연구)

The Korean Society of Business Venturing (한국벤처창업학회)
권호 표지

Factors Influencing the Social and Economic Performance of High-Tech Social Ventures

하이테크 소셜벤처의 사회적·경제적성과에 미치는 영향요인

  • Kim, Hyeong Min (Department of Entrepreneurship, Chung-Ang University) ;
  • Kim, Jin Soo (School of Business Administration, Chung-Ang University)
  • Received : 2021.12.19
  • Accepted : 2022.02.24
  • Published : 2022.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to present the necessary success factors and strategies for high-tech social ventures and stakeholders in the related ecosystem by empirically identifying factors that affect their sustainable performance. Based on prior research, the dimensions of three performance factors were presented: core technology competency, core business competency, and social mission orientation. Then, such sub-dimensions such as technology innovation orientation, R&D capability, business model, customer orientation, social network, and social mission pursuit were derived. For empirical analysis, a survey was conducted on domestic high-tech social ventures, and the significance of the hypothesis was tested through PLS-structural equation analysis of the collected 243 valid data. As a result, it was found that the technology innovation orientation was embedded as an abstract organizational and cultural characteristic in the high-tech social venture, which is a research sample, and thus did not significantly affect the dependent variable. In other words, aiming for the latest cutting-edge technology alone cannot affect performance, and it is a result of proving the need for substantial influencing factors that can strengthen it. On the other hand, the business model had a significant effect only on social performance, which is presumed to be the limitation of measurement tools developed for social enterprises, and the results of additional multi-group analysis to determine the cause also supported the basis for this estimation. Excluding the previous two performance factors, R&D competency, customer orientation, social network, and social mission pursuit were all found to have a significant positive (+) effect on social and economic performance. This study laid a foundation for related research by identifying high-tech social ventures emerging in the ecosystem of a social economy and expanded empirical research models related to the performance of existing social enterprises and social ventures. However, in the research method or process, there were limitations such as factor derivation or verification for balance of dual performance, subjective measurement method, and sample representativeness. It is expected that more in-depth follow-up studies will continue by supplementing future limitations and designing improved research models.

본 연구의 목적은 하이테크 소셜벤처의 사회적·경제적성과에 영향을 미치는 요인을 실증적으로 규명하여, 하이테크 소셜벤처와 관련 생태계 이해관계자에게 필요한 성공 요인과 통찰력을 제시하는 데 있다. 선행연구에 근거하여 핵심기술역량, 핵심비즈니스역량, 소셜미션지향의 세 가지 성과요인 차원을 구성하였고, 각 하위요인으로 기술혁신지향성, R&D역량, 비즈니스모델, 고객지향성, 소셜네트워크, 소셜미션추구를 도출하였다. 실증분석을 위해 국내 하이테크 소셜벤처를 대상으로 설문조사를 진행하였고, 회수된 243부의 유효한 자료는 PLS-구조 방정식 분석을 통해 가설의 유의성을 검정하였다. 분석 결과, R&D역량, 고객지향성, 소셜네트워크, 소셜미션추구는 모두 사회적·경제적 이중성과에 유의한 정(+)의 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났다. 기술혁신지향성은 사회적·경제적성과에 모두 유의한 영향을 미치지 못하는 것으로 나타났는데, 이는 표본기업들의 기술혁신지향성이 추상적인 조직문화적 특성으로만 내재되었기 때문에 발생한 것으로 추정한다. 비즈니스모델은 사회적성과에만 유의한 영향을 미쳤는데, 이는 사회적기업을 위해 개발된 측정도구의 한계로 추정되며, 원인 파악을 위한 추가 다집단분석 결과도 이와같은 추정의 근거를 뒷받침해 주었다. 본 연구는 사회적경제 생태계에 새롭게 등장하고 있는 하이테크 소셜벤처를 식별하고 선제적으로 실증 연구를 진행함으로써 관련 연구분야의 토대를 마련하였으며, 사회적기업 및 소셜벤처의 성과요인 연구와 실증적 연구모형을 확장시키는 계기가 되었다고 판단한다. 그러나 연구 방법이나 과정에 있어서, 사회적·경제적 이중성과의 균형을 위한 요인 도출이나 검증, 주관적 측정 방법, 표본의 대표성 등의 한계가 있었다. 향후 한계를 보완하고 개선된 연구모형을 설계하여, 더욱 심도 있는 후속 연구가 이어지기를 기대한다.

Keywords

References

  1. ACM(2018). ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. Retrieved(2021.08.18) from https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics. Association for Computing Machinery.
  2. Babin, B. J., Griffin, M., & Hair, J. F.(2016). Heresies and sacred cows in scholarly marketing publications. Journal of Business Research, 69(8), 3133-3138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.12.001
  3. Battilana, J., Sengul, M., Pache, A. C., & Model, J.(2015). Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy of Management journal, 58(6), 1658-1685. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0903
  4. Berrone, P., Surroca, J., & Tribo, J. A.(2007). Corporate ethical identity as a determinant of firm performance: A test of the mediating role of stakeholder satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 76(1), 35-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9276-1
  5. Beugre, C.(2017). Social Entrepreneurship: Managing the creation of social value. New York: Routledge.
  6. Bhattarai, C. R., Kwong, C. C. Y., & Tasavori, M.(2019). Market orientation, market disruptiveness capability and social enterprise performance: An empirical study from the United Kingdom. Journal of Business Research, 96, 47-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.10.042
  7. Blundel, R. K., & Lyon, F.(2014). Towards a 'long view': Historical perspectives on the scaling and replication of social ventures. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 6(1), 80-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2014.954258
  8. Brown, W. A., & Yoshioka, C. F.(2003). Mission attachment and satisfaction as factors in employee retention. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14(1), 5-18. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.18
  9. Bruderl, J., Preisendorfer, P., & Ziegler, R.(1992). Survival chances of newly founded business organizations. American Sociological Review, 57(2), 227-242. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096207
  10. Chen, T. C., Guo, D. Q., Chen, H. M., & Wei, T. T.(2019). Effects of R&D intensity on firm performance in Taiwan's semiconductor industry. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istrazivanja, 32(1), 2377-2392. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2019.1642776
  11. Choi, Y., & Chang, S.(2020). The effect of social entrepreneurs' characteristics on resource acquisition and firm performance. International Journal of Entrepreneurship, 24(1), 1-18.
  12. Choi, Y. S., & Baek, B. H.(2020). Strategies for revitalizing social venture ecosystem based on social innovation theory. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship, 15(3), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.16972/APJBVE.15.3.202006.1
  13. Cucculelli, M., & Bettinelli, C.(2015). Business models, intangibles and firm performance: Evidence on corporate entrepreneurship from Italian manufacturing SMEs. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 329-350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9631-7
  14. Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M.(2013). Social innovation, social economy and social enterprise: What can the European debate tell us?, In F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood, & A. Hamdouch(Eds.). The international handbook on social innovation, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
  15. Desa, G., & Kotha, S.(2006). Technology social venture and innovation: Process at Benetech, In F. Perrini(Ed.). The now social entrepreneurship: What awaits social entrepreneurial ventures, Cheltenham, UK: Edword Elgar Publishing Limited.
  16. Deshpande, R., & Farley, J. U.(1998). Measuring market orientation: Generalization and synthesis. Journal of Market Focused Management, 2(3), 213-232. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009719615327
  17. Domi, S., Capelleras, J. L., & Musabelliu, B.(2019). Customer orientation and SME performance in Albania: A case study of the mediating role of innovativeness and innovation behavior. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 26(1), 130-146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356766719867374
  18. Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J.(2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2014.09.001
  19. Fruchterman, J.(2004). Technology benefiting humanity. Ubiquity. 1-1.
  20. Giones, F., Miralles, F., Konig, M., & Baltes, G.(2015). Do all paths lead to Rome? Technology and market orientation influence on the growth of new technology-based firms, Technology and Innovation (ICE), IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Belfast. Northern Ireland: IEEE.
  21. Gopalkrishnan, S. S.(2013). A new resource for social entrepreneurs: Technology. American Journal of Management, 13(1), 66-78.
  22. Gordon, M.(2015). How social enterprises change: The perspective of the evolution of technology. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 7(2), 189-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2015.1086410
  23. Gu, Y., & Su, D.(2018). Innovation orientations, external partnerships, and start-ups' performance of low-carbon ventures. Journal of Cleaner Production, 194, 69-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.017
  24. Hair Jr., J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M.(2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling(PLS-SEM), Thousand Oaks. CA: SAGE Publications.
  25. Harmsen, H., Grunert, K. G., & Declerck, F.(2000). Why did we make that cheese. An empirically based framework for understanding what drives innovation activity. R&D Management, 30(2), 151-166. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9310.00165
  26. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M.(2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  27. Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M.(1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: An integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42-54. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251742
  28. Hwang, B. S., An, J. M., & Kong, H. W.(2016). A study on the factors influencing start-up investment stage of IT-based enterprises. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship, 12(4), 35-46. https://doi.org/10.16972/APJBVE.12.4.201708.35
  29. Irene, B., Marika, A., Giovanni, A., & Mario, C.(2015). Indicators and metrics for social business: A review of current approaches. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 7(1), 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19420676.2015.1049286
  30. Ismail, K., Sohel, M. H., & Ayuniza, U. N.(2012). Technology social venture: A new genre of social entrepreneurship?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 40, 429-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.03.211
  31. Kim, C. B., & Baek, N. Y.(2019). An empirical study on the impact of entrepreneur's strategic competency and characteristics of their experiences on performance of social enterprises: Focused on the mediating effect of social-value seeking. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship, 14(5), 43-59. https://doi.org/10.16972/APJBVE.14.5.201910.43
  32. Kim, I. K.(2020). A study on the effects of business model and product innovation on the performance of firms in mobile ecosystem. Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, 11(10), 243-255. https://doi.org/10.15207/JKCS.2020.11.10.243
  33. Kim, I. S., & Kim, W. B.(2015). The effects of R&D Capability & Internal Competence on corporate performance: A special emphasis on Inno-Biz corporations. Journal of Business Education, 29(1), 95-122.
  34. Kim, K. C., & Suh, B. D.(2017). The effects of social enterprise characteristics and CEO's management capability on business performance: Focusing on mediating effects of corporate reputation. The Journal of Eurasian Studies, 14(2), 47-80. https://doi.org/10.31203/aepa.2017.14.2.003
  35. Kim, Y. J.(2019). A study on the impact of entrepreneurial intention and financing on the business ability and financial performance: Focused on the area of Pohang. Korea International Accounting Association, 85, 171-186. https://doi.org/10.21073/kiar.2019..85.010
  36. Kim, Y. T.(2019). A study on the factors affecting the performance of social ventures: Focusing on the moderating effects of government support. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship, 14(2), 191-198. https://doi.org/10.16972/APJBVE.14.2.201904.191
  37. Kim, Y. T.(2021). A study on the affecting factors of social venture entrepreneurial performance. Journal of Korean Career.Entrepreneurship & Business Association, 5(2), 147-167. https://doi.org/10.48206/kceba.2021.5.2.147
  38. Klein, S., Schneider, S., & Spieth, P.(2021). How to stay on the road? A business model perspective on mission drift in social purpose organizations. Journal of Business Research, 125, 658-671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.053
  39. Kock, N.(2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
  40. KOTEC(2020). 2020 Social Venture Survey. Sejong: Ministry of SMEs and Startups.
  41. Lin, Y. H., Lin, F. J., & Wang, K. H.(2021). The effect of social mission on service quality and brand image. Journal of Business Research, 132(1), 744-752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.054
  42. Lisetchi, M., & Brancu, L.(2014). The entrepreneurship concept as a subject of social innovation. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 124, 87-92.
  43. Mediano, J. M.(2018). Customer orientation in highly relational services: Antecedents and consequences. Doctoral dissertation, University of West London.
  44. Meggio, G., & Spadoni, G.(2019). Technology social venture: A new generation of social enterprises or a new genre?: A managerial perspective on the European market. Master's Thesis, Politecnico di Milano.
  45. Miles, M. P., Verreynne, M. L., Luke, B., Eversole, R., & Barraket, J.(2013). The relationship of entrepreneurial orientation, Vincentian values and economic and social performance in social enterprise. Review of Business, 33(2), 91-102.
  46. Misuraca, G., Pasi, G., & Brancati, C. U.(2017). ICT-enabled social innovation: Evidence & prospective. Luxembourg: EU.
  47. Moon, C. H.(2013). Technological innovation orientation: Conceptualization, measurement, and its relationship to performance. Journal of Technology Innovation, 21(2), 255-284.
  48. Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F.(1990). The effect of market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20-35. https://doi.org/10.2307/1251757
  49. Oh, S. H., Yun, D. H., & Ock, J. W.(2017). The effect of social entrepreneurship on market orientation. Management & Information Systems Review, 36(5), 27-44. https://doi.org/10.29214/damis.2017.36.5.002
  50. Park, N. Y., & Lee, E. S.(2019). A case study on the sustainability of Dohands corporation. Social Enterprise Studies, 12(1), 55-90.
  51. Patel, S., Maley, S., & Mehta, K.(2014). Appropriate technologies in the globalized world: FAQs [Commentary], IEEE Technology and Society Magazine. 33(1), 19-26. https://doi.org/10.1109/MTS.2014.2301855
  52. Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W.(1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531-544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408
  53. Prodanov, H.(2018). Social entrepreneurship and digital technologies. Economic Alternatives, 24(1), 123-138.
  54. Richardson, J.(2008). The business model: an integrative framework for strategy execution. Strategic Change, 17(5-6), 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.821
  55. Schoenecker, T., & Swanson, L.(2002). Indicators of firm technological capability: Validity and performance implications. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(1), 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1109/17.985746
  56. Sean, L.(2005). Entrepreneur social competence and capital: The social networks of politically skilled entrepreneurs. Briarcliff Manor, NY: Academy of Management Proceedings,
  57. Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R.(1999). The art of standard wars. California Management, 41(2), 8-32. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165984
  58. Sharir, M., & Lerner, M.(2006). Gauging the success of social ventures initiated by individual social entrepreneurs. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 6-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.004
  59. Talke, K., Salomo, S., & Kock, A.(2011). Top management team diversity and strategic innovation orientation: The relationship and consequences for innovativeness and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(6), 819-832. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00851.x
  60. Wang, X., Lee, S., & Park, S. W.(2020). The effect of entrepreneurial orientation, social network, and resource acquisition on firm performance in Chinese SMEs: The mediating effect of resource acquisition. Global Business & Finance Review, 25(3), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.17549/gbfr.2020.25.3.1
  61. WenSheng, H., & Zhaohui, Z.(2013). R&D investment and firms' financial performance: The moderating role of chairman-CEO duality, Technology Management for Emerging Technologies, PICMET '13. San Jose, CA: Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology.
  62. Yam, R. C. M., Guan, J. C., Pun, K. F., & Tang, E. P. Y.(2004). An audit of technological innovation capabilities in Chinese firms: some empirical findings in Beijing, China. Research Policy, 33(8), 1123-1140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.05.004
  63. Yang, Y. I.(2010). The effects of market orientation, marketing and R&D interface and technology orientation on product creativity and performance. Journal of Marketing Studies, 18(3), 93-115.
  64. Yoon, D. J., Jeong, D. Y., & Cho, S. E.(2013). A study on the relationships between characteristics of the business model and corporate performance in social enterprises. Journal of the Korean Entrepreneurship Society, 8(3), 1-25.
  65. Yousaf, S., Anser, M. K., Tariq, M., Sahibzada Jawad, S. U. R., Naushad, S., & Yousaf, Z.(2020). Does technology orientation predict firm performance through firm innovativeness?. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 17(1), 140-151. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJEMSD-11-2019-0091
  66. Zhang, H., Kang, F., & Hu, S. Q.(2018). Senior leadership, customer orientation, and service firm performance: The mediator role of process management. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 31(13-14), 1605-1620. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1492873