• 137 •
Anduli
Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales
ISSN: 1696-0270 • e-ISSN: 2340-4973
THE ETHICS AND SOCIAL MISSION OF WORKERS AND
THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO SOCIAL INTRAPRENEURSHIP
LA ÉTICA Y LA MISIÓN SOCIAL DE LOS
TRABAJADORES Y SU RELACIÓN CON EL
INTRAEMPRENDIMIENTO SOCIAL
Esthela Galván-Vela
CETYS Universidad, México
esthela.galvan@cetys.mx
https://orcid.org/
0000-0002-8778-3989
Victor Mercader
CETYS Universidad, Mexico
victor.mercader@cetys.mx
https://orcid.org/
0000-0002-7586-1062
Rafael Ravina-Ripoll
Universidad de Cádiz, España
rafael.ravina@uca.es
https://orcid.org/
0000-0001-7007-3123
Abstract
Intrapreneurship (i.e., entrepreneurship
arising within established organizations)
is key to the development of the entities
that generate it. This is why highly posi-
tive results have been attributed to it. This
construct has been analyzed for more than
three decades; however, social intra-entre-
preneurship, which arises from the need
of companies to be recognized as entities
that generate social value from their mis-
sion, still lacks sufcient scientic back-
ground. Therefore, for the rst time, this
study empirically evaluates social mission
and business ethics as determinants of so-
cial intrapreneurship. A questionnaire was
used to gather data from 603 professionals
from different Baja, California, and Mexico
companies. Among the data analysis tech-
niques, descriptive statistics were used
to verify the univariate composition of the
data, and inferential statistics were used to
determine the reliability and validity of the
measurement scales. The data indicate a
highly signicant relationship between cor-
porate social mission and social intrapre-
neurship; however, the data indicate that
business ethics is not related to acts of so-
cial intrapreneurship.
Keywords: Ethics; Social Intrapreneurship;
Social Mission; Business; Human Capital.
Resumen
El intraemprendimiento (es decir, el espíritu
empresarial que surge dentro de organiza-
ciones establecidas) es clave para el desa-
rrollo de las entidades que lo generan. De
ahí que se le atribuyan resultados altamente
positivos. Este constructo ha sido analizado
durante más de tres décadas; sin embargo,
el intraemprendimiento social, que surge de
la necesidad de las empresas de ser reco-
nocidas como entidades que generan valor
social a partir de su misión, carece aún de
suciente bagaje cientíco. Por ello, por
primera vez, este estudio evalúa empírica-
mente la misión social y la ética empresarial
como determinantes del intraemprendimien-
to social. Se utilizó un cuestionario para
recopilar datos de 603 profesionales de
diferentes empresas de Baja California y
México. Entre las técnicas de análisis de
datos, se utilizó estadística descriptiva para
vericar la composición univariada de los
datos, y estadística inferencial para determi-
nar la conabilidad y validez de las escalas
de medición. Los datos indican una relación
altamente signicativa entre la misión social
corporativa y el intraemprendimiento social;
sin embargo, los datos indican que la ética
empresarial no está relacionada con los ac-
tos de intraemprendimiento social.
Palabras clave: Etica; intraemprendimien-
to social; Misión social; Negocio; Capital
Humano.
Como citar este artículo/ citation: Galván-Vela, Esthela; Mercader,Víctor; Ravina-Ripoll, Rafael (2023).The Ethics
and Social Mission of Workers and their Relationship to Social Intrapreneurship. ANDULI 23 (2023) pp.137-157.
http://doi.org/10.12795/anduli.2023.i23.09
Recibido: 01-04-2022. Aceptado: 01-10-2022. Publicado: 10.01.2023. http://doi.org/10.12795/anduli.2023.i23.09
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 23 - 2023
• 138 •
1. Introduction
The competitive conditions of today’s markets, the rapid development of the
information society and the changes brought about by the knowledge-based economy
(Galván-Vela et al., 2021a) has highlighted the leading role of entrepreneurs in the
development of companies and their communities, as they are considered the main
drivers of change in terms of innovation and proactivity, as well as practical problem
solving (Ezlegini et al., 2017).
It is because of the above, that during the last decade’s entrepreneurship has been
considered a priority topic in the research agendas (Galván-Vela & Sánchez, 2017,
2018; Gawke et al., 2017; Turró et al., 2014) and, within its classications, social
entrepreneurship is the one that has recently interested researchers (Chou, 2018)
as it represents a relatively novel topic whose differentiating element focuses on the
fact that the nature of the action is a substantive improvement to society, leading to
the generation of economic and social impacts (Capella-Peris et al., 2020; Rey-Martí
et al., 2016).
It is then that social entrepreneurship can be seen as an act of personal or collective
initiative that enables the development of a more sustainable and fairer society
(Rahdari et al., 2016), while social intrapreneurship, as a variant of entrepreneurship,
represents an act of initiative that can be formal or informal and is led by employees
of some company, where opportunities in the environment are identied and exploited
and sustainable solutions are delivered to address social problems (Circle of
Intrapreneurs, 2021; Elisa & Thijs, 2019).
Actually, social intrapreneurship has been studied from different elds, among which
stand out studies on social innovation, corporate social responsibility, environmental
studies, public policy, strategic management, organisational theory, Paradox theory,
the sharing economy, the circular economy or the Sustainable Development Goals.
In this sense, the challenges in the study of social intrapreneurship are focused on its
denition, the development of a substantive theory, the measurement of its impact,
the analysis of its practices and organisation. Thus, within the latter eld, a call for
research on the subject tries to answer the question: what are the organisational
facilitators and inhibitors of corporate social intrapreneurship? (McGaw & Malinsky,
2020).
This study proposes two determinants of social intrapreneurship, such as ethics and
individual social mission. First, since the set of values that identify individuals is a
driver for their decision making, so the application of these values would be expected
in the analysis of dilemmas and structuring of thoughts that guide the substantive
improvement of society, beyond the economic benets that a social initiative can
generate (Castell-Gydesen & Lugo, 2020); as well as its necessity to be applied
in all areas of business and social intervention (Mercader, 2017; Mercader et al.,
2021). Second, since social entrepreneurs seek a balance between their nancial
and social objectives while presuming the existence of a social mission as their
primary normative purpose (Muñoz & Kimmitt, 2019), so it would be expected that
employees with initiatives aimed at solving social problems from their company have
an individual social mission.
Concerning these approaches, we sought to answer the following research question:
What is the relationship between ethics and the social mission of workers with social
entrepreneurship? Hence, the objective was: To analyse the relationship between
ethics and social mission of workers with social intra-entrepreneurship. In this sense,
Artículos • Esthela Galván Vela, Victor Mercader, Rafael Ravina Ripoll
• 139 •
we can ensure that this study fullled its objective, and this process is detailed in the
following sections: The rst corresponds to a literature analysis where the hypotheses
are stated. The second describes the method and tools implemented in the study. The
third section presents the descriptive and inferential analysis of the variables. The
fourth section discusses the results and makes new proposals to develop theory in
social intrapreneurship.
2. Literary Review
2.1. The social mission
Social mission is a construct that, in recent years, has been empirically analysed
in the management sciences (Stevens et al., 2015). It can be stated that there is
a consensus in recognition of social mission as a fundamental element of social
entrepreneurship (Bruder, 2020).
From a business point of view, the social mission combines elements of nancial
sustainability in the framework of social business and the need for innovations that
address social problems from social entrepreneurship (Beckmann et al., 2014).
This construct can be understood as the logic of positive social change. Through
the market, dynamics prioritises the company’s role in solving problems (Muñoz &
Kimmitt, 2019).
At the business level, the social mission can also be dened as the company’s
reason for creating value for the common good (Stevens et al., 2015). This construct
is strongly linked to business ethics and its efforts to pursue innovations as part of its
intrapreneurial actions (Bruder, 2020).
Some authors, such as Berbegal-Mirabent et al. (2021) and Muñoz and Kimmit (2019),
argue a logical relationship between social mission and social entrepreneurship and
the latter with business development. Other authors such as Cornforth (2014) and
Raišienė and Urmanavičienė (2017) mention that some companies, when trying
to achieve a social mission, may lose their way and orient their balance towards
the economic benets they can obtain after exploiting their social sense, ultimately
relegating the reason why the mission was initially drawn, so the social mission must
be constantly analysed in terms of the social value it generates (Ramus &Vaccaro,
2017).
The social mission at the organisational level has different aspects. It is related to rm
performance (Berbegal-Mirabent et. al., 2021; Muñoz & Kimmitt, 2019); to business
ethics (Bruder, 2020); to business growth (Cacciolatti et al., 2020; Kannothra et al.,
2018); to the generation of social value (Ramus & Vaccaro, 2017); to the promotion of
entrepreneurial capital (Gerleve et al., 2019); with the promotion of individual values
(Stevens et al., 2015); with social intrapreneurship (Bruder, 2020); with the team
cooperation effect (Chen et al., 2020); and with economic achievement and social-
economic nexus (Osorio-Vega, 2019). Another theme in the study of this phenomenon
in companies is the competition between them by creating a social mission and
showing it as an attribute or label of success which generates a competition that
enhances social intrapreneurship (Vilá & Bharadwaj, 2017), which generates social
benets innovatively and differently.
Generally, the social mission is analysed at the organisational level from the company’s
culture, philosophy, and management methods. However, several authors have tried
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 23 - 2023
• 140 •
to discover how the social mission acts individually (Jeworrek & Mertins, 2021). Also,
different empirical contributions show differences between the characteristics of for-
prot organisations and employees of non-prot organisations and have found that
the latter care much more about the social mission of their respective workplaces
(Winter & Thaler, 2016).
In this regard, it can say that a fundamental aspect of the individual social mission is
entrepreneurial passion and the entrepreneur’s psychological capital (Gerleve et al.,
2019). Even the individual social mission has led workers in non-prot organisations
to accept a lower salary for their work since the corporate social mission is related to
the psychological well-being generated by the knowledge that they are contributing to
the creation of collective benets and the effect of payment below the average market
salary allows companies to select more appropriate human resources that are more
congruent and focused on genuinely contributing to the fullment of the organisation’s
social mission (Chen et al., 2020).
Under another perspective, the social mission is sometimes seen in a malleable
game, referring to the so-called mission drift in hybrid companies or organisations
when working with a social and economic vision together (Ebrahim et al., 2014;
Staessens et al., 2019). This aspect generates controversy and doubts with investors
and social entrepreneurs (Sanders & McClellan, 2014). Hence, there are authors
with studies on social enterprises focused on different areas that try to investigate
the complex balance that impacts the social mission and generates tensions without
losing the required coherence (Best et al., 2021; Siegner et al., 2018), which tends
to be achieved by implementing innovative behaviour, taking calculated risks and
maintaining the spirit of proactivity and motivation (Syrjä et al., 2019).
However, in the study of the individual social mission, the contributions are scarce,
since most of the studies analyse this element at the organisational level, so, due to
the lack of contributions in the study of this construct, the individual social mission will
be understood, for this analysis, as “the orientation of an individual to make social
contributions that generate psychological well-being”.
2.2. Social Intrapreneurship
Intrapreneurship is a topic that has recently gained a place in research agendas due
to the social and economic impact of the entities that promote it (Galván-Vela et al.,
2018; Galván-Vela & Sánchez, 2017, 2018). Intrapreneurship is the entrepreneurial
act that arises within organisations and not individually. It leads the company to
assume the risk of developing new products or new businesses created by employee
initiatives; risks usually correspond to assume the typical entrepreneur, in the case of
carrying entrepreneurship on their own (Galván-Vela et al., 2022). On a formal level,
this construct can be dened as:
“...the entrepreneurial practice or behaviour in companies, regardless of their turn
or size, characterised by a philosophy of openness to change, as well as a general
vision aimed at exploring and/or exploiting the opportunities of the environment
through an adequate combination of resources and the development of proactive
and innovative activities, such as the creation and/or substantial improvement of
products, services, internal organisational methods, processes, technologies and
markets...” (Galván-Vela& Sánchez, 2018, p.173).
The results of intrapreneurship in the development of the company are numerous;
several studies have enunciated positive results in the relative and absolute growth of
the business (Antoncic, 2007); revitalisation of the company (Deprez et al., 2018); in
Artículos • Esthela Galván Vela, Victor Mercader, Rafael Ravina Ripoll
• 141 •
the improvement of the competitive capabilities and employee engagement (Pandey
et al., 2021); in strategic renewal behaviour and venture behaviour (Do &Luu, 2020); in
increasing the innovative capacity of the rm (Bierwerth et al., 2015) and in obtaining
successful innovation outcomes (Marques et al., 2021). Within this scenario, it can be
stated, according to Cacciolatti et al. (2020), that innovation with a social purpose is
strictly linked to entrepreneurship, intra-entrepreneurship and economic development,
thus contributing to the social mission of the companies that generate it.
For its part, social intrapreneurship is a topic little addressed in research agendas. It
can be understood as the act of intrapreneurship that leads established companies to
take advantage of and help with opportunities favouring society, positively impacting
it (Alt & Geradts, 2019). Its outstanding feature is that it has the virtue of being able
to connect protable prot opportunities in social solutions with positive results, both
in the social core involved and for the company (Conger et al., 2018); a topic that,
in recent years, has generated interest to researchers (Kuratko et al., 2017), this
is how these authors examine the social value that originates the actors and the
consequences of these actions for companies.
In this context, Gamble et al. (2020) introduced a new typology and measurement called
social and environmental mission integration (SEMI), applicable to hybrid organisations
that generate social value. It is important to note that social intrapreneurship can
also refer and apply to other types of institutions such as educational and university
institutions (Kuran, 2017); and this is how Cabana et al. (2018) analyse it based on
their results regarding its impact on variables such as social innovation, loyalty and
willingness to achieve. In public organisations and private companies, and even in the
educational system, the social intrapreneurship of the people involved impacts their
performance.
In addition to the results of intrapreneurial behaviour, some authors attribute
dimensions such as innovativeness, proactiveness, risk-taking, strategic renewal
and corporate venturing to intrapreneurship (Galván-Vela& Sánchez, 2018; Galván-
Vela et al., 2018, 2022; Kearney et al., 2013; Kuratko & Audretsch, 2013; Turró et
al., 2014). Others such as Neesen et al. (2019) consider innovativeness, risk-taking,
proactiveness, opportunity recognition and internal-external networking. However,
the dimensions associated with social intrapreneurship are expanded with behaviours
related to social innovation and social change (Schmitz & Scheuerle, 2012).
Given the diversity of dimensions of intrapreneurship and social intrapreneurship,
creating standards for their identication becomes present and necessary (Okun et
al., 2020). It can be summarised with the association and differentiation of social
entrepreneurship and social intrapreneurship with social value creation and social
innovation, all of which apply to social work (Nandam et al., 2019).
Thus, it is appreciated the need to generate a culture with greater awareness in the
principle of intrapreneurship in companies to create greater involvement with adequate
support from each department, which can reach and impact social needs (Prexl,
2019). From there, Social intrapreneurship appears when it is focused on collaborative
purposes and social sense. That comes from social entrepreneurship related to social
business, differences and similarities analysed by Beckmann et al. (2014).
2.3. Ethics related to the social mission and social intrapreneurship
The articles on ethics are countless, given that ethical values are present, by their
application or lack thereof, in all sciences of knowledge and, therefore, also with the
administrative and managerial sciences or business leadership. However, it is very
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 23 - 2023
• 142 •
relevant to mention the existing short bibliography about ethical aspects involved in the
social mission and social intrapreneurship (Venn & Berg, 2013). However, as Mercader
(2006; 2021) mentions, ethical values are the activators, identiers, and supports of ethics.
Entrepreneurship is a core generator of companies or organisations, a posterior,
companies generate acts of intrapreneurship, which is the entrepreneurship that
arises within established companies; however, for this intrapreneurship can be
considered “social” would have to attend to a social mission that implicitly should start
from a genuine recognition of social needs, that is where ethics is presented (Venn
& Berg, 2013).
The ethical dilemmas of companies arise since the market demands more inclusive
businesses, which are not only oriented to generate income but combine them with
a social value, be it ecological sustainability, responsible consumption, decent work,
among other acts of an ethical nature and in favour of sustainable development (Galván-
Vela et al., 2021b). Companies are no longer limited to mere acts of philanthropy but
seek recognition based on the impact of their actions in the communities (Venn &
Berg, 2013), therefore, when talking about social mission, social entrepreneurship
or social intrapreneurship, values are latent in its application by common sense, but
there are no studies about it in its analysis, as it seems to be given as a fact.
Hence, the taxonomy of (Mercader 2006, 2021), which summarises 28 values, is
presented as an expression of ethics since this is given by the application of ethical
values in what is thought, said and done in companies, families and society that
concentrate the expressions of the good life of the human being. In this study, these
values are analysed from the constructs of social mission and social intrapreneurship,
where the presence of the values or virtues of the taxonomy would be expected
(Table 1a).
Table. 1a (Theoretical).Taxonomy of Ethical Values (Mercader, 2006)
Social, behavioural values Values of growth and self-improvement
Friendship/Union
Kindness/Attention
Equity/Justice
Honesty
Integrity
Respect
Responsibility
Self-discipline/Temperance
Self-motivation
Communication
Knowledge/Learning
Compliance/Diligence
Decision making
Vision/ Objectivity
Personal talent values Inner or spiritual values
Good mood
Creativity
Enthusiasm
Spirit of service
Generosity
Perseverance/Hardworking
Courage
Love
Appreciation/Gratitude
Compassion/Forgiveness
Understanding
Humility
Patience
Tolerance
Own elaboration.
A fundamental point to note is that, in the theoretical review, no studies have been
found that combine the ethical values of the taxonomy with the most signicant
factors obtained from the social mission and social intra-entrepreneurship; for this,
the following tables are shown.
Artículos • Esthela Galván Vela, Victor Mercader, Rafael Ravina Ripoll
• 143 •
Table. 1b (Theoretical). Signicant factors that emerge from the
theoretical study of social mission
Factors associated
with the Social mission Authors
Accountability challenges Cornforth, 2014
Business competence Vilá & Bharadwaj, 2017; Muñoz & Kimmitt, 2019
Business Development Kannothra et al., 2018
Business Ethics Mercader et al., 2021
Business performance Cacciolatti et al., 2020; Raišienė & Urmanavičienė, 2017
Cooperative teams Chen et al., 2020
Entrepreneurial passion Gerleve et al., 2019
Financial sustainability Beckmann et al., 2014; Ramus & Vaccaro , 2017
Mission drift Cornforth, 2014; Ebrahim et al., 2014; Raišienė &
Urmanavičienė, 2017; Ramus & Vaccaro , 2017
Motivation and active decision Jeworrek & Mertins, 2021; Winter & Thaler, 2016
Normativity aspects Chen et al., 2020; Stevens et al., 2015
Psychological capital Gerleve et al., 2019; Pandey et al., 2021
Shared value Osorio-Vega, 2019
Social business Beckmann et al., 2014; Berbegal-Mirabent et al., 2021; Kan-
nothra et al., 2018
Social entrepreneurship Beckmann et al., 2014; Ebrahim et al., 2014; Muñoz & Kimmitt,
2019
Social innovation Beckmann et al., 2014; Cacciolatti et al., 2020; Gerleve et al.,
2019
Social passion and attitude Gerleve et al., 2019; Jeworrek & Mertins, 2021; Winter &
Thaler, 2016
Social problems Bruder, 2020;
Social sense and goals Ramus & Vaccaro , 2017; Stevens et al., 2015
Social value Bruder, 2020; Muñoz & Kimmitt, 2019; Osorio-Vega, 2019
Own elaboration.
Table. 1c (Theoretical). Associated factors that emerge from the
theoretical study of social intrapreneurship.
Factors associated with social
intrapreneurship Authors
Autonomy and rewards Galván-Vela& Sánchez, 2017
Competitive capabilities Deprez et al., 2018
Financial issues Beckmann et.al., 2014; Venn & Berg; 2013
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 23 - 2023
• 144 •
Factors associated with social
intrapreneurship Authors
Modelling studies and methods Antoncic, 2007; Bierwerth et al., 2015; Hair et al., 2011
Intrapreneurial behavior and
action
Alt & Geradts, 2019; Cabana et al., 2018; Do & Luu, 2020;
Galván-Vela et al., 2018
Initiative and opportunities in
the environment Deprez et al., 2018
Risks assumed Cabana et al., 2018
Social impact Do & Luu, 2020; Venn & Berg; 2013
Social Innovation Beckmann et.al., 2014; Cabana et al., 2018; Marques et al.,
2021; Schmitz & Scheuerle, 2012
Social sense Elisa & Thijs, 2019.
Social value Alt & Geradts, 2019; Kuratko et al., 2017; Nandan et al., 2019;
Schmitz & Scheuerle, 2012
Strategic Behaviour Galván-Vela& Sánchez, 2017
Work engagement Gawke et al., 2017
Work ethics, well being Ezlegini et al., 2017; Gardiner & Debrulle, 2021
Own elaboration.
On the other hand, if there is a study that focuses on an almost unstudied relationship
in intrapreneurship is its relationship with trust, ethical value, which tends to generate
long-term prosperity (Elert et al., 2019), especially when there is high job autonomy
as it generates a positive effect. Therefore, the literature review indicates that social
entrepreneurship is still in force in the last decade as a source of research. Some
studies integrate ethical factors, but not correctly with social intrapreneurship. In
contrast, although research in social intrapreneurship has increased in recent years,
no authors have related them to ethical values, which gives this study a crucial,
encouraging and novel meaning.
3. Methodology
It is quantitative research. It has a non-experimental design in the sense that the
conditions of the independent variables of this study were not modied, and the data
collection had a transversal character; that is to say, it was carried out in a single
moment in time. The scope of the study is correlational since it is not possible to
presume an explanatory relationship from a model limited in the number of variables
in the study.
The type of sampling was non-probabilistic and at the convenience of the researchers.
A total of 610 observations were collected, of which 603 were retained for the study
since some had missing values in the dependent variable. A questionnaire was applied
to professionals from different companies in Northern Mexico who voluntarily agreed
to participate in this research. It was decided to use a questionnaire in practicality
in terms of data collection for the study. It is a recurrent measurement technique for
latent variables such as those in this study.
The questionnaire design reviewed the theoretical and empirical content of the three
variables of interest (listed in Table 2). These were the reference for the development
Artículos • Esthela Galván Vela, Victor Mercader, Rafael Ravina Ripoll
• 145 •
and validation of the scales for measuring ethics, individual social mission and social
intrapreneurship, as shown in Table 2. An example of an item for the ethics variable
was “I practice responsibility in my work as a rule of life” or “I am trying to learn more
every day and apply the acquired knowledge”. An example of items considered in the
individual social mission was “I want to mitigate social problems in my community” or
“I care deeply about the results that my social mission can have”. An example of an
item used in the measurement of social intrapreneurship was “The company I work
for would support me in any idea to do good for the community” or “The company I
work for would reward me for having ideas to support the community”, both of which
point to aspects of the organisational support and reward dimensions of conventional
intrapreneurship models (e.g. Kurakto et al., 2014).
Table 2. Composition of the measuring instrument
Variable Items and scale Theoretical
foundation
Ethics
Nine items,
Likert of 7
points
1. I practise responsibility in my life and work as a rule of life.
2. I believe that the basis of trust that others have in me is due to
my example and integrity.
3. I am visionary and objective in what I set out to do.
4. I motivate my colleagues, friends and family on a regular basis
and I am able to motivate myself.
5. I am trying to learn more every day and apply the knowledge I
have acquired.
6. I feel enthusiasm in what I am involved in and do, feeling
good.
7. When I set out to achieve a goal I have the perseverance and
resilience necessary to reach it.
8. I consider that I appreciate and am grateful for what is happe-
ning in my life and work and I learn to constantly improve.
9. I try to understand others regardless of their level and I am
able to put myself in their shoes.
Mercader
(2006)
Individual
social
mission
Six items,
Likert of 7
points
1. I desire to mitigate social problems in my community.
2. I recognise opportunities to serve my social mission.
3. I care deeply about the results that my social mission can
have.
4. I am engaged in a process of improvement related to my
mission.
5. I am exhibiting a greater sense of accountability to the groups
served by my mission.
6. I am participating in a continuous learning process related to
my mission.
Dwivedy
and Wee-
rawardena,
(2018)
Social intra-
preneurship
Four items,
Likert of 7
points
1.
2. The company is able to identify and address social needs.
3. The company in which I work is concerned about the welfare
of society.
4. The company in which I work puts forward its philosophy for
the social good.
5. My company promotes a culture of attention to social needs.
Cabana et
al., (2018);
Dwivedy
and Wee-
rawardena,
(2018);
Galván-
Vela et
al., (2017,
2018)
Own elaboration.
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 23 - 2023
• 146 •
From the data collected, descriptive statistics were used to measure the categorisation
variables in this study, such as sex, age, schooling, years of experience in the sector,
sector and size of the company for which the respondent works. Following this, an
exploratory analysis was carried out to determine the adequacy of the data in terms
of normality indices and the absence of atypical data.
Once the conditions for inferential analysis were present, the technique of exploratory
factor analysis was used with SPSS software version 24 to determine the reliability of
the measurement instrument and the consistency of the items that make up each of
its variables. A conrmatory factor analysis was conducted to determine convergent
validity and discriminant validity indexes. The rst is to ensure the correlations of the
items that make up each factor. The second is to verify that they do not have a direct
relationship.
Finally, we used the technique of the structural equation by the covariance method
or CB-SEM, using AMOS version 27 software. This test is instrumental in measuring
latent variables that present multiple relationships and provides the exibility to
consider measurement errors, which are not considered in other multivariate analysis
techniques. This method was chosen over the partial least squares method, following
the recommendations of Hair et al. (2011), who state that CB-SEM is the best
alternative when contrasting theories, testing hypotheses or designing new theories
based on previous research.
4. Results
Of the 603 observations collected for this research, 45.5% were male, and 54.9%
were female. The subjects’ ages ranged from 20 to 73 years, with an average of 33.8
years. Likewise, a high specialisation index of the professionals was observed since
all of them have university studies. Of these, 70.9% have a bachelor’s degree, 26.1%
have a master’s degree, and only 3% have a doctorate. It was also noted that the
range of experience among the respondents was wide and ranged from 0 to 49 years,
where the average was 10.4 years.
Regarding the characteristics of the companies for which the respondents worked, it
was found that most of them were large companies, i.e. with more than 500 employees
with 54.4%; followed by small companies with between 0 to 100 employees with
29.2%, and nally medium-sized companies, with between 100 and 500 employees
with 16.4%. It should be noted that most of the companies in which the respondent’s
work are in the industrial sector with 39.1%, followed by the service sector with 30.3%,
the commercial sector with 9.8%, the educational sector with 8.8%, the primary sector
with 2.8% and nally, some people responded to other types of activities with 9.2%.
These results are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Analysis of classication data
Variable Descriptive result Percentaje
Age
Limits: 20 to 73 years
Mean= 33.8 years
Standard deviation= 9.17
Sex Male= 272 45.1
Female= 331 54.9
Artículos • Esthela Galván Vela, Victor Mercader, Rafael Ravina Ripoll
• 147 •
Variable Descriptive result Percentaje
Occupation
College= 428 70.9
Master’s Degree= 157 26.1
Doctoral Degree= 18 3.0
Work experience
Limits: 0 to 41 years
Mean= 10.4 years
Standard deviation= 8.1
Sector of experience
Industrial sector= 236 39.1
Service sector= 183 30.3
Commercial sector= 59 9.8
Education sector= 53 8.8
Primary sector= 17 2.8
Other= 55 9.2
Size of company
Small= 176 29.2
Medium= 9916.4
Big= 328 54.4
Own elaboration.
After the descriptive analysis of the data, we proceeded to the exploratory analysis
of the items that make up the variables of ethics, individual social mission and social
intra-entrepreneurship. It is important to note that all items presented acceptable
levels of skewness and kurtosis (less than 1.5). For the data distribution, univariate
normality conditions were evaluated, and the Kolmogorov-Smirnova test was used,
which is relevant for analyses of a sample of more than 50 observations. Regarding
the distribution, the Mahalanobis d-squared test and Boxplot plots were also used
to verify the absence of outliers. The Kolmogorov-Smirnova contrast established
in a rst approximation the existence of normality in the data by showing levels of
signicance at p<0.05. It led to verifying the reliability and internal consistency of the
measurement scales.
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was carried out for each variable under the
principal components method and Varimax rotation. These are the most recommended
extraction and rotation methods in this type of study. It was found that, of the nine
items of the scale, correlations between them ranged between 0.452 and 0.608, all
of them signicant at p=0.000. For the individual social mission variable, there were
correlations between 0.467 and 0.664, considered moderate to high and signicant.
For the intra-social entrepreneurship variable, correlations were between 0.556 and
0.739, considered high and signicant at p= 0.000. Also, the proportion of variance
explained by the common factors of each variable (communalities) was located
inappropriate values for this analysis.
On the other hand, the Kaiser-Meyer Olkin test (KMO) indicated a degree of mutual
and adequate relationship between the items that make up the variables, so it is
assumed that each is predictable from the others that make them up. On the other
hand, Barlett’s Test of Sphericity was signicant, so unbiased and univocal theoretical
scores are assumed. Finally, the variance explained by each factor was adequate for
this type of analysis. The results are shown in Table 4.
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 23 - 2023
• 148 •
Table 4. Exploratory Factor Analysis Results
Variable Ethic Individual Social
Mission
Social
Intrapreneurship
Correlations between
items 0.462 < - > 0.608 0.467 < - > 0.664 0.556 < - > 0.739
Level of correlations Moderate to high Moderate to high High
Signicance 0.000 0.000 0.000
Determinant 0.011 0.041 0.121
Communalities 0.719 < - > 0.778 0.601 < - > 0.729 0.656 < - > 0.778
Level of communalities Adequate Adequate Adequate
KMO Test 0.939 0.887 0.807
Bartlett’s Test of
Sphericity 0.000 0.000 0.000
Total variance explained 57.79 65.08 73.03
Cronbach’s alpha 0.908 0.892 0.873
Own elaboration.
Another of the analyses carried out, which made it possible to determine the
relationship between ethics, the individual social mission of workers and social
intra-entrepreneurship, was the technique of structural equations by the covariance
method (CB-SEM) using the SPSS AMOS program. It is a relevant way to capture the
complexity of the phenomena occurring in the social sciences by allowing more than
one simultaneous relationship analysis and considering measurement errors (Hair et
al., 2008). This technique allows estimating the effect and relationship between latent
variables with greater exibility than standard regression models (Escobedo et al.,
2016). A measurement model and a structural model were determined to achieve the
above. The measurement model indicated how the latent constructs are measured
concerning their observable indicators, the errors that affect that measurement.
The relationships are expected between the constructs when they are related. The
structural model represented a causal relationship and the graphical representation
that quickly estimated model parameters.
The assessment of the measurement model is a necessary step to determine the
reliability and validity of the study constructs. To achieve this, reliability indicators
such as Cronbach’s alpha and the composite reliability index (CFI), whose measures
must always be more signicant than 0.700, were calculated. Likewise, convergent
validity was performed using the average variance extracted (AVE), which should be
above 0.500. The discriminant validity of the model was measured by the explained
variance of each factor on the main diagonal. It was taken, and it was determined that
this was greater than the square of the correlations between the factors. The results in
Table 5 show acceptable values for reliability and convergent and discriminant validity
(Hair et al., 2014).
Artículos • Esthela Galván Vela, Victor Mercader, Rafael Ravina Ripoll
• 149 •
Table 5. Assessment of the measurement model
Discriminant validity Reliability and convergent validity
Ethic Individual
SM Social IE Cronbach’s
Alpha IFC AVE
Ethic 57.79 0.908 0.925 0.578
Individual So-
cial Mission 0.212 73.03 0.892 0.918 0.651
Social
Intrapreneurship 0.101 0.363 65.08 0.873 0.915 0.730
Own elaboration.
Once the measurement model was assessed, the structural model was evaluated
according to the absolute, incremental and parsimony t indicators. The procedure
was carried out by identifying the model, its t and the hypothesis contrast. Figure 1
shows the evaluated model.
Figure 1.Structural model
Regarding the identication of the model, it was found that all its parameters can be
identied using the rule of the degrees of freedom that must be superior to zero and
that deduces that this one presents parsimony adjustment. The degrees of freedom
for this model were g.l.= 149. The nal adjustment was carried out using Ji2 that in
the CB-SEM models is known as CMIN; this parameter must be at least twice the
value obtained in the degrees of freedom; Table 5 presents a CMIN of 430.19. It
should be noted that another indicator of global adjustment is the GFI. However, this
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 23 - 2023
• 150 •
parameter could not be estimated because the model required the analysis of means
and intercepts. Also, this indicator is sensitive to the sample size, so it has been
recommended not to declare it (Hooper et al., 2008).
Among other estimated values for the overall t is the root mean squared error of
approximation (RMSEA), representing the anticipated t to the total population value.
This test is known as the “badness test” since it pretends values close to zero. The
value obtained in this index was acceptable as it was 0.056.
We obtained the comparative t index among the incremental t measures, also
known as CFI. This indicator should be close to 1 and not less than 0.900, so the
model is considered acceptable in incremental t since 0.955 was obtained. Also,
the incremental adjustment index or IFI took a value of 0.956. In this exact item, the
Turkey Lewis index or TLI also showed an excellent incremental adjustment at 0.943.
Finally, an indicator of parsimony adjustment that overcomes the limitations of the Ji2,
which tends to decrease as parameters are adapted to the model, is the CMIN/DF
value, that is, the Ji 2 over the degrees of freedom. In this sense, the model presents
an adequate adjustment since values from 1 to 3 are considered optimal. Hence, an
indicator of 2.88 is acceptable.
Table 6.Model t
Fit index Expected value Obtained value Fix
CMIN Double the degrees of freedom 430.19, DF=149 Acceptable
RMS 0.05 < to > 0.08 0.56 Acceptable
IFC 0.90 - 1 0.955 Acceptable
IF 0.90 - 1 0.956 Acceptable
NFI 0.90 - 1 0.934 Acceptable
NNFI or TLI 0.90 - 1 0.943 Acceptable
CMIN/DF 1 < to > 3 2.88 Acceptable
Own elaboration.
Bentler (1990) proposed the recommended adjustment indices and Levy and Varela (2008).
Regarding testing the hypotheses put forward in this paper, Table 7 shows the
parameter estimates in the “effect” column between the social intrapreneurship
variable and the variables assumed as predictors (ethics and individual social
mission). It also considers the measurement error, the critical ratio, which results from
the estimation between the error parameters and must oscillate in values greater than
+/-1.96 and the signicance of the relationships.
Table 7.Hypothesis testing
Hypothesis Variables Effect SE. CR. P Contrast
H1 Social IE <-- Ethic 0.41 0.085 0.416 0.627 Rejected
H2 Social IE <-- Individual SM 0.832 0.068 12.177 0.000 Not
rejected
Own elaboration.
Artículos • Esthela Galván Vela, Victor Mercader, Rafael Ravina Ripoll
• 151 •
Hypothesis 1 that assumed a relationship between ethics and social intrapreneurship,
was rejected as there were no optimal CR levels; likewise, it was not signicant as
p > 0.05, so it cannot be assumed that these variables have an effect. However, the
individual social mission is a good predictor of social intrapreneurship, so hypothesis
2 of this study is not rejected. It is essential to mention that, although ethics does not
directly inuence social intrapreneurship, an estimated correlation of 0.509, i.e., a
high value, was found between ethics and the individual social mission of the workers.
5. Conclusions
This article contributes to the literature and corporate management in three ways.
First, it joins the stream of studies on social intrapreneurship, initiated at the beginning
of the 21st century, aiming to quantitatively demonstrate that this variable is highly
relevant for achieving competitive, innovative and sustainable organisations in
today’s digital era society. The second highlights the positive relationship between the
dimension’s social mission-social intra-entrepreneurship. So far, this issue has been
little explored by researchers. Based on what has been said, it can be noted that this
work can incorporate two novel aspects to the existing literature.
On the one hand, it is implementing both variables in the strategic decisions taken
by organisations. Both elements are vital for implementing internal models of
innovation, where job satisfaction and the social welfare of citizens are connected
with the guiding principles of the Sustainable Development Goals of the 2030 agenda.
Moreover, on the other, to enliven a line of research that deepens the statistical
analysis of this construct to design an organisational culture open to possessing a
more excellent vision of public service and organisational justice (Galván-Vela et
al.,2021b). Moreover, third, to show the absence of a signicant association between
ethics and social intrapreneurship. As noted in other sections of this article, it should
be noted that this nding cannot be veried with other types of studies due to the
lack of publications aimed at examining this link (ethics-social intrapreneurship).
Therefore, it can be stated that this phenomenon currently constitutes a new gap in
the business literature, especially for the disciplines of corporate social responsibility
and organisational leadership (Mercader et al., 2021).
This academic work, like any other, is not exempt from its corresponding theoretical
and methodological limitations. The rst is that the data used in this work come from
a single geographical and cultural area, generating common source inferential biases
in the ndings presented here. Perhaps this phenomenon could have been avoided
using other statistical tests (Kotabe et al., 2003). The second is associated with the
dimensions chosen to develop this academic work (social intrapreneurship, social
mission and ethics). These variables have in common their subjective and social
nature. As is well known, this complexity hinders, on the one hand, the empirical
analysis of their correlations, and on the other hand, the quantitative reliability of the
results achieved in this study, as well as the scientic validity of our structural equation
model, since it does not take into account other parameters of a psychosocial and
managerial nature. The third is our work’s cross-sectional design, which means that
causality cannot be derived directly.
By way of conclusion, we must also underline that the work to be undertaken in the
future should offer a more holistic view of social intrapreneurship in the era of Industry
5.0. Bearing in mind the models and management strategies that affect the behaviour
of this variable, for example, the attractive organisational culture of happiness
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 23 - 2023
• 152 •
management (Ravina-Ripoll et al., 2021a), which has been analysed in greater depth
in recent years (Nuñez-Barriopedro et al., 2019), as a result of the need for a more
holistic view of the topic of social intrapreneurship in the era of Industry 5.0, 2019), as
a result of the need to develop and implement people-oriented management models
and the pursuit of subjective well-being for the development of human talent and the
promotion of leadership and collaborative work (Ravina-Ripoll et al., 2019a).
In the same vein, researchers are invited to articulate models that empirically
demonstrate the effects of developing a positive organisational climate on trust,
safety, individual capability development, employee satisfaction, and psychological
well-being (Ravina-Ripoll et al., 2019b, 2021c). Based on this approach, emerging
scientic work can be carried out to empirically test unpublished theoretical models
that revolve around the concepts above and social intrapreneurship. Such ndings
can be benecial for administrations to design new public policies aimed at tackling
social and environmental problems under the innovation and happiness developed
within corporations. In this way, social intrapreneurship stimulates their human capital
(Ravina-Ripoll et al., 2021b).
References
Alt, E., & Geradts, T. (2019). Social intrapreneurship: Unique challenges and opportu-
nities for future research. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1,188. https://doi.
org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.188. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.188
Antoncic, B. (2007). Intrapreneurship: a comparative structural equation model-
ling study, Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(3), 309-325. https://doi.
org/10.1108/02635570710734244
Beckmann, M., Zeyen A. & Krzeminska A. (2014). Mission, Finance, and Innova-
tion: The Similarities and Differences Between Social Entrepreneurship and Social
Business. In A. Grove, & G. Berg G. (Eds). Social Business. Springer. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-642-45275-8_2
Berbegal-Mirabent, J., Mas-Machuca, M., & Guix, P. (2021). Impact of mission statement
components on social enterprises’ performance. Review of Managerial Science, 15,
705-724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-019-00355-2
Best, B., Miller, K., McAdam, R., & Moffett, S. (2021). Mission or margin? Using dynam-
ic capabilities to manage tensions in social purpose organisations’ business model
innovation. Journal of Business Research, 125, 643-657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2020.01.068
Bierwerth, M., Schwens, C., Isidor, R., & Kabst, R. (2015). Corporate entrepreneurship
and performance: A meta-analysis. Small Business Economics, 45(2), 255-278. htt-
ps://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9629-1
Bruder, I. (2020). A Social Mission is Not Enough: Reecting the Normative Foundations
of Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-020-04602-5
Cabana, Segundo R., Cortés, Felicindo H., Aguilera, Mauricio I., & Vargas, Felipe A.
(2018). Determinant Factors for Social Intrapreneurship: The Case of Engineering
Students at the University of La Serena, Chile. Formación Universitaria, 11(2), 87-98.
https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-50062018000200087.
Artículos • Esthela Galván Vela, Victor Mercader, Rafael Ravina Ripoll
• 153 •
Cacciolatti, L., Rosli, A., Ruiz-Alba, J. L., & Chang, J. (2020). Strategic alliances and rm
performance in startups with a social mission. Journal of Business Research, 106,
106-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.
Capella-Peris, C. Gil-Gómez, J., Martí-Puig, M., & Ruíz-Bernardo, P. (2020) Development
and Validation of a Scale to Assess Social Entrepreneurship Competency in Higher
Education. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 11(1), 23-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/1
9420676.2018.1545686
Castell-Gydesen, C., & Lugo, J. (2020). Ethics in entrepreneurship: Understanding how
entrepreneurs solve dilemmas, their perception of ethical considerations and the struc-
tures used during the resolution process. Department of Business Administration. htt-
ps://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/search/publication/9013170
Chen, C. X., Pesch, H. L., & Wang, L. W. (2020). Selection Benets of Below-Market Pay
in Social-Mission Organisations: Effects on Individual Performance and Team Coop-
eration. Accounting Review, 95(1), 57-77. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-52416.
Chou, D.C.. (2018). Applying design thinking method to social entrepreneurship project.
Computer Standards & Interfaces, 55, 73-79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2017.05.001.
Circle of Intrapreneurs (2021). Social Intrapreneurship. What it is, why it matters and what
it means for you.https://www.circleontrapreneurs.com/
Conger, M., McMullen, J. S., Bergman Jr, B. J., & York, J. G. (2018). Category member-
ship, identity control, and the reevaluation of prosocial opportunities. Journal of Busi-
ness Venturing, 33(2), 179-206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.11.004.
Cornforth, C. (2014). Understanding and combating mission drift in social enterprises.
Social Enterprise Journal, 10(1), 3-20. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-09-2013-0036.
Deprez, J., Leroy, H., & Euwema, M. (2018). Three chronological steps toward encour-
aging intrapreneurship: Lessons from the Wehkamp case. Business Horizons, 61(1),
135-145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2017.09.013.
Dwivedi, A., & Weerawardena, J. (2018). Conceptualizing and operationalizing the so-
cial entrepreneurship construct. Journal of Business Research, 86, 32-40. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.01.053
Do, TTP, &Luu, D.T. (2020). Origins and consequences of intrapreneurship with behaviour-
based approach among employees in the hospitality industry. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 32(12), 3949-3969. https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJCHM-05-2020-0491.
Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission
drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organisations. Research in Organisational
Behaviour, 34, 81-100.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2014.09.001.
Elert, N., Henrekson, M., & Sanders, M. (2019). The entrepreneurial society: a reform strategy
for the European Union. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-59586-2
Elisa, A., & Thijs, G. (2019). Social Intrapreneurship: Unique Challenges and Oppor-
tunities for Future Research. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1. https://doi.
org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.188
Escobedo, M. T., Hernández, J. A., Estebané, V., & Martínez, G. (2016). Modelos de Ecua-
ciones Estructurales: Características, Fases, Construcción, Aplicación y Resultados.
Ciencia & Trabajo, 18 (55), 16-22.
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 23 - 2023
• 154 •
Ezlegini, G., Kheirandish, M., & Asgari, N. (2017). The Impact of Knowledge Sharing on
Intrapreneurship through Studying the Moderating Role of Work Ethics in Tose’s Credit
Institute. International Journal of Business, Humanities and Technology, 6(4), 46-56.
Galván-Vela, E., & Sánchez, M. L. (2017). Autonomy and rewards as organizational
triggers of intrapreneurial activity. Revista Ciencias Administrativas, Teoría y Praxis,
2(13), 237-249.
Galván-Vela, E., & Sánchez, M. L. (2018). Conceptualization and characterization of in-
trapreneurship: an exploratory study. Revista Dimensión Empresarial, 2(16), 161-176.
https://doi.org/10.15665/dem.v16i2.1538.
Galván-Vela, E., Sánchez, M.L., & Santos, G. (2018). Determinants of intrapreneurial be-
haviour in companies in the northeastern of Mexico: an exploratory study. Journal of
Psychology and Behavioral Sciences of the Academic Unit of Juridical and Social Sci-
ences, 9(2), 6-29. https://doi.org/ 10.29365/rpcc.20181207-69
Galván-Vela, E., Arango Herrera, E., Sorzano Rodríguez, D. M., & Ravina-Ripoll, R.
(2021a). State-of-the-Art Analysis of Intrapreneurship: A Review of the Theoretical
Construct and Its Bibliometrics. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(148),
1-16. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14040148
Galván-Vela, E., Ravina-Ripoll, R., & Tobar-Pesantez, L.B. (2021b). A Structural Equa-
tions Model of Job Disengagement from the Constructs of Organisational Justice, Job
Satisfaction, Innovation And Trust In The Era of Industry 5.0. Journal of Legal, Ethical
and Regulatory Issues, 24(1), 1-12.
Galván-Vela, E., Sánchez, Y., Sánchez, M.L. & Ravina-Ripoll, R. (2022). Intrapreneuship
model in software industry. Quality and Quantity, 1(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11135-021-01309-1.
Gardiner, E., & Debrulle, J. (2021). Intrapreneurship and Wellbeing in Organisations.
SAGE publications.
Gamble, E. N., Parker, S. C., & Moroz, P. W. (2020). Measuring the integration of social
and environmental missions in hybrid organisations. Journal of Business Ethics, 167,
271-284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04146-3.
Gawke, J.C., Gorgievski, M.J., & Bakker, A.B. (2017). Employee intrapreneurship and
work engagement: A latent change score approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
100, 88-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.03.002.
Gerleve C. V. H., & Flatten, T. C. (2019). Developing Entrepreneurial Passion for Social
Mission. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1, 200-205. https://
doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.37.
Hair, J. F., Bush, R. P., & Ortinau, D. J. (2008). Marketing research. McGraw-Hill Higher
Education. https://doi.org/10.5585/bjm.v17i5.4173
Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Jour-
nal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(2), 139-152. https://doi.org/10.2753/
MTP1069-6679190202
Hair Jr, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G. (2014). Partial least squares
structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. Eu-
ropean Business Review. 26(2), 106-121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
Artículos • Esthela Galván Vela, Victor Mercader, Rafael Ravina Ripoll
• 155 •
Jeworrek, S., & Mertins, V. (2021). Mission, motivation, and the active decision to
work for a social cause. Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 1-19. https://doi.
org/10.1177/08997640211007206
Kannothra, C., Manning, S., & Haigh, N. (2018). How Hybrids Manage Growth and Social-
Business Tensions in Global Supply Chains: The Case of Impact Sourcing. Journal
Business Ethics, 148, 271-290. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3585-4.
Kearney, C., Hisrich, R.D., & Antoncic, B. (2013). The mediating role of corporate en-
trepreneurship for external environment effects on performance. Journal of Business
Economics and Management, 14 (1), 328-357. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.201
2.720592.
Kotabe, M., Martin, X., & Domoto, H. (2003). Gaining from vertical partnerships: knowl-
edge transfer, relationship duration, and supplier performance improvement in the US
and Japanese automotive industries. Strategic Management Journal, 24(4), 293-316.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.297.
Kuran, O. (2017). Contribution of Seam to the Alignment of Student Affairs Mission with the
University Social Mission. Academy of Management. Annual Meeting Proceedings, 1,
1-6.https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2017.98.
Kuratko, D. F., & Audretsch, D. B. (2013). Clarifying the domains of corporate entrepre-
neurship. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 9 (3), 323-335.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-013-0257-4.
Kuratko, D. F., McMullen, J. S., Hornsby, J. S., & Jackson, C. (2017). Is an organisa-
tion conducive to the continuous creation of social value? Toward a social corporate
entrepreneurship scale. Business Horizons, 60(3), 271-283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bushor.2016.12.003.
Marques, C.S., Lopez, C., Braga, V., Ratten, V., & Santos, G. (2021). Intuition and ration-
ality in intrapreneurship and innovation output: The case of health professionals in
primary health care. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11365-021-00761-7.
McGaw, N., & Malinsky, E. (March,2020). Unlocking the Potential of Corporate Social Intra-
preneurship: A Call to Scholars. Aspen, USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3577762
Mercader, V. (May 2006). Study of ethical values of college students. Florida, USA. https://
digitalcommons.usf.edu/etd/2629
Mercader, V. M. (2017). Relationship of Productivity, Ethics, Decision Making and Happi-
ness. International Journal of Management and Finance. 10(6),87-104.
Mercader, V., Vela, E. G., Ravina-Ripoll, R., & Popescu, C. R. (2021). A focus on ethical
value under the vision of leadership, teamwork, effective communication and produc-
tivity. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(11), 522. https://doi.org/10.3390/
jrfm14110522. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm14110522
Muñoz, P., & Kimmitt, J. (2019). Social mission as competitive advantage: A conguration-
al analysis of the strategic conditions of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business
Research, 101, 854-861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.044
Nandan, M., Singh, A., & Mandayam, G. (2019). Social Value Creation and Social Innova-
tion by Human Service Professionals: Evidence from Missouri, USA. Administrative
Sciences, 9(4), 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9040086
Anduli • Revista Andaluza de Ciencias Sociales Nº 23 - 2023
• 156 •
Neessen, P.C., Caniëls, M.C., Vos, B. et al. (2019). The intrapreneurial employee: to-
ward an integrated model of intrapreneurship and research agenda. International
Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 15(2), 545-571.https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11365-018-0552-1
Núñez-Barriopedro, E., Ravina-Ripoll, R., & Ahumada-Tello, E. (2020). Happiness per-
ception in Spain, a SEM approach to evidence from the sociological research center.
Quality & Quantity, 54(3), 761-779.
Okun, O., Arun, K., & Begec, S. (2020). Intrapreneurship and expectations constraints.
Entrepreneurial Dimension, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.15665/dem.v18i2.2181.
Osorio-Vega, P. (2019). The Ethics of Entrepreneurial Shared Value. Journal Business
Ethics, 157, 981-995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3957-4.
Pandey, J., Gupta, M., & Hassan, Y. (2021). Intrapreneurship to engage employees: role of
psychological capital. Management Decision, 59(6) 1525-1545.https://doi.org/10.1108/
MD-06-2019-0825
Prexl, K. (2019). The intrapreneurship reactor: how to enable a start-up culture in corpora-
tions. Elektrotechnik & Informationstechnik, 136(3). 234–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00502-019-0727-7
Rahdari, R.A., Sepasi, S., & Moradi, M. (2016). Achieving sustainability through Schum-
peterian social entrepreneurship: The role of social enterprises. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 137. 347-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.159.y.
Raisiene, A., & Urmanavičienė, A. (2017). Mission drift in a hybrid organisation: How can
social business combine its dual goals? Ekonomski vjesnik: Review of Contemporary
Entrepreneurship, Business, and Economic Issues, 30(2), 301-310.
Ramus, T., & Vaccaro, A. (2017). Stakeholders matter: How social enterprises address
mission drift. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(2), 307-322. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-014-2353-y
Ravina Ripoll, R., Tobar Pesantez, L. B., Núñez-Barriopedro, E. (2019a). Happiness Man-
agement and creativity in the XXI century. Editorial. Comares Granada
Ravina-Ripoll, R., Núñez-Barriopedro, E., Evans, R. D., & Ahumada-Tello, E. (2019b,
June). Employee happiness in the industry 4.0 era: insights from the Spanish indus-
trial sector. In 2019 IEEE Technology & Engineering Management Conference (TEM-
SCON) (pp. 1-5). IEEE.
Ravina-Ripoll, R., Foncubierta-Rodríguez, M. J., & López-Sánchez, J. A. (2021a). Cer-
tication Happiness Management: an integral instrument for human resources man-
agement in post-COVID-19 era. International Journal of Business Environment, 12(3),
287-299. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBE.2021.116606
Ravina-Ripoll, R., Tobar-Pesantez, L. B., Galiano-Coronil, A., & Marchena-Domínguez,
J. (Eds), (2021b). Happiness Management and Social Marketing: A Wave of Sustain-
ability and Creativity. Peter Lang.
Ravina-Ripoll, R., Nunez-Barriopedro, E., Almorza-Gomar, D., & Tobar-Pesantez, L. B.
(2021c). Happiness Management: A Culture to Explore From Brand Orientation as a
Sign of Responsible and Sustainable Production. Frontiers in Psychology, 12.
Artículos • Esthela Galván Vela, Victor Mercader, Rafael Ravina Ripoll
• 157 •
Rey-Martí, A., Ribeiro-Soriano, D., & Palacios-Marqués, D. (2016). A bibliometric analysis
of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 69. 1651-1655. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.10.033
Sanders, M. L., & McClellan, J. G. (2014). Being business-like while pursuing a social mis-
sion: Acknowledging the inherent tensions in US nonprot organising. Organisation,
21(1), 68-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508412464894.
Schmitz, B., & Scheuerle, T. (2012). Founding or Transforming? Social Intrapreneurship
in three German Christian-based NPOs. ACRN Journal of Entrepreneurship Perspec-
tives, 1(1), 13-33.
Siegner, M., Pinkse, J., & Panwar, R. (2018). Managing tensions in a social enterprise: The
complex balancing act to deliver a multi-faceted but coherent social mission. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 174, 1314-1324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.076
Staessens, M., Kerstens, P. J., Bruneel, J., & Cherchye, L. (2019). Data envelopment
analysis and social enterprises: Analysing performance, strategic orientation and
mission drift. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 325-341. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-018-4046-4.
Syrjä, P., Puumalainen, K., Sjögrén, H., Soininen, J., & Durst, S. (2019). Entrepreneurial
orientation in rms with a social mission-a mixed-methods approach. Cogent Business
& Management, 6(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2019.1602016.
Stevens, R., Moray, N., & Bruneel, J. (2015). The social and economic mission of social
enterprises: Dimensions, measurement, validation, and relation. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 39(5), 1051-1082. https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fetap.12091
Turró, A., Urbano, D., & Peris-Ortiz, M. (2014). Culture and innovation: The moderating
effect of cultural values on corporate entrepreneurship. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 88, 360-369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.10.004
Venn, R., & Berg, N. (2013). Building competitive advantage through social intrapreneur-
ship. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research, 2(1), 104-127. https://doi.
org/10.1108/20454451311303310.
Vilá, O., & Bharadwaj, S. (2017). Competing on Social Purpose: Brands That Win by Tying
Mission to Growth. Harvard Business Review, 95(5), 94-101.
Winter, V., & Thaler, J. (2016). Does motivation matter for employer choices? A discrete-
choice analysis of medical students’ decisions among public, nonprot, and for-prof-
it hospitals. Nonprot and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(4), 762-786. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0899764015597784
© 2023 por los autores. Licencia a ANDULI, Editorial
Universidad de Sevilla. Es un artículo publicado acceso
abierto bajo los términos y condiciones de la licencia “Cre-
ative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivar 4.0
Internacional”
