Our world is increasingly faced with wicked environmental sustainability challenges, requiring entrepreneurs to work in multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) to address these challenges. Network orchestration is essential for these MSIs to realize their sustainability goals and make an impact. The concept of opportunity beliefs is central in understanding the actions taken by these entrepreneurs. However, the current theorization of opportunity beliefs formation is individual-centric. Furthermore, there is little understanding of how orchestration influences the opportunity beliefs formation in multi-stakeholder teams. We build on the framework of McMullen and Shepherd (2016), who presented a two-stage model of how third-person opportunity beliefs transform into first-person opportunity beliefs. We advance two contributions by using a single case study and applying the Gioia method to code and analyze the data. First is a two-stage model consisting of the formation of joint first-person opportunity beliefs that suggests that value-aligning and informing resource orchestration activities are essential in this process. Second, we advance the idea that the resource orchestration activities have both enabling and adversely constraining effects impairing the formation of joint first-person opportunity beliefs under conditions of organizational pressure.
DOCUMENT
PurposeSocial enterprises have proven to play a vital role in the transitions towards inclusive labour markets and sustainable economies. Yet, they often struggle to flourish within traditional economic systems due to the dual mission of pursuing social and commercial goals, leading to inherent tensions for social entrepreneurs. This study aims to explore tensions within Work Integration Social Enterprises (WISEs) arising from their dual mission and engagement withmultiple stakeholders.MethodologyInterviews with representatives from 10 Dutch WISEs were conducted to understand their day-to-day challenges. The typology by Smith and Lewis (2011), focusing on learning, belonging, organising, and performing tensions, was used for data analysis. FindingsThe study reveals tensions between social impact and commercial viability, withorganizational challenges being predominant. Also, there's an observed temporal pattern in tension prominence: early stages emphasize belonging, organising, and performing tensions, while learning tensions become more prominent as enterprises mature. OriginalityThis study offers insights into tensions within WISEs, highlighting the complexity of managing multiple identities in a multi-stakeholder context. By drawing on practical experiences, it contributes nuanced understanding to existing literature.
DOCUMENT
Objective: To prepare a set of statements for randomised clinical trials (RCT) integrity through an international multi-stakeholder consensus. Methods: The consensus was developed via: multi-country multidisciplinary stakeholder group composition and engagement; evidence synthesis of 55 systematic reviews concerning RCT integrity; anonymised two-round modified Delphi survey with consensus threshold based on the average percentage of majority opinions; and, a final consensus development meeting. Prospective registrations: (https://osf.io/bhncy, https://osf.io/3ursn). Results: There were 30 stakeholders representing 15 countries from five continents including triallists, ethicists, methodologists, statisticians, consumer representatives, industry representatives, systematic reviewers, funding body panel members, regulatory experts, authors, journal editors, peer-reviewers and advisors for resolving integrity concerns. Delphi survey response rate was 86.7% (26/30 stakeholders). There were 111 statements (73 stakeholder-provided, 46 systematic review-generated, 8 supported by both) in the initial long list, with eight additional statements provided during the consensus rounds. Through consensus the final set consolidated 81 statements (49 stakeholder-provided, 41 systematic review-generated, 9 supported by both). The entire RCT life cycle was covered by the set of statements including general aspects (n = 6), design and approval (n = 11), conduct and monitoring (n = 19), reporting of protocols and findings (n = 20), post-publication concerns (n = 12), and future research and development (n = 13). Conclusion: Implementation of this multi-stakeholder consensus statement is expected to enhance RCT integrity.
MULTIFILE
