Economics & Sociology

ISSN: 2071-789X eISSN: 2306-3459 DOI: 10.14254/2071-789X
Index PUBMS: f5512f57-a601-11e7-8f0e-080027f4daa0
Article information
Title: Performance of work integration social enterprises in Croatia, Slovenia, and Italian regions of Lombardy and Trentino
Issue: Vol. 12, No 1, 2019
Published date: 03-2019 (print) / 03-2019 (online)
Journal: Economics & Sociology
ISSN: 2071-789X, eISSN: 2306-3459
Authors: Filip Majetić
Institute of Social Sciences Ivo Pilar, Zagreb

Matej Makarovič
School of Advanced Social Studies, Nova Gorica

Dražen Šimleša
Institute of Social Sciences Ivo Pilar

Tea Golob
School of Advanced Social Studies, Nova Gorica
Keywords: Work Integration Social Enterprise, Croatia, Slovenia, Italy, Lombardy, Trentino, objective socioeconomic performance, subjective socioeconomic performance
DOI: 10.14254/2071-789X.2019/12-1/17
Index PUBMS: 8dd04247-5d5d-11e9-8b68-fa163e6feac6
Language: English
Pages: 286-301 (16)
JEL classification: Z13
This study was supported by the INTERREG CENTRAL EUROPE (“CE1223_INNOWISEs”).

This paper analyses objective and subjective social and economic performance of Work Integration Social Enterprises (WISEs) in Croatia, Slovenia, and Italian regions of Lombardy and Trentino. More specifically, the main aim is to test: a) the consistency between subjective and objective performance of WISEs and b) the compatibility between their economic and social performance. The rationale of the study is based on the fact that WISEs are commonly labelled as significant socioeconomic actors in Europe that often face various performance-related, i.e. managerial staff shortages. To the best of our knowledge, none of the previous studies have investigated this subject among WISEs in the analysed area. The data was collected using an online administered questionnaire between October 2017 and February 2018. The final sample included 109 organizations (23 organizations from Croatia, 36 from Slovenia, 39 from Lombardy, and 11 from Trentino). Each organization was represented by one highly ranked executive. The objective economic performance indicator was the profit-loss ratio; the objective social performance indicator was the share of disadvantaged population employed at a WISE. The subjective social and economic performance was measured using 18 indicators, and the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) revealed that this type of performance should be regarded as a unidimensional concept. The correlation analysis revealed a positive relationship between objective social performance and subjective socioeconomic performance, which indicates that the applied indicators of subjective socioeconomic performance are also relevant as potential predictors of objective social performance and demonstrates that representatives of WISEs tend to be realistic when evaluating their subjective socioeconomic performance.


1. Avilés, G., Adam, S., Amstutz, J., Cavedon, E., Ferrari, D., Lucchini, A., Schmitz, D., & Wüthrich, B. (2017). The WISE’s success factors from a multidimensional and multi-stakeholder perspective. An explorative study in the Swiss context. Retrieved from

2. Archer, M. (2003). Structure, Agency, and the Internal Conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

3. Archer, M. (2007). Making Our Way Through the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

4. Archer, M., & Donati, P. (2015). The Relational Subject. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5. Arena, M., Azzone, G., & Bengo, I. (2015). Performance measurement for social enterprises. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(2), 649-672.

6. Bacq, S., & Janssen, F. (2011). The multiple faces of social entrepreneurship: A review of definitional issues based on geographical and thematic criteria. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 23(5-6), 373-403.

7. Bagnoli, L., & Megali, C. (2011). Measuring performance in social enterprises. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 149-165.

8. 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.

9. Bode, I., Evers, A., & Schulz, A. (2004, July). „Facing New Challenges. Work Integration Social Enterprises in Germany”. In Sixth International Conference of the International Society for Third-Sector Research.

10. Borzaga, C., & Defourney, J. (2001). The emergence of social enterprise. London: Routledge.

11. Carraher, S. M., Welsh, D. H., & Svilokos, A. (2016). Validation of a measure of social entrepreneurship. European Journal of International Management, 10(4), 386-402.

12. Commission Expert Group on Social Entrepreneurship. (2016). Social enterprises and the social economy going forward. Retrieved from

13. Cooney, K., Nyssens, M., O’Shaughnessy, M., & Defourny, J. (2016, December). Public policies and work integration social enterprises: The challenge of institutionalization in a neoliberal era. In Nonprofit Policy Forum (Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 415-433). De Gru

14. Crucke, S., & Decramer, A. (2016). The development of a measurement instrument for the organizational performance of social enterprises. Sustainability, 8(2), 161.

15. Davister, C., Defourny, J. Grégoire, O. (2004). Work integration social enterprises in the European Union: an overview of existing models. Working Papers Series (04/04), PERSE Project, EMES.

16. Dees, J.G. (2001). The Meaning of Social Entrepreneurship. Retrieved from

17. Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences. Journal of social entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32-53.

18. Donati, P. (2011). Modernization and relational reflexivity. International Review of Sociology, 21(1), 21-39.

19. Dufour, B. (2015, June). State of the art in social impact measurement: methods for work integration social enterprises measuring their impact in a public context. Paper presented at the 5th EMES International Research Conference on Social Enterprise, Hel

20. Džunić, M., Stanković, J., & Janković-Milić, V. (2018). Multi-criteria approach in evaluating contribution of social entrepreneurship to the employment of socially-excluded groups. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24(5), 1885-1908.

21. EMES. (1999). Lemergere dell'impresa sociale in europa. una breve panoramica. Impresa Sociale, 44-45, 41-74.

22. European Commission. (2015). A map of social enterprises and their eco-systems in Europe. Retrieved from

23. Evers, A. (2004). Social services by social enterprises: On the possible contributions of hybrid organizations and a civil society. In: Evers A. & Laville, J.L. (eds.): The third sector in Europe (pp. 237-256). Northhampton: Edward Elgar.

24. Gonzales, V. (2007). Globalization, welfare reform and the social economy: Developing and alternative approach to analyzing social welfare systems in the post-industrial era. J. Soc. & Soc. Welfare, 34, 187-211.

25. Grieco, C., Michelini, L., & Iasevoli, G. (2015). Measuring value creation in social enterprises: A cluster analysis of social impact assessment models. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 44(6), 1173-1193.

26. Hazenberg, R., Seddon, F., & Denny, S. (2014). Investigating the outcome performance of work-integration social enterprises (WISEs): do WISEs offer ‘added value’to NEETs?. Public management review, 16(6), 876-899.

27. INNO WISEs 1223 Interreg Central Europe. (2018). Deliverable D.T1.1.5., Comparative analysis.

28. Katz, E. E. (2014). Social enterprise businesses: A strategy for creating good jobs for people with disabilities. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 40(2), 137-142.

29. Kuosmanen, J. (2014). Care provision, empowerment, and market forces: the art of establishing legitimacy for Work Integration Social Enterprises (WISEs). VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(1), 248-269.

30. Lall, S. (2017). Measuring to improve versus measuring to prove: understanding the adoption of social performance measurement practices in Nascent social enterprises. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(6), 2633-26

31. Laratta, R. (2015, July). Work Integration Social Enterprises: A comparative Study between Japan and the UK. Paper presented at the 2015 International Conference on Social Entrepreneurship in Asia Pacific Region – Innovation, Cultivation and Social Impact

32. Lee, D. (2000). The society of society: The grand finale of Niklas Luhmann. Sociological Theory, 18(2), 320-330.

33. Liang, C. T., Peng, L. P., Yao, S. N., & Liang, C. (2015). Developing a Social Enterprise Performance Scale and Examining the Relationship Between Entrepreneurs’ Personality Traits and Their Perceived Enterprise Performance. Journal of Entrepreneurship, M

34. Liu, G., Takeda, S., & Ko, W. W. (2014). Strategic orientation and social enterprise performance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(3), 480-501.

35. Liu, G., Eng, T. Y., & Takeda, S. (2015). An investigation of marketing capabilities and social enterprise performance in the UK and Japan. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 39(2), 267-298.

36. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

37. Luhmann, N. (1999). Die Gesellschaft der Gesellschaft. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

38. Lyons, T.S. (2012). Concluding Thoughts on Accountability and Performance Measurement and Management. In: Lyons, T.S. (ed.): Social Entrepreneurship: How Businesses Can Transform Society (pp. 215-222). ABC-CLIO, LLC, ProQuest Ebook Central.

39. Majetić, F., Pinchuk, S., & Brkljačić, T. (forthcoming 2018). Factors of self-sustainability in Social entrepreneurship: The Case study of Friskis&Svettis Stockholm. In: Šimleša, D., Galera, G. (eds.): Prema društvenoj ekonomiji - ogledi iz jugoistočne Eu

40. Marković, L., Baturina, D., & Babić, Z. (2017). Socijalna poduzeća za radnu integraciju (WISE) u postsocijalističkim zemljama. Hrvatska revija za rehabilitacijska istraživanja, 53(1), 139-158.

41. 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), 91-103.

42. Ormiston, J. Seymour, R. (2012). Measuring Performance in Social Entrepreneurship: Are Mission, Strategy and Measurement Aligned? In: Lyons T.S. (ed.): Social Entrepreneurship: How Businesses Can Transform Society (pp. 63-80). ABC-CLIO, LLC, ProQuest Eboo

43. Peredo, A. M., & McLean, M. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: A critical review of the concept. Journal of World Business, 41(1), 56-65.

44. Putman, R., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. (1994). Making Democracy Work Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

45. Ramus, T., La Cara, B., Vaccaro, A., & Brusoni, S. (2018). Social or commercial? Innovation strategies in social enterprises at times of turbulence. Business Ethics Quarterly, 28(4), 463-492.

46. Rey-Martí, A., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2016). A bibliometric analysis of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1651-1655.

47. Seidl, D. (2004). Luhmann’s theory of autopoietic social systems. Munich Business Research paper, Nr. 2004-2. Munich: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Munich School of Management. Retrieved from

48. Slovensko združenje za duševno zdravje (ŠENT). (2014). Razvoj modela učnih delavnic v socialnih podjetjih tipa b izvajalec: ŠENT - slovensko združenje za duševno zdravje. Ljubljana: Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities of the

49. Vlada Republike Hrvatske. (2015). Strategija razvoja društvenog poduzetništva u Republici Hrvatskoj za razdoblje od 2015. do 2020. godine. Retrieved from

50. Welsh, D. H., Pendleton, Y., Welsh, D. H. B., & Pendleton, Y. (2006). Direct selling worldwide: the Mary Kay Cosmetics story. International Journal of Family Business, 3(1), 61-68.