Examining the Interplay of Social and Market Logics in Hybrid Business Models: A Case Study of Australian B Corps

  • Wendy StubbsEmail author
Part of the CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance book series (CSEG)


Traditional approaches to sustainability , such as philanthropy, corporate social responsibility, and product innovation are insufficient to radically transform business and society toward genuine, substantive sustainable development. New hybrid business models are emerging that employ market tactics to address sustainable development issues. B Corps are a hybrid organization exemplar, blending traditionally for-profit practices with traditionally non-profit practices to address social and/or environmental issues. This chapter provides insights into how B Corps integrate for-profit (market logic) and for-purpose (social logic) considerations into their business models, drawing on interviews with 15 Australian B Corps. The research study found that social and market logics are strongly integrated in some areas (e.g., mission, recruitment and marketing) but trying to balance these two logics has created tensions and conflict in other areas (e.g., ownership structure, performance measurement, sales and distribution, product design and development). The findings emphasize the importance of creating a common organizational identity that strikes a balance between the logics to moderate conflict and one logic dominating over another. The B Corps are attempting to do this by instantiating the market and social logics in their missions, recruitment and socialization practices (remuneration, communication and training practices).


  1. Alberti, F., & Varon Garrido, M. (2017). Can profit and sustainability goals co-exist? New business models for hybrid firms. Journal of Business Strategy, 38(1), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. B Lab. (2014). B Corporation. Accessed from
  3. Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Battiliana, J., Lee, M., Walker, J., & Dorsey, C. (2012). In search of the hybrid ideal. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 10(3), 50–55.Google Scholar
  6. Belz, F., & Binder, J. (in press). Sustainable entrepreneurship: A convergent process model. Business Strategy and the Environment.Google Scholar
  7. Besharov, M., & Smith, W. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birkin, F., Polesie, T., & Lewis, L. (2009). A new business model for sustainable development: An exploratory study using the theory of constraints in Nordic organizations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18(5), 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blaikie, N. (2000). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation. Malden: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation: State-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 9–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boyd, B., Henning, N., Reyna, E., Wang, D., & Welch, M. (2009). Hybrid organizations: New business models for environmental leadership. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing.Google Scholar
  13. Chad, P. (2013). Implementing market orientation in charities. Marketing Theory, 13(3), 303–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen, X., & Kelly, T. (2015). B-Corps – A growing form of social enterprise tracing their progress and assessing their performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 22(1), 102–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dittman, D. (2016). B-Corporations: Profits and social responsibility? Accessed from
  16. Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices and institutional contradictions. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase profits. The New York Times Magazine, 33, 122–126.Google Scholar
  18. Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haigh, N., & Hoffman, A. (2012). Hybrid organizations: The next chapter of sustainable business. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 126–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hart, S. (1997). Beyond greening: Strategies for a sustainable world. Harvard Business Review, 75, 66–76.Google Scholar
  21. Hawken, P. (1993). The ecology of commerce: A declaration of sustainability. New York: HarperBusiness.Google Scholar
  22. Hickman, L., Byrd, J., & Hickman, K. (2014). Explaining the location of mission-driven businesses: An examination of B-Corps. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 2014(55), 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hiller, J. (2013). The Benefit Corporation and corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(2), 287–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hoffman, A., Badiane, K., & Haigh, N. (2012). Hybrid organizations as agents of positive social change: Bridging the for-profit and non-profit divide. In K. Golden-Briddle & J. Dutton (Eds.), Using a positive lens to explore social change and organizations (pp. 131–153). Hoboken: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  25. Holt, D., & Littlewood, D. (2015). Identifying, mapping, and monitoring the impact of hybrid firms. California Management Review, 57(3), 107–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Koehn, D. (2016). Why the new Benefit Corporations may not prove to be truly socially beneficial. Business and Professional Ethics Journal.
  28. Lee, M. S., & Battilana, J. (2013, July). How the zebra got its stripes: Imprinting of individuals and hybrid social ventures. Boston: Harvard Business School (Working Paper, No. 14-005).
  29. Mars, M. M., & Lounsbury, M. (2009). Raging against or with the private marketplace? Logic hybridity and ecoentrepreneurship. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(1), 4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., & Alexander, L. (1995). In-depth interviewing: Researching people. South Melbourne: Longman Cheshire (first published 1990).Google Scholar
  31. Marquis, C., Klaber, A., & Thomason, B. (2011). B Lab: Building a new sector of the economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. McMullen, J., & Warnick, B. (2016). Should we require every new venture to be a hybrid organization? Exploring the limits of a world of blended value. Journal of Management Studies, 53(4), 630–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455–476.Google Scholar
  34. Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2013a). Embedded in hybrid contexts: How individuals in organizations respond to competing institutional logics. In M. Lounsbury & E. Boxenbaum (Eds.), Institutional logics in action, Part B (pp. 3–35). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pache, A.-C., & Santos, F. (2013b). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to conflicting institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parrish, B. D. (2010). Sustainability-driven entrepreneurship: Principles of organization design. Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 510–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rauter, R., Jonker, J., & Baumgartner, R. (2017). Going one’s own way: Drivers in developing business models for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140, 144–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robinson, J. (2004). Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 48(4), 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roome, N., & Louche, C. (2016). Journeying toward business models for sustainability: A conceptual model found inside the black box of organisational transformation. Organization & Environment, 29(1), 11–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Santos, F., Pache, A.-C., & Birkholz, C. (2015). Making hybrids work: Aligning business models and organizational design for social enterprises. California Management Review, 57(3), 36–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sargsian, Z. (2012). The good guy of corporations: B Corporations and the efficiencies of an environmentally and socially conscious entity. Accessed from
  42. Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2016a). Business models for sustainability: Origins, present research, and future avenues. Organization & Environment, 29(1), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schaltegger, S., Lüdeke-Freund, F., & Hansen, E. (2016b). Business models for sustainability: A co-evolutionary analysis of sustainable entrepreneurship, innovation, and transformation. Organization & Environment, 29(3), 264–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith, W., Gonin, M., & Besharov, M. (2013). Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3), 407–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  46. Stubbs, W. (2017a). Characterising B Corps as a sustainable business model: An exploratory study of B Corps in Australia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 144, 299–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stubbs, W. (2017b). Sustainable entrepreneurship and B Corps. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26(3), 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stubbs, W., & Cocklin, C. (2008). Conceptualizing a ‘sustainability business model’. Organization & Environment, 21(2), 103–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thornton, P., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thornton, P., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (2010). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22(1), 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations