Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-8v9h9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-15T22:33:19.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploring the Contingencies of Scaling Social Impact: A Replication and Extension of the SCALERS Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Benedetto Cannatelli
Benedetto Cannatelli*
Affiliation:
Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy
*
Benedetto.cannatelli@unicatt.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

While the scaling of impact remains to be one of the most important issues in the field of social entrepreneurship, limited empirical research has been focused on the topic. One of the first scholarly attempts to build a research agenda to better understand the scaling of social impact was the SCALERS model. Building on initial theoretical and empirical work, this study is based on a sample of 179 nonprofit organizations in Italy. It also extends prior work by providing theoretical grounding through contingency theory and conducting the first empirical test of the situational contingencies of the SCALERS model. A positive relationship between each of the SCALERS variables and scaling—except replicating—has been found. Initial evidence of five contingencies that moderate the relationship between the SCALERS and scaling of social impact has also been found.

Résumé

Résumé

Tandis que la mesure de l’étendue des impacts est un des enjeux essentiels du secteur de l’entrepreneuriat social, peu de recherches empiriques s’y sont intéressées. Une des premières tentatives académiques de création d’un programme de recherche visant à mieux comprendre l’étendue des impacts sociaux fut le modèle SCALERS. Inspirée de travaux théoriques et empiriques existants, la présente étude porte sur un échantillon de 179 organismes sans but lucratif italiens. Elle prolonge aussi les travaux antérieurs en proposant un ancrage théorique par l’intermédiaire d’une théorie de la contingence, et en menant le premier test empirique des contingences situationnelles du modèle SCALERS. Une relation positive entre chacune des variables SCALERS et l’analyse de l’étendue — à l’exception des réplications — a été décelée. L’existence présumée de cinq contingences modérant la relation entre les SCALERS et l’étendue de l’impact social est aussi étudiée.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Obwohl die Wirkungsskalierung noch immer eines der wichtigsten Themen im Bereich des Sozialunternehmertums ist, haben sich nur wenige empirische Studien auf dieses Thema konzentriert. Einer der ersten wissenschaftlichen Versuche zur Erstellung einer Forschungsagenda für ein besseres Verständnis über die Skalierung sozialer Auswirkungen war das SCALERS-Modell. Die vorliegende Studie baut auf die anfänglichen theoretischen und empirischen Arbeiten auf und umfasst eine Stichprobe von 179 gemeinnützigen Organisationen in Italien. Vorherige Arbeiten werden weiter ausgeweitet, indem man mithilfe der Kontingenztheorie und einer ersten empirischen Untersuchung der situationsbedingten Kontingenzen des SCALERS-Modells eine theoretische Grundlage schafft. Das Ergebnis zeigt eine positive Beziehung zwischen allen SCALERS-Variablen und der Skalierung, mit Ausnahme der Replikation. Es gibt erste Nachweise von fünf Kontingenzen, die die Beziehung zwischen den SCALERS und der Skalierung sozialer Auswirkungen moderieren.

Resumen

Resumen

Aún cuando la escala del impacto sigue siendo una de las cuestiones más importantes en el campo del emprendimiento social, sólo una investigación empírica limitada se ha centrado en este tema. Uno de los primeros intentos de los eruditos para crear una agenda de investigación para comprender mejor la escala del impacto social fue el modelo SCALERS. Partiendo de un trabajo teórico y empírico inicial, el presente estudio se basa en una muestra de 179 organizaciones sin ánimo de lucro en Italia. También amplía trabajos previos proporcionando bases teóricas mediante la teoría de la contingencia y realizando el primer test empírico de las contingencias situacionales del modelo SCALERS. Se ha encontrado una relación positiva entre cada una de las variables del modelo SCALERS y la escala - salvo la duplicación. También se ha encontrado evidencia inicial de cinco contingencias que moderan la relación entre las variables del modelo SCALERS y la escala del impacto social.

摘要

摘要

在社会企业领域中,影响力提升(scaling of impact)一直是最为重要的问题,然而有关这方面的实证研究却非常有限。其中,率先尝试建立研究计划、以更好理解社会影响力提升(scaling of social impact)的成果之一,是SCALERS模型。除了初步理论与实证工作,本研究还基于一个由意大利179家非营利性组织组成的样本。以权变理论(contingency theory)为理论基础、对SCALERS模型的情景权变(situational contingencies)进行首次实证测试,本研究对之前的工作进行了延伸扩展。 我们发现,在各SCALERS变量与影响力(复制值除外)存在正相关。我们还发现了对SCALERS与社会影响力之间的关系起缓和作用的五种权变的初步证据 。

要約

要約

社会起業分野における最も重要な課題の一つとして衝撃をスケーリングがある。本論文では限定された実証的研究をトピックの焦点に当てた。社会的影響の測定を理解するための研究計画を構築する最初の学術的な試みの1つとして、スケーラのモデルを使った。初期の理論的・実証的作業を踏まえて、本研究では、イタリアの 非営利組織179団体のサンプルに基づいている。また理論的なコンティンジェンシー理論を介して理論的な接地を提供して、スケーラ・モデルでの状況の不測の事態における最初の実証テストの実施から慈善研究を拡張する。スケーラ変数における各間の肯定的な関係および複製を除くスケーリングが明らかになった。中程度のスケーラと社会的影響のスケーリングとの関係 5 つの不測の事態の兆候が明らかになった。

ملخص

ملخص

في حين أن التدريج للتأثير يبقى واحد من أهم المشاكل في مجال المشاريع الإجتماعية، تم تركيز بحوث تجريبية محدودة على الموضوع. أحد المحاولات العلمية الأولى لوضع جدول أعمال البحوث لأفضل فهم لتدريج الأثر الاجتماعي كان نموذج للعوامل التي تساعد على التدرج. بناء على العمل النظري والتجريبي الأولي، تستند هذه الدراسة على عينة من 179 من المنظمات الغير ربحية في إيطاليا. بل يمتد أيضا لعمل مسبق من خلال توفير أسس النظرية من خلال نظرية الطوارئ وإجراء أول إختبار تجريبي للحالات الطارئة التي تعتمد على الظروف لنموذج للعوامل التي تساعد على التدرج. علاقة إيجابية بين كل من متغيرات العوامل التي تساعد على التدرج والتدرج - ما عدا التكرار- تم العثور عليها. كما تم العثورعلى الأدلة الأولية من خمسة من الحالات الطارئة التي تحسن العلاقة بين للعوامل التي تساعد على التدرج والتدريج للإثر الإجتماعي.

Keywords

Social entrepreneurshipScaling social impactSocial enterprises

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 28 , Issue 6 , December 2017 , pp. 2707 - 2733
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Andreasen, A. R. (1996). Profits for nonprofits: Find a corporate partner. Harvard Business Review, 74, 47–59.Google ScholarPubMed
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: International Review, 46, 5–68.Google Scholar
Bloom, P. N., & Chatterji, A. K. (2009). Scaling social entrepreneurial impact. California Management Review, 51, 114–132. doi: 10.2307/41166496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, P. N., & Dees, G. (2008). Cultivate your ecosystem. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 6, 46–53.Google Scholar
Bloom, P. N., & Skloot, E. (2010). Scaling social impact: New thinking. New York: Palgrave Macmillan doi: 10.1057/9780230113565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, P. N., & Smith, B. R. (2010). Identifying the drivers of social entrepreneurial impact: Theoretical development and an exploratory empirical test of SCALERS. Social Entrepreneurship Journal, 1, 126–145. doi: 10.1080/19420670903458042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borzaga, C. (2004). The third sector in Europe. In Evers, A., & Laville, J-L (Eds.), The third sector in Italy (pp. 45–62). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Bradach, J. L. (2003). Going to scale: The challenge of replicating social programs. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1, 18–25.Google Scholar
Bradach, J. L. (2010). Scaling impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9, 26–28.Google Scholar
Bradley, B., Jansen, P., and Silverman, C. (2003). The non profit sector’s $100 billion opportunity. Harvard Business ReviewGoogle Scholar
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
Buzzell, R. D. (2004). The PIMS program of strategy research: a retrospective appraisal. Journal of Business Research, 57, 478–483. doi: 10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00314-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cannatelli, B. L., Masi, A., & Molteni, M. (2012). Social Innovation. In Nicholls, A., & Murdock, A. (Eds.), Green technology implementation in developing countries: Opportunity identification and business model design. London: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
Chandler, A. T. Jr (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Corbin, J. (1999). A study of factors influencing the growth of nonprofits in social services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 28, 296–314. doi: 10.1177/0899764099283004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dees, J. G. (1998a). Enterprising nonprofits: What do you do when traditional sources of funding fall short?. Harvard Business Review, 76, 55–67.Google Scholar
Dees, G. (1998b). The meaning of social entrepreneurship, comments and suggestions contributed from the Social Entrepreneurship Founders Working Group. Durham: Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, Fuqua School of Business, Duke University.Google Scholar
Dees, G., Anderson, B. B., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2004). Scaling social impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 1, 24–32.Google Scholar
Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and differences. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1, 32–53. doi: 10.1080/19420670903442053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 417–436. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, L. (1995). Contingency theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage doi: 10.4135/9781452229249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 514–539. doi: 10.2307/2392695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, S., Almor, T., & Shenkar, O. (2002). Structural contingency revisited: toward a dynamic system model. Emergence, 4, 51–85. doi: 10.1207/S15327000EM0404_6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farris, P. W., & Moore, M. J. (2004). The profit impact of marketing strategy project: Retrospect and prospects. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511488726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkelstein, S. (1997). Interindustry merger patterns and resource dependence: A replication and extension of Pfeffer (1972). Strategic Management Journal, 18, 787–810. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199711)18:10<787::AID-SMJ913>3.0.CO;2-R.3.0.CO;2-R>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, R. T., & Shergill, G. (1992). The relationship between strategy-structure fit and financial performance in New Zealand: Evidence of generality and validity with enhanced controls. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 100–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1992.tb00654.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, D. F., & Seaman, S. (1994). High and low levels of organizational adaptation: An empirical analysis of strategy, structure, and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 15, 459–475. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250150604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, R. T. (1994). Technology-information processing fit and the performance of R&D project groups: A test of contingency theory. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 167–179. doi: 10.2307/256775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, J. (2000). The mainstreaming of the third sector into public policy in England in the late 1990s: Whys and wherefores. Policy and Politics, 28, 541–562. doi: 10.1332/0305573002501135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kickul, J., Terjesen, S., Bacq, S., & Griffiths, M. (2012). Social business education: An interview with Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11, 453–462. doi: 10.5465/amle.2011.0500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kistruck, G., Sutter, C., Lount, R., & Smith, B. (2013). Mitigating principal-agent problems in base-of-the-pyramid markets: An identity spillover perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 56, 659–682. doi: 10.5465/amj.2011.0336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kistruck, G., Webb, J. W., Sutter, C. J., & Ireland, D. (2011). Microfranchising in base-of-the-pyramid markets: Institutional challenges and adaptations to the franchise model. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35, 503–531. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2011.00446.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lantos, G. P. (2002). The ethicality of altruistic corporate social responsibility. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 19, 205–232. doi: 10.1108/07363760210426049.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41, 36–44. doi: 10.1016/j.jwb.2005.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1967). Social theory and social structure (2nd ed.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
Milne, G. R., Iyer, E. S., & Gooding-Williams, S. (1996). Environmental organization alliance relationships within and across nonprofit, business, and government sectors. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 15, 203–215.10.1177/074391569601500203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, A. (2006). Social entrepreneurship. New models of sustainable social change. Oxford: University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199283873.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholls, A. (2010). Editorial: Continuations and beginnings. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1, 1–4. doi: 10.1080/19420671003726411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okten, C., & Weisbrod, B. A. (2000). Determinants of donations in private nonprofit markets. Journal of Public Economics, 75, 255–272. doi: 10.1016/S0047-2727(99)00066-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phugh, D. S., & Hickson, D. J. (1976). Organizational structure in its context: The Aston Programme I. Farnborough: Saxon House.Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Posnett, J., & Sandler, T. (1989). Demand for charity donations in private nonprofit markets: the case of the U.K. Journal of Public Economics, 40, 187–200. doi: 10.1016/0047-2727(89)90002-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prahalad, C. K., & Hammond, A. (2002). Serving the world’s poor, profitably. Harvard Business Review, 80, 4–11.Google ScholarPubMed
Rungtusanatham, M., Forza, C., Filippini, R., & Anderson, J. (1998). A replication study of a theory of quality management underlying the Deming management method: Insights from an Italian context. Journal of Operations Management, 17, 77–95. doi: 10.1016/S0272-6963(98)00032-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salamon, L. M. (1987). Of market failure, voluntary failure, and third-party government: Toward a theory of government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 16, 29–49. doi: 10.1177/089976408701600104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seelos, C., & Mair, J. (2005). Social entrepreneurship: Creating new business models to serve the poor. Business Horizons, 48, 241–246. doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2004.11.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sezgi, F., & Mair, J. (2010). A coordination perspective to scaling. In Bloom, P., & Skloot, E. (Eds.), Scaling social impact (pp. 29–44). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230113565_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. R., & Stevens, C. (2010). Different forms of social entrepreneurship: The role of geography and structural embeddedness on measurement and scaling of social value. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 22, 575–598. doi: 10.1080/08985626.2010.488405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sutton, R., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 371–384. doi: 10.2307/2393788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szulanski, G., & Jensen, R. J. (2004). Overcoming stickiness: An empirical investigation of the role of the template in the replication of organizational routines. Managerial and Decision Economics, 25, 347–363. doi: 10.1002/mde.1195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, M. A., Dees, G., & Emerson, J. (2002). The question of scale: finding an appropriate strategy for building on your success. In Dees, J. G., Emerson, J., & Economy, P. (Eds.), Strategic tools for social entrepreneurs: Enhancing the performance of your enterprising nonprofit (pp. 235–266). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Thompson, J. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Vachani, S., & Smith, C. N. (2008). Socially responsible distribution: Distribution strategies for reaching bottom of pyramid. California Management Review, 50, 52–54. doi: 10.2307/41166435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dyck, C., Frese, M., Baer, M., & Sonnentag, S. (2005). Organizational error management culture and its impact on performance: A two-study replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1228–1240. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Varadarajan, P. R., & Menon, A. (1988). Cause-related marketing: A coalignment of marketing strategy and corporate philanthropy. Journal of Marketing, 52, 58–74. doi: 10.2307/1251450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, K. (1995). What theory is not, theorizing is. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 385–390. doi: 10.2307/2393789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wei-Skillern, J., & Battle Anderson, B. (2003). Social enterprise series no. 27: Nonprofit geographic expansion: Branches, affiliates, or both? Harvard Business School Working Paper Series, No. 04–011.Google Scholar