Summary article ‘Differentiating the effect of social
enterprise activities on health’ – Macaulay, Mazzei, Roy,
Teasdale, & Donaldson (2018)
Introduction
Social enterprises are organisations that trade in the market in order to
address one or more aspects of social vulnerability, particularly in local
communities.
It is suggested that through addressing social vulnerabilities, social
enterprises can improve individual and community health through acting
on social determinants of health.
Methods
5 stakeholder groups were identified as being of interest to the research,
due to their perspectives on the work and effects of the social enterprises:
1. Service users: the individuals whose benefit is the primary ‘social
mission’ of the organisation and thus represent the intended focus
for the social impact of the organisation.
2. Leaders of the organisations: managers, directors, board members
responsible for the overall governance and running of the
organisation; are able to provide an overview of the strategic aims
and objectives of the organisation.
3. Staff members: those employed on various projects within the social
enterprise and spend most time with service users and wider
community.
4. Community stakeholders: those professionals who worked in the
same geographical region, and were aware of the work of the
sample organisation, and their impacts, in a professional capacity.
5. National stakeholders: those working in a professional capacity for
organisations or bodies with a direct knowledge of the social
enterprise and/or public health provision.
Findings
Engendering feelings of ownership and control
A strong theme emerging from the data was that of supporting people to
take control over a variety of forces that affect the lives of individuals and
communities broadly consistent with concept efficacy, because both
individual and collective have been strongly linked to health outcomes for
individuals and communities.
One element credited for facilitating and encouraging this form of
collective efficacy was the ownership of structure of the housing co-
operative, especially the control and resources that the management has
to enact change.
Respondents claimed that the ownership arrangement of their housing
estate contributed positively to their health and wellbeing through having
a stake in the organisation’s governance.
enterprise activities on health’ – Macaulay, Mazzei, Roy,
Teasdale, & Donaldson (2018)
Introduction
Social enterprises are organisations that trade in the market in order to
address one or more aspects of social vulnerability, particularly in local
communities.
It is suggested that through addressing social vulnerabilities, social
enterprises can improve individual and community health through acting
on social determinants of health.
Methods
5 stakeholder groups were identified as being of interest to the research,
due to their perspectives on the work and effects of the social enterprises:
1. Service users: the individuals whose benefit is the primary ‘social
mission’ of the organisation and thus represent the intended focus
for the social impact of the organisation.
2. Leaders of the organisations: managers, directors, board members
responsible for the overall governance and running of the
organisation; are able to provide an overview of the strategic aims
and objectives of the organisation.
3. Staff members: those employed on various projects within the social
enterprise and spend most time with service users and wider
community.
4. Community stakeholders: those professionals who worked in the
same geographical region, and were aware of the work of the
sample organisation, and their impacts, in a professional capacity.
5. National stakeholders: those working in a professional capacity for
organisations or bodies with a direct knowledge of the social
enterprise and/or public health provision.
Findings
Engendering feelings of ownership and control
A strong theme emerging from the data was that of supporting people to
take control over a variety of forces that affect the lives of individuals and
communities broadly consistent with concept efficacy, because both
individual and collective have been strongly linked to health outcomes for
individuals and communities.
One element credited for facilitating and encouraging this form of
collective efficacy was the ownership of structure of the housing co-
operative, especially the control and resources that the management has
to enact change.
Respondents claimed that the ownership arrangement of their housing
estate contributed positively to their health and wellbeing through having
a stake in the organisation’s governance.
