Managing Global Transitions International Research Journal issn 1854-6935 · www.mgt.fm-kp.si editor in chief Jana Hojnik, University of Primorska, Slovenia, jana.hojnik@fm-kp.si coeditor in chief Egon Žižmond, University of Primorska, Slovenia, egon.zizmond@fm-kp.si associate editors Çagri Bulut, Yasar University, Turkey, cagri.bulut@yasar.edu.tr Dean Fantazzini, Moscow State University, Russian Federation, fantazzini@mse-msu.ru Klemen Kavcic, University of Primorska, Slovenia, klemen.kavcic@fm-kp.si Suzana Laporšek, University of Primorska, Slovenia, suzana.laporsek@fm-kp.si Viktor Prokop, University of Pardubice, Czech Republic, viktor.prokop@upce.cz editorial board Jani Beko, Univerza v Mariboru, Slovenia, jani.beko@uni-mb.si Heri Bezic, University of Rijeka, Croatia, bezic@efri.hr Guido Bortoluzzi, University of Trieste, Italy, guido.bortoluzzi@deams.units.it David L. Deeds, University of St. Thomas, usa, david.deeds@gmail.com Evan Douglas, Griffith Universitiy, Australia, e.douglas@griffith.edu.au Henryk Gurgul, agh University of Science and Technology, Poland, henryk.gurgul@gmail.com András Inotai, Hungarian Academy of Scien­ces, Hungary, inotai.andras@krtk.mta.hu Felicetta Iovino, University of Sannio, Italy, fiovino@unisannio.it HunJoonPark, Yonsei University, South Korea, hjpark@yonsei.ac.kr Renata Karkowska, University of Warsaw, Poland, rkarkowska@wz.uw.edu.pl Tanja Kosi Antolic, Institute of Macroeco­nomic Analysis and Development, Slovenia, tanja.kosi-antolic@gov.si Leonard H. Lynn, Case Western Reserve University, usa, leonard.lynn@case.edu Monty Lynn, Abilene Christian University, usa, monty.lynn@coba.acu.edu Tatiana S. Manolova, Bentley University, usa, tmanolova@bentley.edu Massimiliano Marzo, University of Bologna, Italy, massimiliano.marzo@unibo.it Judita Peterlin, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, judita.peterlin@ef.uni-lj.si Mirjana Pejic Bach, University of Zagreb, Croatia, mpejic@efzg.hr Sanja Pekovic, University of Crna Gora, Montenegro, psanja@ac.me Sandra Penger, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia, sandra.penger@ef.uni-lj.si Zdenko Prohaska, University of Rijeka, Croatia, zdenko.prohaska@efri.hr José Solana Ibánez, Technical University of Cartagena, Spain, jose.solana@cud.upct.es Marinko Škare, University of Pula, Croatia, mskare@unipu.hr Nada Trunk Širca, International School of Social and Business Studies, Slovenia, trunk.nada@gmail.com Šárka Velcovská, Technical University of Ostrava, Czech Republic, sarka.velcovska@vsb.cz Manfred Weiss, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Germany, m.weiss@jur.uni-frankfurt.de indexing and abstracting Managing Global Transitions is indexed/ listed in the InternationalBibliography of the Social Sciences, EconLit, ibz Online, doaj, Erih Plus, EconPapers, Cabell’s, ebsco, and ProQuest. ManagingGlobalTransitions InternationalResearchJournal volume 19 · number 2 · summer 2021 · issn 1854-6935 105 An Ability to Survive Disruptions: Findings from Three Finnish Manufacturing Companies’ Supply Challenges during the covid-19 Pandemic Pasi Rönkkö, Aleksi Isopoussu, Jukka Majava, and Osmo Kauppila 127 Corporate Social Responsibility and Its Reporting From a Management Control System Perspective Edward T. Vieira, Jr., Susan Grantham, and Susan D. Sampson 145 Determining the Mediating Effects of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy on the Relationship between Organizational Antecedents and Entrepreneurial Orientation Boris Urban and Lehlohonolo Maswabi 167 Analysis of Selected Aspects of an Organisation: The Organisation as an Instrument, an Interest Group and as a Process Dušan Gošnik and Klemen Kavcic https://doi.org/10.26493/1854-6935.19_2 aims and scope Managing Global Transitions (mgt) is a quarterly, scholarly journal that covers di­verse aspects of transitions and welcomes research on change and innovation in incre­asingly digitalized and networked economic environments, from a societal, organizati­onal, and technological perspective. mgt fosters the exchangeof ideas, experience, and knowledge among developed and de­veloping countries with different cultural, organizational, and technological traditions. mgt invites original scientific, research, and review papers advancing the field of transitions in societies, organizations, and technologies. topics covered Transitions in Societies • Geo-political transitions, transition expe­riments, pathways and mechanisms • Social, demographic, cross-cultural, ethical, geo-political and security aspects of transitions • Social change, prosperity, wellbeing, happiness • Policy making, government regulation, social responsibility • Knowledge-based society and world futures •New and emerging metrics for measu­ring, assessing and evaluating societal transitions Transitions in Organizations • Organizationalanalysisanddesign,mo­deling, developments and changes in organizational learning and behavior • Internationalstrategyandstrategicallian­ces, networked businesses and operations • Entrepreneurship and leadership, deci­sion making • Knowledge sourcing and innovation management, personal development, education and training, hrm • Business systems and business models • Connective intelligence and collective intelligence in organizational behavior Transitions in Technologies • Managing technological/organizational change and innovation • Technology networks, technology trans­fer benefits and risks, technology acquisi­tion and diffusion •Smart technologies and development discontinuities and sustainability • Digitalization, iot, ict, cybernetics, forecasting • Technological traditions, strategic sur­prise and response systems • Studies that promote understanding of the dynamics of socio-technical systems change • Science and technology policy that fo­sters transformative advancement • Modeling technological change in vuca (volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous) environments submissions The manuscripts should be submitted as e-mail attachment to the editorial office at mgt@fm-kp.si. Detailed guide for authors and publishing ethics statement are availa­ble at www.mgt.fm-kp.si. editorial office University of Primorska Faculty of Management Izolska vrata 2, 6000 Koper, Slovenia mgt@fm-kp.si · www.mgt.fm-kp.si published by University of Primorska Press Titov trg 4, 6000 Koper, Slovenia zalozba@upr.si · www.hippocampus.si Copy-edited by Susan Cook. Revija Managing Global Transitions je na­menjena mednarodni znanstveni javnosti, izhaja v anglešcini. Received: 11 February 2021 · Accepted: 19 March 2021 Published online: 22 June 2021 An Ability to Survive Disruptions: Findings from Three Finnish Manufacturing Companies’ Supply Challenges during the covid-19 Pandemic Pasi Rönkkö Jukka Majava University of Oulu, Finland University of Oulu, Finland pasi.ronkko@oulu.fi jukka.majava@oulu.fi Aleksi Isopoussu Osmo Kauppila University of Oulu, Finland University of Oulu, Finland isopoussu.aleksi@gmail.com Luleĺ University of Technology, Sweden · osmo.kauppila@oulu.fi Being multinational and complex, global supply chains may be extremely vulnerable to sudden crises, such as the recent covid-19 pandemic. In addition to issues related to the health and lives of people, the pandemic has also had negative impacts on supply chains, and many companies de­pendentonthemhavebeenstruggling. The ability to recover fromdis­ruptions is called resilience. In this study, the resilience of supply chains is evaluated by studying three globally operating Finnish b2b manufac­turingcompaniesduringthe covid-19pandemic.Theempiricalresearch was conducted by interviewing the companies’ supply chain and purchas­ingoperationsrepresentatives,analysingtheresultsandcomparingthere­sultstotheliterature.Asaresult,essentialmethodstosurviveduringcrises and increase the resilience of supply chains were discovered. The results can be utilised in preparing for future crises. Key Words: resilience, supply chains, disruption, global crises, covid-19 jel Classification: l9,f23,d81 https://doi.org/10.26493/1854-6935.19.105-126 Introduction In 2020, the world faced a huge disruption in the form of the covid­19 pandemic. covid-19 affected the lives and health of people, but also haddirectand indirecteffects oncompaniesbecauseofrestrictions,low­ering consumption or stalling economies, which directly affected global trade(Kraus etal. 2020; Wilding, Dohrmann, andWheatley2020).As a preventive action, many businesses and factories were closed during the pandemic (Rio-Chanona et al. 2020). Negative effects have also been recognised in the global economy, industries and individual businesses, politics,the way welive and interact, and supplychains around the globe (Wilding, Dohrmann, and Wheatley 2020). This has caused disruptions intheoperationsofcompaniesbecausemostindustriesdependonglobal supply chains (Kraus et al. 2020). The global coronavirus pandemic has not been the only crisis in mod­ern history (Giansoldati and Gregori 2018; Kraus et al. 2020; Manuj and Mentzer 2008). For example, before covid-19, one of the most-studied severe crises was the Fukushima disaster (Matsuo 2015; Park, Hong, and Roh 2013; Todo, Nakajima, and Matous 2014). Usually, disruptions such as natural disasters or terrorist attacks have brought changes to opera­tions, safety or other issues of companies (Gibb and Buchanan 2006); suddennaturaldisastershaveespeciallyshownthevulnerabilitiesofsup­ply chains (Manuj and Mentzer 2008). The riskmanagement ofsupplychainshasbeenstudied(Jüttner, Peck, and Christopher 2003; Manuj and Mentzer 2008; Tang 2006), but in the current study the context is the covid-19 pandemic-the longest-lasting and most severe crisis this century. Studies on supply chain resilience in the covid-19contextareemerging(Belhadietal.2021;Golan,Jernegan, and Linkov 2020; Ivanov and Dolgui 2020; van Hoek 2020) and studies on the pandemic and its influences on different types of businesses, such as family businesses (Kraus et al. 2020) and small businesses (Bartik et al. 2020) exist, but there is a need for further research in different geo­graphical areas, industries and specific functions, such as supply chain management. Finlandhasauniquegeographicalposition:aremoteloca­tion from its main markets (Ministry of Transport and Communications Finland 2005) and a strong trade and export orientation, with interna­tional trade accounting for a third of its gdp (International Trade Ad-ministration2020).Thus,thecountryisstronglydependentontheglobal economy. In addition, Finnish companies greatly depend on global sup­ply chains. The present study aims to increase the scientific knowledge on man­agingthevulnerabilitiesinsupplychainsandonsurvivingdisruptionsin the global manufacturing industry. We focus on the supply operations of threegloballyoperatingFinnish b2b manufacturingcompanies.Tosup-port the aims of the current study, the following research questions are posed: rq1 Whatkindsof vulnerabilities anddisruptions were identified inthe supply chain operations of the studied companies? rq2 What were the key methods to cope with these vulnerabilities and disruptions? The present study is qualitative and includes both literature and em­pirical analyses. The data collection took place during 2020 and thus the covid-19 pandemic formed the context forthe study, butthe studyfo­cusedalsoongenericvulnerabilitiesofthecasecompanies’supplychains. Thefirstsectionincludesthestudy’sbackground,objectivesandresearch questions. The second section presents related literature, that is, supply chain risk management and supply chain resilience (scres). The third section describes the research methods, and the fourth section presents theresults.Thefifthsectionincludesthediscussion,withtheconclusions being presented in the sixth section. Literature Review Many companies operate globally because of opportunities for high spe­cialisation, wider market area, labour and material costs, tax abatements or having an interest in international product, capital or factor markets (Manuj and Mentzer 2008). Companiesmay also have unique abilities to manufacture certain products, thus being able to generate international demand (McMillan 1990). To meet this demand, goods are usually pro­duced and delivered through supply chains; sociotechnical networks to identify,targetandfulfilacertaindemand;aprocesstodecidewhat,when and how much should be movedwhere (Davis 1993); or the management of supplies, suppliers, inventory and distribution (Goffin, Szwejczewski, and New 1997). Global supplychains require highly coordinated flowsof goods, information, cash and services (Manuj and Mentzer 2008), mak­ing them vulnerable to disruptions and highlighting the importance of managing risk and resilience. risks of supply chains Globalsupplychainsand networksmaybeextremely vulnerable because ofthegrowinginterdependenceofcompanies(Tukamuhabwaetal.2015), longerpathsandshorterclockspeedsandoverallcomplexity,allofwhich can increase the probabilities for disruptions and create smaller error margins (Kleindorfer and Saad 2005). Thus, one disruption may affect and lower the capacity of the entire supply chain (Manuj and Mentzer 2008). Supply chain risks have been divided into specific categories: low-impact and high-impact risks (Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and We 2014), Risk(s) Author(s) Poor supplier performance, reliability and Manuj and Mentzer (2008) logistical risks Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and We (2014) Forecasterrorsandchallengesincoordi-ChristopherandLee(2004) nating supply and demand Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and We (2014) Obsolescence Christopher and Lee (2004) Manuj and Mentzer (2008) Inadequate availability of materials and Manuj and Mentzer (2008) components, stock-outs, overstocking, precision of the components and materials and lack of accuracy Increaseddependencyofitnetworks, CerulloandCerullo(2004) human errors and utility disruptions Uncertain economic cycles and customer Tang (2006) demands, jit (just-in-time) Hidden risk Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and We (2014) table 2 High-Impact Risks Risk(s) Author(s) Natural disasters, political upheavals and Cerullo and Cerullo (2004) strikes Kleindorfer and Saad (2005) Manuj and Mentzer (2008) Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and We (2014) Terrorist attacks Cerullo and Cerullo (2004) Kleindorfer and Saad (2005) Tukamuhabwa et al. (2015) Economic disruptions Kleindorfer and Saad (2005) Manuj and Mentzer (2008) Competitive and infrastructure risks Manuj and Mentzer (2008) Factory fires Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and We (2014) Changesinenterprises GibbandBuchanan(2006) quantitative and qualitative risks (Manuj and Mentzer 2008), external or natural and man-made risks (Tukamuhabwa et al. 2015; Tang 2006) or risks related to disruptions in normal activities (Kleindorfer and Saad 2005).Therisksrelatedtobusinessesarepresentedintable1,whereasthe high-impact risks are presented in table 2. Poor supply and demand coordination (Christopher and Lee 2004; table 3 Risk Mitigation Tools Risk mitigation tools Author(s) Excessive inventories and inventory man-Christopher and Lee (2004) agement Kraljic (1983) Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and We (2014) Tukamuhabwa et al. (2015) Operating with multiple manufacturing Kraljic (1983) plants and production lines Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and We (2014) Relocating inventories, sourcing and pro-Wilding, Dohrmann, and Wheatley duction lines (2020) Supplier selection, building logistics capa-Tukamuhabwa et al. (2015) bilities, risk managementculture, supply chain collaboration, supply network struc­ture and visibility System flexibility, strategic partnering Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and We (2014) with suppliers, long-term contracts with penalty clauses and using standardised components on product structures Manufacturing multiple products Kraljic (1983) Simchi-Levi,Schmidt,and We2014)mayleadtoabullwhipeffect,which maydistort the actualproductdemand. Here, a ripple effect is the impact of disruption propagation through a supply chain (Dolgui, Ivanov, and Sokolov 2018). Hidden risk (Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and We 2014) means thatthetotalspendingonthesupplierisrelativelylow,buttherisk’sfinan­cial impactishigh.Changesin operations,suchas automation,downsiz­ing, process re-engineering or outsourcing may also introduce new risks (Gibb and Buchanan 2006). Supply chain risks have traditionally been managed by evaluating the magnitude and likelihood and business impacts of risks and locations, and configurationoftechnologicalassets(Simchi-Levi,Schmidt,and We 2014).Wilding,Dohrmann,andWheatley(2020)statethatitisimportant to know where the suppliers of all tiers are located. The risk potential of traditional events may be evaluated by using historical data, but it is hardtopredicthigh-impactrisksthathavealowprobabilityofoccurring (Simchi-Levi,Schmidt,andWe2014).Supplychainriskscanbemitigated bytransferring themthroughinsuranceandoutsourcing,orminimising, reducing, eliminating, absorbing or avoiding them (Gibb and Buchanan 2006). The risk mitigation tools are presented in table 3. Although excessive inventories and inventory management are of­ten mentioned (Christopher and Lee 2004; Kraljic 1983; Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and We 2014; Tukamuhabwa et al. 2015), Christopher and Lee (2004) add that supply chain risk mitigation methods may lead to finan­cial risks because of obsolete inventory. risks in supply operations Supply operations and supplier management may be a significant com­petitiveness factor, particularly if a company relies a lot on supplied ma­terials and components (Goffin, Szwejczewski, and New 1997; Kraljic 1983). Good suppliers may also help in new product development, and through achieving better delivery performance through process devel­opment (Goffin, Szwejczewski, and New 1997; McMillan 1990), supply security can be improved (Kraljic1983). Thus, suppliers may have a huge influence on a company’s success or failure (Goffin, Szwejczewski, and New 1997). Regarding supply strategies, single sourcing, the reduction of the sup­plier base and long-term supplier relationships have been preferred in manufacturing to effectively manage suppliers, increase quality and ob­tain economic benefits (Goffin, Szwejczewski, and New 1997; McMil­lan 1990). However, single sourcing is a risk (Wilding, Dohrmann, and Wheatley 2020); here, dual or multisourcing methods are usually pre­ferred to mitigate supplier risks (McMillan 1990; Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and We 2014). Alternative options also exist, such as singlesourcing with back-ups (Goffin, Szwejczewski, and New 1997) to enable the benefits of having few suppliers while reducing risks. Another popular approach is the just-in-time (jit) method, which requires only a few suppliers that are located close to the buyer’s plant, close cooperation and frequent de­liveries (Gunasekaran 1999). The focus of supplier risk mitigation is usually on the suppliers of the strategiccomponentsthatoftendependonasinglesupplier(Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and We 2014). The preferred and available sourcing strategies depend on power relations (Kraljic 1983). When buyers are stronger, the strategies may include reducing their own inventories, spot buying and minimising logistics costs. In the case of equality, the operations include optimisingandbalancingandbufferstocks.Ifthesupplierisstronger,the supply is ensured by contracts. Business continuity management (bcm) is an enterprise-wide ap­proachtoriskidentification,mitigationandrecovery(GibbandBuchanan 2006); it relates closely to supply risks and resilience. As a tool to deliver products despite crises (Gibb and Buchanan 2006), bcm includes a risk analysis, selection of mitigation strategies, monitoring and control, im­plementation, testing, education and training, and review (Cerullo and Cerullo2004;GibbandBuchanan2006;Lam2002).CerulloandCerullo (2004) highlight the importance of testing and training employees to reveal the vulnerabilities of the continuity plan and increase employee performance during disruptions. supply chain resilience scres refers to a supply chain’s ability to recover from a disruption and move either back to the original or a totally new state (Pettit, Croxton, and Fiksel 2019; Ponomarov and Holcomb 2009). Here, resilience is the ability tosurvive,adapt and growinthe faceofcrises, anditconsistsof twofactorsthatneedtobebalanced:vulnerabilitiesandcapabilities(Pet-tit, Croxton, and Fiksel 2013). Tukamuhabwa et al. (2015, 5599) concisely define scres as: ‘The adaptive capability of a supply chain to prepare for and/or respond to disruptions, to make a timely and cost-effective recovery, and therefore progress to a post-disruption state of operations-ideally,abetterstatethanpriortothedisruption.’ scresmaybevitalfor immediate survival (Cerullo and Cerullo 2004), but it is also critical as a sourceofalong-termcompetitiveadvantagebecauseaproperresponseto a disruption may improve a company’s market position (Tukamuhabwa et al. 2015). A resilient supply chain should be flexible because the new state may differ from the original state (Ponomarov and Holcomb 2009), and its elements may change in response to a disruption (Tukamuhabwa et al. 2015). When it comes to recovering, supply chains should have the ca­pabilities to anticipate, monitor, respond and learn (Hollnagel 2009), the latter of which will tend to result in increased scres (Tukamuhabwa et al.2015).However,flexibility may also incurcosts. Indeed, Jüttner, Peck and Christopher (2003, 203) mention: ‘Flexibility is often sacrificed for costreduction.’JüttnerandMaklan(2011)statethepossiblethreatsrelated to scres,suchassharingsensitiveinformationandusingmultisourcing strategies,which maylead toliquidity risk.Ifexcessive amounts ofre-sources are used to mitigate irrelevant risks, the profits of the company maybeeroded(Pettit,Croxton,andFiksel2013). Additionally,Baghersad and Zobel (2021) find that larger firms are more resilient to supply chain disruptions than smaller firms because they tend to be able to absorb the scres capability Description factor Supply network The structure is the most suitable for the operations and supply structure chain environment. Operations are dispersed to many factories and production lines (Kraljic 1983; Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and We 2014; Wilding, Dohrmann, and Wheatley 2020). Visibility,speed Thevisibilityenablesreal-timeactionsifcrisesoccur. Changescan and flexibility be made quicklytoenable recovery(Cerulloand Cerullo2004; Tukamuhabwa et al. 2015), and structures are flexible to adapt and enable changes in supply chains (Ponomarov and Holcomb 2009; Tukamuhabwa et al. 2015). Resilientprac-Resilienceisbuilt,forexample,bychoosingtherightsuppliers tices in supply and suitable supply methods (Goffin, Szwejczewski, and New operations 1997; McMillan 1990), with increased inventory levels and buffers (Christopher and Lee 2004; Kraljic 1983; Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and We 2014). Collaboration Effective communication and collaboration in the supply chain with all the stakeholders, mutual objectives and sharing knowledge related to supplied items and processes (Tukamuhabwa et al. 2015). Cultureofre-Buildingpreparednessbymitigationstrategiesandplans,recovery silience practices,simulationsandpersonneltrainings(CerulloandCerullo 2004; Gibb and Buchanan 2006; Tukamuhabwa et al. 2015). risksbecauseofmoreresources,whereassmallerfirmsmaybemoreagile and recover faster. This literature review can be summarised as a set of the key capability factors of scres and their definitions. They are presented in table 4 and are used asthe basis ofthe empiricalpartof the research presented inthe next sections. Research Process A case study method was utilised in the current research; it is a use­ful method when studying contemporary phenomena that cannot be af­fected by the researcher and looking atthese phenomena in a broad con­text (Yin 2003). Based on the literature review presented in the second section, a semistructured interview guide (Appendix 1) was created to understand the general practices, patterns of material and information flows and the current practices of managing vulnerabilities and disrup­tionsofthreecasecompanies.Fromeachofthesethreegloballyoperating manufacturingcompanies,keypersonsrelatedtosupplychainoperations table 5 Case Companies and Interviewees Company Revenue Personnel Industry Roles of the inter­viewed Company 1 (c1) >2 billion € >10,000 in more than 40 countries Maritime, Defence and Aerospace, and Digital Development manager, Operative purchaser, Sourcing manager, Strategic purchaser, and Supply chain man­ager Company 2 (c2) >500 mil­lion € >3,000 in sev­eral countries Electronics, contract man­ufacturer Value chain director and Material and logis­tics manager Company 3 (c3) >3 billion € >15,000 in more than 50 countries Fluid engi­neering and related tech­nologies Category special­ist, Logistics man­ager, Operative pur­chaser/Workflow man­ager, Purchasing man­ager, and Operative purchasing manager (table 5) were interviewed. The interviewees had the opportunity to fa­miliarisethemselveswiththeinterviewguidebeforehand. Theinterviews were transcribed and then analysed to identify key concepts and issues, commonalities and juxtapositions. Results Theinterviewfindingswerecategorisedaccordingtothe scres capabil­ity factors presented in table 4. Abbreviations c1, c2 and c3 are used to indicate the companies described in table 5. supply network structure All the case companies have global supply networks, and one common supply location is China. Additionally, domestic and Italian suppliers are preferred by c1, whereas c3 is sourcing globally, mostly from Europe, South Korea, India and the usa. All transportation modes are used (c1, c3), but c2 prefers air freight. The transportation mode used varies de­pending on location, urgency, price, lead time and the type of compo­nent (c1). Air freight availability and the high price were identified as challenges during the pandemic (c2, c3). Some air transportations were shifted to rail and road (c2), but c1 had disruptions even in train deliv­eries because of closed borders. Multiple-tier supply chains and long lead times were considered vul­nerabilities because of decreasing visibility (c1, c3). For example, c3’s supply chain may consist of up to four tiers of suppliers, making the network very complex. Failures in critical engineered components with long manufacturing times were considered risks (c1, c3). c1 had recog­nisedthedisruptionsrelatedtomaterialshortages,machinebreakdowns, transportation disruptions and the financial challenges of suppliers. visibility, speed and flexibility Visibilitywasseenasimportant,anditwasevidentthatalackofvisibility exists in supply chains. Challenges existed in obtaining real-time logisti­cal information (c1, c2, c3), which was seen as a potential risk because of slower reactions to sudden changes (c1, c2). For example, gps track­ing of train deliveries (c1) was used, but in most cases, ‘information was only received if the arrival times changed or shipments were stuck’ (c1). The problems were usually investigated manually if the goods did not arrive on time (c2). c3 used a manually updated shared folder with the logistics operators and purchasers to track deliveries.However, real-time information was not available. Deliveries were often confirmed manually, and after that, the compa­nies did not have the visibility or capabilities to track the state of the pur­chase orders (c1, c2); however, c3 used mostly automatic confirmation, and c2 had a goal of shifting from manual to automatic order confir­mation. Pilot projects were also conducted to increase the visibility in thesupplynetworkandimprovetraceability(c2, c3). c2sawthat ‘better visibility would enable more realistic delivery schedules and changes in them.’ Another solution for better real-time visibility was the integrated services of logistics providers (c2). Database interfaces and electronic datainterchanges (edis) wereused between the suppliers and buyers in the cases of c1 and c3 to manage the order log, confirm the orders and provide real-time information re­lated to orders, but with smaller suppliers, the purchase orders and con­firmations were done via e-mail and confirmed manually in the Enter­prise Resource Planning system (erp). However, changes in purchasing orderswerenotpossiblefor c1,andanychangeshadtobedoneviae-mail or phone. In particular, c1 and c2 used a lot of manual data transfer by Excel sheets, even though c1 had recognised information distortions re-latedtothis. c1 sentsomepurchaseordersvia erp,butanautomaticsys­tem to send purchase orders did not exist. Challenges also existed when it came to getting the purchase requests at the right time through the or­dering process to meet the demand (c3). c1 achieved speed by using instructions and checklists to consider therequiredactionsandsharingresponsibilities. c1’scrisismanagement team had mandates to appoint a recovery team consisting of key man­agement team members. The importance of flexibility among suppliers wasaddressedtorearrangeproductionplansandleadtimesandfindnew supply options to ensure continuous material flows during disruptions. The inflexibility of logistics partners was recognised as a challenge in deliveries (c3). resilient practices in supply operations Tomitigateriskscriticalcomponents’delivery,stockbufferswerebuiltfor certain suppliers (c1) and risky regions (c2), but there were also strate­gic alignments made for reducing inventory levels (c3). Higher inven­torycostswerecoveredbyaservicefeefromcustomerssothatfasterlead timescouldbeprovided(c2).Therisksrelatedtolatedeliveriesweremit­igated by having materials delivered in advance before production (c3). Single suppliers were not usually preferred (c1, c3), except when it came to c2, which had some reactive backup options, such as spot pur­chasingandhigherpaymentsforsuppliers.Othercompanies,suchas c3, were using spot purchasing only on rare occasions. The purchasing vol-umesof c2 werelow,andamajorityofcomponentswerepurchasedfrom distributors. Single sourcing vulnerabilities were recognised, especiallyif the prod­ucts were tailored, the supplier had intellectual property rights (ipr) re­lated to the products (c1), or the customers demanded using the com­ponents of a certain supplier (c2). iprs prevented other manufacturers frommanufacturingcertainitems,andthedemandforusingcertainsup-pliers limitedthe selection of suppliers. The supply practices of the com­panies with several business units varied; for example, c3 had no strate­gic alignments for using certain suppliers or components companywide. c1 typically used two to three suppliers per component, whereas the numberofsuppliersof c3 variedbetweenoneandfive. c2 and c3 aimed to reduce the suppliers of some components. If many suppliers for a cer­tain component existed and the needs for those components varied, pur­chases were usually split (c3). If customer demand suddenly increased, finding sufficient capacity was usually challenging. Besides multisourcing (c1, c3), the companies prepared for disrup-tions by having a wide supplier base (c3), geographical dispersion be­tween suppliers, active communication and building better relationships with the suppliers (c2, c3), audits at the suppliers to discover and solve challenges together (c3), purchase contracts, and a continuous evalua­tion of current and new suppliers (c1, c3). If there were disruptions in the supply, alternative options were immediately looked for (c3). For ex­ample, c2 usedlocalcontactpersonsinforeigncountriestovisitthesites andlookforoptionalsupplysources.Theevaluationofsupplierswasseen as important because of quality challenges and safety issues. ‘Poor qual­itycomponentscansometimesleadtotemporarysalesbansorsignificant penalty fees’ (c3). In addition, c1 had experienced late deliveries related to subsupplier disruptions. Overall, product complexities vulnerable to many defects were detected (c3). Long-termpartnershipswerepreferredby c1.Specifictermswereused in the contracts to force suppliers to deliver confirmed orders in all cir­cumstances (c2, c3), and ‘better service was ensured by frame agree­ments with higher costs’ (c2). Component refilling methods, such as Kanban, were used in c1 and c2 to automatically fill some needs. collaboration Cooperationwith customers was carried outto ensure sufficientcapacity ofsubsuppliers(c1, c2 and c3),but c3 highlightedthatclearandtrans-parent communicationwithcustomers, especiallyin a moment of uncer­tainty, was challenging. c2 had also faced challenges in communication related to the inaccurate forecasts provided by customers, which led to relatively high inventory levels. Performance levels and risk mitigation procedures were actively presented to customers to create trust and vis­ibility, but customers also inquired about the supplier risks and supply continuity (c2). Supplier cooperation was exercised to solve supply challenges (c1). It was common for larger suppliers to inform the companies immediately about the changes, whereas smaller suppliers communicated changes later (c3). Joint weekly reviews of the supply issues were performed to enable efficient information sharing, and urgency and severity measure­ments were executed and communicated within the organisations glob­ally (c3). Active communication, supplier evaluations and audits were generally recognised as important activities (c1, c2 and c3), especially with problematic and risky suppliers. c1 considered quality and delivery reviewsasimportant. c3 hadoutsourcedsomemanufacturingprocesses, and some challenges related to communication were identified. Managing Global Transitions culture of resilience Risk reviews and mitigation plans were used to assess the risks in sup­ply chains and prepare for them. The reviews included the financial re­views of suppliers, category reviews including single-source risk reviews and quality and delivery reviews. Simulations and regular exercises were conducted to test plans and preparation for unexpected scenarios and to provide useful feedback and improvement ideas, which was considered importantfor better readinessof the employees(c1). c3 wasalsoran­domly ordering excessive amounts of components on purpose to test the capacities of suppliers. All companies used cross-functional crisis management teams, espe­ciallyduringthe covid-19pandemic.Additionally, c3 hadasmallqual­ity organisation for doing root-cause analysis of disruptive events and past crises and sharing the information to related functions. However, c3 did not have clear roles or defined structures for solving disruptions, whereas c1 had defined ownership of the actions and well-defined roles. c3 preferredfrequentdiscussionsbetweendifferentfunctionsduringun­certain timesandaimed todevelopbetter disruptionmanagement struc­tures. c2 arrangedcrisismanagementteammeetingsonaweeklybasistoin­spect material availability of the factories, certain suppliers and affected customers, using an action list; in addition, the management of differ­ent factories communicated on a weekly basis the problems and current performancelevels. c1 didnothavecommonriskmitigationprocedures with their suppliers, but they had some simple risk management proce­dureswithlogisticsoperators. Thecreationofrecoveryplanswasconsid­eredchallengingbecausedisruptiontypesvaryandaplanthatistoogen­eralisnotuseful(c1).c3 sawthattherewasalackofstrategicalignments that could enable better management of unexpected changes. c3’s differ­ent business units operated independently without any clear assessment ofvulnerabilitiesandmitigationplans. c1 alsohadplanstodemandbusi­ness continuity plans and risk evaluations from suppliers. Discussion key vulnerabilities and disruptions Researchonsupplychainresilienceinthecontextof covid-19isemerg­ing(Belhadietal.2021;Golan,Jernegan,andLinkov2020),andthisstudy contributesbyprovidingadditionaland geographic-specificinformation through real-life findings; a research gap identified by both Ivanov and Dolgui (2020) and van Hoek (2020). The most common challenges re-latedto supplychainvulnerabilities were relatedto adecreased availabil­ity of components, it systems and lack of visibility, delivery challenges and long lead times. Some supplier factories were closed temporarily in risky regions at the beginning of the covid-19 pandemic. Rio-Chanona etal. (2020) find the same issue,butaccordingtoourfindings,somesup-pliers’ capacities have decreased even in the long term. Some suppliers may have closed their operations because of low demand, but some may have shifted the production to more profitable goods or goods necessary for national security of supply. The findings also indicate price increases for engineer-to-order (eto) components, which could be the case of a high-impactdisruption,thatis, covid-19,triggeringanothermajorrisk that affects global competition. Our findings also show that the case companies suffered from inad­equate it systems, which did not enable real-time information sharing with the suppliers. Thus, supply disturbances were often not reacted to until the deliveries were late. This finding complements the results of Tukamuhabwa et al. (2015), who see the lack of visibility as a key sup-plychainriskfactor. Thestudiedcompanieshadsignificantchallengesin it connections,whichincreasedtheneedformanualdatatransfer. With better visibility and real-time information sharing, the companies could better anticipate and reconfigure the production schedules in time and give more realistic promises to customers, see e.g. Kauppila, Välikangas and Majava (2020). Kleindorfer and Saad (2005) recognise that there is less room for er­rors because of longer supply chains and shortened clock speeds. Our results support this claim, especially with multitier supply chains. Be-sidesincreasedprices,anotherrareeffectwasthedecreasedavailabilityof air transportation. Thelimitedavailabilityandmoreexpensiveairfreight affected the companies’ costs and pricing. In some cases, customers ac­cepted the price change butnot in allcases.Itwas also foundthat some previously common components, such as electric motors and sensors, suddenly became critical. It is interesting to note that these vulnerabilities all relate to busi­ness risks (table 1) that correspond to the risks presented by Manuj and Mentzer (2008), Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and We (2014) and Cerullo and Cerullo(2004). This couldbeseenasanindication thatthe recognition of high-impact risks and building resilience has not yet been realised, despite the impact of covid-19. key methods for mitigating vulnerabilities and disruptions Common solutions in the studied companies during disruptions in­cluded increased warehouse levels and buffer inventories, which have been recognised in several studies (Christopher and Lee 2004; Kraljic 1983;Simchi-Levi,Schmidt,andWe2014;Tukamuhabwaetal. 2015).An­othermethodwastousemultisourcing,whichhasalsobeendiscussedby McMillan (1990) and Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and We (2014). The studied companies preferred to have three to five suppliers for one component, butthiswasconsideredchallengingandexpensive,andtherewereaimsto reduce the number of suppliers. Using multisourcing may be expensive, especially fortailored components, becauseitleads to smallerbatches and special set-up costs (McMillan 1990). In our study, single sourcing, especially for critical components, was identifiedasa risk. Thisis alsosupported by Wilding, Dohrmann, and Wheatley (2020). Still, both multisourcingand increased warehouse lev­els may increase costs, and higher inventory levels may lead to obsoles­cence (Christopher and Lee 2004). On the other hand, a lack of certain components may shut production lines, which is an example of hidden supply risks (Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and We 2014). Our study also iden­tified a geographical dispersion in sourcing as a method to mitigate re­gional risks (Wilding, Dohrmann, and Wheatley 2020). The studied companiesalso utilised crisis teams consistingofkey per-sonsfromdifferentfunctions,whichisinlinewiththeliterature(Cerullo and Cerullo2004; Gibband Buchanan2006). Frequentinternal commu­nication between different functions was used to ensure sufficient mate­rial flows between factories during uncertain times. Checklists, clear ac-tionplansandthewell-definedrolesofdifferentemployeeswereusedfor corrective actions during the disruptions. However, it was also identified that actions should be more proactive for better preparedness. The im­portance oftraining ofthe employees was identified in the results,which is also stressed by Cerullo and Cerullo (2004). In our study, simulations wereidentifiedto enablebetter preparedness toworkduringstressfulsit­uationsandtestandchallengeactionplanstofindweaknesses,something that could be further emphasised in scres research. Building better re­lationships and close cooperation with different stakeholders in the sup-plychain,especiallyusingvulnerabilityassessmentsthatincludethemost importantpartners,wereidentifiedasimportanttoimprovetheabilityto make real-time corrective actions during disruptions, whichis similar to the findings of Simchi-Levi, Schmidt, and We (2014). Finally, it was seen asimportanttounderstandthecapabilitiesofdifferentsuppliers.Thisre­lates to supplier management and supply network planning that can be identified asrisk mitigationmethods, asproposedby, forexample, Tuka­muhabwa et al. (2015). Conclusions Globalsupplychainshaveaninherentvulnerability todisruptions,as the covid-19pandemichasshown.Inthecurrentarticle,westudiedthevul­nerabilities and disruptions in supply chains of three Finnish b2b man­ufacturing companies and what types of methods can be used to address them. Some common issues were identified in the analysis of the case com­panies’ supply chains. These included decreased capacities of suppliers, increased vulnerability because of multiple supplier tiers or reliance on few suppliers and decreased responsiveness because of a lack of visibility inthesupplychain.Anoteworthyfindingwasnotonlythatmaterialflows were disrupted during the covid-19 pandemic but that some suppliers’ capacity seems to have decreased, even in the long term. The most common methods to address the vulnerabilities and dis­ruptions were increasing inventory levels for critical components, trans­ferring from single-to dual-or multisourcing and decentralisation of the supply chain to mitigate country-specific disruptions. In addition, supplier collaboration was increased to share real-time information and identify common risks. The results support previous research, yet the covid-19 pandemic context also revealed unique vulnerabilities and disruptions. In terms of reliability and validity, the current study utilised the case study method, which results in some natural limitations in terms of the generalizabil­ity of the findings. Despite careful design, data collection, and analysis by multiple researchers, it must be noted that the study included only three companies in different industries and with different supply chains. Therefore, further studiesarerecommended tovalidateand comparethe findings in different types of industries and companies. The research did not address systemically how the risks could be reduced in the case of a covid-19 type of crisis, which could be a topic for further research. An­other potential topic for further studies would be the use of more local and circular supply to improve resilience. Could resilience be improved by replacing complex multinational supply chains with more effective utilisation of materials and local solutions? Acknowledgments Theauthorswouldliketothanktheintervieweesfortheirvaluableinsights. Thisstudy is a partoftheReboot IoTFactoryproject. We alsothankBusi­ness Finland and other project funders. References Baghersad, M., and C. W. Zobel. 2021. ‘Assessing the Extended Impacts of SupplyChainDisruptionsonFirms:AnEmpiricalStudy.’International Journal of Production Economics 231 (c). https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j .ijpe.2020.107862. Bartik, A. W., M. Bertrand, Z. Cullen, E. L. Glaeser, M. Luca, and C. Stan­ton.2020. ‘TheImpactof covid-19onSmallBusinessOutcomesand Expectations.’ pnas 117 (30): 1765–6. Belhadi, A.,S.Kamble, J. S. C. Charbel, A. Gunasekaran, N. O. Ndubisi, and M. Venkatesh. 2021. ‘Manufacturing and Service Supply Chain Resilience to the covid-19 Outbreak: Lessons Learned from the Au­tomobile and Airline Industries.’ Technological Forecasting and Social Change 163:120447. Cerullo,V.,andM. Cerullo. 2004. ‘BusinessContinuity Planning:ACom­prehensive Approach.’ Information Systems Management 21 (3): 70–8. Christopher,M.,andH.Lee.2004.‘MitigatingSupplyChainRiskThrough ImprovedConfidence.’ International Journal of Physical Distribution& Logistics Management 34 (5): 388–96. Davis, T. 1993. ‘Effective Supply Chain Management.’ Sloan Management Review 34 (4): 35–46. Dolgui, A., D. Ivanov, and B. Sokolov. 2018. ‘Ripple Effect in the Supply Chain:AnAnalysisandRecentLiterature.’InternationalJournalofPro­duction Research 56 (1–2): 414–30. Giansoldati, M., and T. Gregori. 2018. ‘Trade Collapses and Trade Slow-downs:EvidencefromSomeCentralandEasternEuropeanCountries.’ Managing Global Transitions 16 (1): 3–18. Gibb, F., and S. Buchanan. 2006. ‘A Framework for Business Continuity Management.’InternationalJournalofInformationManagement 26(2): 128–41. Goffin, K., M. Szwejczewski, and C. New. 1997. ‘When Fewer Can Mean More.’ International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Man­agement 27 (7): 422–36. Golan,M.S.,L. H.Jernegan,andI.Linkov. 2020.‘TrendsandApplications of Resilience Analytics in Supply Chain Modeling: Systematic Litera-ture Review in the Context of the covid-19 Pandemic.’ Environment Systems and Decisions 40 (2): 222–43. Gunasekaran, A. 1999. ‘Just-in-time Purchasing: An Investigation for Re-searchand Application.’ International Journal inProduction Economics 59 (1–3): 77–84. Hollnagel,E.2009. ‘Prologue:TheScopeofResilienceEngineering.’In Re­silience Engineering in Practice: A Guidebook, edited by E. Hollnagel, J. Pariés,D. D. Woods,andJ.Wreathall,xxix–xxxix. Farnhamn:Ashgate. International Trade Administration. 2020. ‘Finland – Country Commer­cialGuide.’https://www.trade.gov/knowledge-product/finland-market-overview. Ivanov,D.,andA.Dolgui.2020.‘ViabilityofIntertwinedSupplyNetworks: Extending the Supply Chain Resilience Angles towards Survivability.’ International Journal of Production Research 58 (10): 2904–15. Jüttner, U., and S. Maklan. 2011. ‘Supply Chain Resilience in the Global FinancialCrisis:AnEmpiricalStudy.’SupplyChainManagement 16(4): 246–59. Jüttner,U.,H.Peck,andM.Christopher.2003.‘SupplyChainRiskManage­ment: Outlining an Agenda for Future Research.’ International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications 6(4): 197–210. Kauppila, O., K. Välikangas, and J. Majava. (2020). ‘Improving Supply Chain Transparency between a Manufacturer and Suppliers: A Tri­adic Case Study.’ Management and Production Engineering Review 11 (3): 84–91. Kleindorfer, P. R., and G. H. Saad. 2005. ‘Managing Disruption Risks in Supply Chains.’ Production and Operations Management 14 (1): 59–68. Kraljic, P. 1983. ‘Purchasing Must Become Supply Management.’ Harvard Business Review 61 (5): 109–17. Kraus S., T. Clauss,M.Breuer, J. Gast, A.Zardini, and V. Tiberius. 2020. ‘The Economics of covid-19: Initial Empirical Evidence on How Family Firms in Five European Countries Cope with the Corona Cri­sis.’ International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour Research 26 (5): 1067–92. Lam, W. 2002. ‘EnsuringBusinessContinuity.’ it Professional 4(3): 19–25. Manuj,I.,andJ.T.Mentzer.2008.‘GlobalSupplyChainRiskManagement.’ Journal of Business Logistics 29 (1): 133–55. Matsuo, H. 2015. ‘Implications of the Tohoku Earthquake for Toyota’s Co-ordinationMechanism:SupplyChainDisruptionofAutomotiveSemi­conductors.’InternationalJournalofProductionEconomics161(c):217– 227. McMillan,J.1990.‘ManagingSuppliers:IncentiveSystemsinJapaneseand U.S. Industry.’ Californian Management Review 32 (4): 38–55. Ministry of Transport and Communications Finland. 2005. Strengthening Finland’s logistics Position: An Action Programme. N. p.: Ministry of Transport and Communications. Park, Y. W., P. Hong, and J. J. Roh. 2013. ‘Supply Chain Lessons from the CatastrophicNaturalDisasterinJapan.’BusinessHorizons 56(1):75–85. Pettit, T. J., K. L. Croxton, and J. Fiksel. 2013. ‘Ensuring Supply Chain Resilience: Development and Implementation of an Assessment Tool.’ Journal of Business Logistics 34 (1): 46–76. ———.2019.‘TheEvolutionofResilienceinSupplyChainManagement:A RetrospectiveonEnsuringSupplyChainResilience.’JournalofBusiness Logistics 40 (1): 56–65. Ponomarov, S. Y., and M. C. Holcomb. 2009. ‘Understanding the Concept ofSupplyChainResilience.’ TheInternationalJournalofLogisticsMan­agement 20 (1): 124–43. Rio-Chanona,R.M.,P.Mealy,A.Pichler,F.Lafond,andJ.D.Farmer.2020. ‘Supply and Demand Shocks in the covid-19 Pandemic: An Industry and Occupation Perspective.’ covid Economics Vetted and Real-Time Papers, no. 6, 65–103. Simchi-Levi, D.,W.Schmidt, andY. Wei. 2014.‘From SuperstormstoFac­tory Fires: Managing Unpredictable Supply-Chain Disruptions.’ Har­vard Business Review 92 (1–2): 96–101. Tang, C. S. 2006. ‘Perspectives in Supply Chain Risk Management.’ Inter­national Journal of Production Economics 103 (2): 451–88. Todo,Y., K. Nakajima,and P. Matous.2014. ‘How Do Supply ChainNet-works Affect the Resilience of Firms to Natural Disasters? Evidence from the Great East Japan Earthquake.’ Journal of Regional Science 55 (2): 209–29. Tukamuhabwa, B. R.,M.Stevenson, J.Busby,and M. Zorzini. 2015.‘Sup­plyChainResilience:Definition,Review and TheoreticalFoundations for FurtherStudy.’ International Journal of Production Research 53 (18): 5592–623. van Hoek, R. 2020. ‘Research Opportunities for a More Resilient Post­covid-19 Supply Chain: Closing the Gap between Research Findings and Industry Practice.’ International Journal of Operations & Produc­tion Management 40 (4): 341–55. Wilding, R.,K.Dohrmann, andM. Wheatley. 2020.‘Post-Coronavirus SupplyChainRecovery:TheJourneytowardstheNewNormal.’Deutsche Post dhl Group.https://www.dhl.com/global-en/home/insights-and­innovation/thought-leadership/white-papers/post-coronavirus-supply­chain-recovery.html. Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed. Thou­sand Oaks, ca: Sage. Appendix: InterviewGuide Pre-assignment:please read these questions before the actual interview. 1 supply network a Describebrieflywhatkindofstructureyouhaveinyoursupplychain. b Howdoesinformationmovebetweentheseparts(e.g.howdoyoure­ ceiveconfirmationsorstatusupdates)?Forexample,byemail,phone, website? c Do you have bottlenecks in your information systems where data needs to be transferredmanually? 2 inbound process 2.1 Procurement a Describe briefly your sourcing model. • Which countries do you have sourcing from? • Howmanysuppliers,onaverage,doyouhavepereachcomponent? • Do you have specific contracts (e.g. fixed-period contractual com­mitment to supply a certain amount of material with certain lead times and regularities)? • Do you have a backup supplier option? How do you keep low vol­ume suppliers interested? b Describebrieflyyourpurchasingprocess(e.g.howdoyousendapur-chasing order to a supplier?). c Howarethepurchasingdecisionsmade?Whatisthelevelofautoma­tion in purchasing decisions? d What kind of system/practice do you have to keep track of the status of a purchasing order? e What are the current challenges? What is your most critical compo­nent? 2.2 Inbound Logistics a Whatmode(s)oftransportationdoyouuse?Whataretheleadtimes? Based on which factors is the mode of transportationchosen? b Is your company responsible for organising the inbound logistics of the purchased materials? If yes, what kind of booking procedure/system do you have (e.g. do you have contractual 3rd party logistics providers, extranet booking system)? Do you plan the routing of logistics by yourself (e.g. pre­ferred countries for customs clearance)? Ifnot,canyouchoosethetransportmodefromthesupplierbasedon e.g. price and lead time? cHow do you track the deliveries? d What are the current challenges? 3 disruption Disruption is a manifestation of a vulnerability, an unanticipated event, thatharmsthe normaloperationalroutinespossiblyaffectinglargerentity of a sc. For example, a truck breaking down, a supplier’s workforce going onstrike,asuppliergoingoutofbusinessorapandemicaffectinginbound material flow. 3.1 Disruption Mitigation Process 3.1.1 Internal Processes aPreparation • What are the methods that you use to anticipate and prepare for potential disruptions? bResponse • What are the first steps taken after the impact of a disruption? • What are the key roles or methods you execute during recovery operations? • Do you inform your partners or other inner organisations of cur­rent or projected disruption? • Areyourpreparednessplansusedduringrecovery? • What are the current challenges? 3.1.2 Suppliers/Customers a Are your suppliers/customers helping you to build disruption pre­paredness? If not, how should they do that? b Are your suppliers/customers helping to respond to a disruption event? If not, how should they do that? c Are your suppliers/customers providing you any insights into future events or trends? If not, how should they do that? 3.2 What kind of disruptions are typical in your operations? Can you rate different parts of the supply network in terms of vulnerability to disruptions? Are there any example(s) to share of a disruption event? 3.2.1 Before Disruption a When and how was the disruption first identified? b How did it actually begin? Did you have any warning? c Who (in what roles) were the first persons to identify the problem? Who else was affected? 3.2.2 Severity of Impact of the Disruption a What was the immediate impact of the disruption? b Did any of your sc partners notice or face any negative impacts caused by the event? 3.2.3 During and After the Disruption a What was the initial response to the disruption? Was this completely successful? b Didanyofyouractionsmaketheproblemevenworse? c Was your primary concern the time length of the impaction or the severity of disruption? d Can you quantify the negative results caused by the disruption (e.g. financial, lead times)? e Once the disruption was resolved, were there any takeaways to im­prove the system for the future? f Doyouhaveacontrolroomtolocatedisruptions?Ifyes,canyoupro­vide more information? Received: 25 March 2021 · Accepted: 15 April 2021 · Published online: 22 June 2021 Corporate Social Responsibility and Its Reporting From a Management Control System Perspective Edward T. Vieira, Jr. Simmons University, usa edward.vieira@simmons.edu Susan Grantham University of Hartford, usa grantham@hartford.edu Susan D. Sampson Simmons University, usa susan.sampson@simmons.edu Corporatesocialresponsibility(csr)isaresponsetostakeholderconcerns and signals organisational legitimacy. We propose csr reporting from a comprehensive and integrated management control system perspective. Reportingparametersstartwithstatedpeople,planet,andprofitgoalssup­portedby objectivesachievedthroughlegal,ethical/moral,economic,and giving practices. Objectives are measured, assessed, and reported through key performance indicators. These objectives are quantified, sufficiently specific, have a timeline, and identify targeted stakeholder group(s). csr strategy and its reporting are consistent with organisational mission, val­ues, and strategy. csr, like most business processes, is a dynamic process occurring over time and adjusting to circumstances sometimes involving trade-offs. csr reporting ideally reflects this process through providing context and visual depictions of goals, practices, and performance eval­uation that demonstrate not only a single period in time, but also trends thatmaypresentamorecompletepictureofanorganisation’scsr perfor­mance. csr reporting parameters are proposed. Key Words: csr disclosure, csr reporting, csr Management Control System, csr performance evaluation jel Classification: m14, m31, m37, m30, m16 https://doi.org/10.26493/1854-6935.19.127-144 Introduction Ifacorporatesocialresponsibility(csr)messageistobeeffective,itmust beviewedascredible. Credibilitystartswiththemessagesourceandthen extends to the message, eventually developing a bidirectional, transac­tionalrelationshipofinfluencebetweensenderandreceiver. Whatmakes a message credible starts with it being believable. And, what makes a be­lievable source is related to previous and current actions as well as mes­sage content. In thecaseof thispaper, the source is the organisation and the message is its csr reporting. We broadly use the term organisation as representing corporations,companies, firms, non-profits, and govern­mental entities. Credibility stems from perceived trust and competence (Vieira 2019), whicharecloselyrelated.Bothmustbepresenttoachievecredibility,and the exercise of competence lays the groundwork for trust. Trust comes when promises are delivered and when shortfalls are disclosed in a spirit oftransparency. Whencommunicatingwithkeystakeholdersabouttheir concerns, having credibility goes a long way to facilitate and maintain goodwill and legitimacy with them. Credibility is about stakeholders be­lieving that csr efforts are responsive to their expectations, sincere, and effectively contribute to the betterment of humanity in some way. Our proposed reporting parameters centre on organisationswho have the resources required to develop and implement a comprehensive csr plan. These types of organisations have management control systems (mcs) in place to operate, manage, and evaluate various aspects of oper­ations, including the execution of csr plans. An mcs provides a com­prehensiveandintegratedsystemthatofferstheopportunitytoefficiently and effectively manage ongoing and dynamic processes in proactive and reactive ways relevant to environmental conditions (Winkler 2010). An mcs assures a systematic and effective approach to achieving optimal and sustainable results. csr as a major functional contributor to corporate mission faces two major challenges, partly owing to the lack of mcss and the challenges of integrating the many stakeholder interests into a unified system that is part of, and consistent with, the overall business strategy as are other functionalanddivisionalareassuchasfinance,sales,manufacturing,sup­ply chain management, operations management, information technol­ogy, human resources, international divisions, and so forth. Their inter­nal nature places them at the discretion of management. First, csr is a response to external as well as internal stakeholders’ concerns and ex­pectations, which can come into conflict with internal as well as exter­nal parties such as community stakeholders advocating for a company-supported costly social program that may not yield any direct or imme-diate benefits to the organisation. Second, there is the nature and level of disclosure. csr is presented as an annual report available to the general public accessible via a website. Stakeholder reactions to the annual csr reportmakemanagementparticularlyconcernedaboutwhatispresented andtowhatdegree. Althoughtherehasbeenpressurefor csr disclosure toprovidemorerelevant information(BonsonandBednarova2015;Lock 2015), many reportscontinue topresent goals and ‘good deed’practices, with little emphasis on the degree to which goals and benchmarked ob­jectives have been achieved within a given timeline. We propose a comprehensive, practical, and mcs-based framework for reporting csr that meets stakeholders’ expectations. Utilising this framework to report csr presupposes the deployment of mcs in csr andrequiresanunderstandingof csr intheoperationalcontextof mcs. We begin with a review of the literature, focusing on what has been done with csr-mcs in practice and what has not been researched. We then describe our proposed csr-mcs reporting framework in sufficient de­tail including the steps required to implement this system. Review of Related Literature Althoughmostpubliclytradedcorporationsvoluntarilydisclose csr ac­tivities, the lack of comprehensiveness, consistency, standards, and qual­ity of reporting has been called into question (Albertini 2019; Bouten et al. 2011; Font et al. 2012; Lock 2015). Many companies fall far short of disclosure requirements recommended by third-party organisations like gri, iso,andothers(Escrig-Olmedo,Fernandez-Izquierdo,andMunoz-Torres 2010; Hickman and Cote 2019). Researchsuggeststhatthelackofcomprehensivenessandtransparency reportingmightbeowingtomanagement’sundueinfluenceondisclosure (Bonson and Bednarova 2015), the perception that stakeholders want or should be given concrete and straightforward content that is easily pro­cessed (Arjaliesand Mundy2013; Coombsand Holladay2009; Crilly, Ni, and Jiang 2016), the focus on financial and accounting metrics, empha­sis on prioritised stakeholders (Arvidsson 2010; Costa and Torrecchia 2018; Escrig-Olmedo, Fernandez-Izquierdo, and Munoz-Torres 2010), and pending legal actions (DeTienne and Lewis 2005). Additionally, because of trade-offs and decisions involving short-term (within the csr annual reporting cycle) cost for uncertain long-term gain,sustainabilityisachallengeforsome csr-relatedefforts(Federand Weibenberger 2019; Hahn et al. 2010). The benefit is often viewed as ab-stract and uncertain, unlike the immediacy of short-term gains, which areconcrete,easilypresented,andperhaps,inpart,whysimplyreporting practices and good deeds are appealing and often disclosed (Hopwood 2009). Inadditiontothedearthofcomprehensive csr disclosure,researchin this area has focused on the benefits of csr reporting, the different lev­els and nature of practices relevant to stakeholders’ varied expectations, differences in management’s agenda, the interaction between stakehold­ers and management, and general descriptions of csr efforts (Gond et al. 2012; Herremans and Nazari 2016; Laguir, Laguir, and Tchemeni 2019; Schonher, Findler, and Martinuzzi 2017). Moreover, the research on re­porting csr from a mcs perspective is virtually non-existent, with em­phasis on general constructs (Rinawiyanti, Huang, and As-Saber 2020). Yet, research deploying and integrating csr into control systems, and reporting their efforts and outcomes is important in an ever increas­inglycomplexworld(Battagliaetal. 2016). Consequently,thispaperpro-poses a sufficiently detailed and integrated mcs approach for reporting csr which offers an opportunity for transparency and for contributing to the credibility of the reporting organisation in the eyes of its stake­holders. This framework presupposes the existence of an operating csr mcs. Without such a system, sufficiently full and transparent csr dis­close cannot take place. Our framework offers reporting details includ­ing types of sustainable csr goals available, types of benchmarked ob­jectives established that serve as the basis for outcome assessment, and categoriesof csr practicesutilizedtoattaingoals.Reportingthesecom­ponents presents a detailed, comprehensive, and transparent picture of an organisation’s good faith csr efforts. What is csr? We start with a conceptual definition. Then, we discuss operational csr parameters, which are the basis for reporting because they serve as con­crete evidence of an organisation’s effort and performance at meeting stakeholders’ expectations. conceptually, what is csr? We define csr as: ‘organisational actions that take into account stake­holders’ expectations concerning economic, social, and environmental performance’ (Aqueveque, Rodrigo, and Duran 2018, 223). This process extends from the short-term to sustainable long-term. These expecta-tions require controls necessary to reach, maintain, and adjust them ac­cordingly (Deegan 2002; Hickman and Cote 2019). The process facili­tates favourable perceptions from relevant stakeholders. To sustain these efforts and favourableoutcomesrequiresthe flexibility to addressshift­ing priorities, the availability of resources, trade-offs such as short-term cost for long-term benefit situations (Johnstone 2018; Munoz-Torres et al. 2009), competing and changing stakeholders’ interests, realigning or-ganisationalculture,changingleadership,andahostofotherinternaland external conditions (Hooghiemstra 2000; Jahdi and Acikdilli 2009). csr is an organisation’s response to address stakeholders’ concerns, which involves reporting efforts and performance outcomes. Stakehold­ers are individuals, groups, and/or organisations who are affected by the organisation’s operations and/or who can affect the organisation’s opera­tions (Freeman 1984; Parmar et al. 2010). Stakeholderscanbeclassifiedasprimaryorsecondary(Metcalfe1998). Primary stakeholders are those parties without whose continued par­ticipation the organisation could not survive. Secondary stakeholders are those parties whose interaction is not required for the organisation to survive. Additionally, research suggests that not all stakeholders are equal (Johnstone 2018) and that some are valued more depending on the industry or sector. In the food, pharmaceutical, and energy indus­tries, Shnayder and Rijnsoever (2018) found such differences. Gubova et al. (2017) discovered differences in prioritising stakeholders among metallurgical/glass building, printing, food business, and machinery in-dustries.Aqueveque,Rodrigo,andDuran(2018) foundthatstakeholders stemming from an organisation’s core business were valued more espe­cially if this involves some essential aspect of regular operations. Find­ings of a study by Cooper et al. (2001) suggest that those organisations that directly interact with individual consumers tend to focus their csr attentiononcustomerstakeholders. SweeneyandCoughlan’s(2008) csr reporting research of the financial services, medical pharma, health and beauty pharma, telecommunications, automobile, oil and gas, and retail industries discovered references to corporate responsibilities directed at a variety of stakeholders that varied across sectors. operationally, what is csr? How csr moves from an aspirational idea to reality requires an organ-ised system in place that guides and controls the process and activities, andprovidesforcontinuousfeedbacksothattheimplementationof csr is adjusted and sustained in accordance with ultimate goals. In other words, the idea of csr becomes concrete and measurable once it is op-erationalised. This system is an mcs. mcss are formal and informal structures, in-cludingpracticesandreporting,putinplacebyabusinesstocomparethe goals and strategy of the organisation against the actual outcomes both nonfinancial and financial on an ongoing basis. This comparison is then reviewedand usedtodrivemanagerial decisionsacrossmultiplelevels of the organisation (Arjalies and Mundy 2013; Cresti 2009). If csr reportingistobetransparentandlegitimateintheeyesofstake­holders, not only goals and good deeds must be reported, but perfor­mance outcomes as well. Outcomes that meet expectations as well as those that fall short must be disclosed. In sum, it is a matter of what the companyintendstodo,howitwilldoit,andwhetherthecompanydidit­allcriticaltocomprehensiveandtransparent csr (CostaandTorrecchia 2018; Johnstone 2018). Reporting centred on comprehensive and mcs-based csr requires not only the operation of such a system, but a clear understanding of it. Therefore, borrowing from mcs principles, the following covers our proposed reporting framework, including the steps required for report­ing and an illustration. • Goals. These are what we hope to attain or achieve and can be generalor fairlyspecific (Vieira2019).Inprinciple, csr goals are reachedthroughethicaloperatingpracticesthatmeetsociallymean­ingful standards and stakeholder expectations in a manner consis­tentandsupportiveoftheorganisationalmissionandbusinessstrat­egy. Sustainable csr occurs at the intersection of People, Planet, and Profit goals (Carroll 1991; 2016; Elkington 1994). • People. This type of goal involves adding value to individuals’ lives and contributing to societyindifferent ways.Contributions include providing jobs and training; offering safe working conditions; pay­ing taxes used to support society; developing innovations, includ­ing technologically-based; and offering attractive healthcare bene­fits, family leave policies, and desirable pension options. • Planet. Environmental goals involve the maintenance of natural en­vironmental capital (Goodland 1995) addressing both conservation and pollution mitigation. Some areas of attention are global warm­ing,greenengineering andchemistry, airandwaterquality,alterna- tives to depleting natural resources, ecosystems, resource integrity, and addressing pollutants. • Profit. Economic goals focus on sustainable financial and economic viability such as profit, maintaining cash flow, paying taxes, raising capital,providingcost-effectiveandcompetitivelypricedgoodsand services, supply chain integrity, and offering attractive owners’ eq­uity. Profit goalsfocus on businessstrategy andmission,integrating csr (Massung et al.2013; Parmar et al.2010). Insum, csr captures the way business affects and is affected by the social, economic, and environmental expectations of stakeholders (Coombsand Holladay 2009). csr Objectives: The Basis for Performance Evaluation Objectives are the means by which we assess csr goal outcomes (Vieira 2019). They serve two purposes. First, if aligned effectively, they guide the development of implementation practices designed to reach them, which in turn lead to goal achievement. Second, they serve as the basis formeasurementandperformanceevaluation(FerreiraandOtley2009). Objectives have four parts. First, an objective must be sufficiently spe­cific. For example, an objective may be to reduce the release of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. Second, it must be quantifiable. For in­stance, an objective may be to reduce by 10 metric tonnes the release of sulphurdioxideintotheatmosphere. Alternatively,itmightbeframed as to reduce the release of sulphur dioxide by 10. from the previous year. Third,anobjectiverequiresatimeline.Forexample,during2021,sulphur dioxide release into the atmosphere will be reduced by 10 metric tonnes. Last, if the objective targets specific stakeholders, then the group(s) must be described along with the objective. In other words, identify the key stakeholdergroup(s) who can impact and/orwho areimpacted bythe csr objective. Objectives are categorised variously; we focus on the types appropri­ate for a csr mcs, which are interim and summative. Interim measures reflect the ongoing nature of the evaluation process because mcs is dy­namic and adjusts to various conditions. Activities and outcomes are monitored,diagnosedandassessed,anddeviationsarecorrected(Simons 2006) on an ongoing basis during the course of csr operations. It is im­portant for those who develop the annual csr report to understand this typeofmonitoringbecauseunder-oroverperformance inagivenperiod may impact an annual assessment. Thus, interim assessments may serve to provide an evidenced-based explication supporting revised planning moving forward. Second, there are summative objectives, which are the final measurement of objectives, used to determine whether an annual goal is achieved. Each goal has at least one corresponding performance objective.Goalsorobjectivescanbeweightedaspartofatotalevaluation system based on organisational and stakeholder priorities. The specific tools deployed to measure performance outcomes are key performance indicators (kpis). Typically, a number of kpis measure an objective. Creating kpis for an objective requires an understanding about what constitutes a specific objective, how to measure it, and what is required to achieve it. csr evaluation The degree to which benchmarked objectives are met can be rated and reported as outstanding, excellent, very good, good, average, and below standard. The specific numeric reference points are set by the company. They are measured deploying kpis. Interim measurement of bench­marked objectives using kpis are used to monitor and assure that csr is executed as planned and with desired outcomes to date. Thedegreetowhichperformanceobjectivesandtheir kpis fallwithin an acceptable range is their tolerance (Collier and Evans 2017). They vary per objective and kpis. All objectives must rest within their tol­erances to be considered successful. As part of the internal assessment, the overall plan requires that a specified percentage of kpis assigned to the objective have outcomes within tolerances, including all of the prioritized kpis. This holds true for interim and summative measure­ments as well. If all or a percentage number of kpi reach their own tolerances, then the objective has been met. If all objectives are met, then the csr goal has been reached. Although there is no general con­sensus on a standard method for reporting kpis (Bouten et el. 2011; Escrig-Olmedo, Fernandez-Izquierdo, and Munoz-Torres 2010), some third-parties provide reporting systems that measure, capture, and eval­uate csr outcomessuchas gri, iso,DowJones, aa 1000,CauxRound Table Principles, domini 400, eiris, emas, Ethical Trading Initiative, ftse4 GoodIndex,andGlobalCompact(BonsonandBednarova2015). csr implementation practices To achieve objectives requires the deployment of csr implementation practices,whichincludestaticorongoingtasksandactivities.Thefollow- ing describes the four types of csr practices: economical, legal, ethical, and philanthropical. • Economic. In order to be economically viable and sustainable over the long-term, corporations earn profits through economic activi­ties. Their financial performance can enhance or diminish their ca­pacity to maintain cash-flow, meet shareholder expectations, raise capital for expansion, institute upgrades, conduct research and de­velopment, and support other activities or capabilities necessary to be competitive and thrive. • Legal. Society expects and the law requires businesses to pursue profitable activities lawfully. Think of these legal expectations as codifiedethics.Violationsoflaws,whethercivilorcriminal,whether intentional or not, damage not only corporate image, but the trust stakeholders place in an organisation. • Ethical. These practices in business start by discerning what is good or right (contributing to human flourishing), as opposed to that which is bad or wrong (contributing to human impoverishment). Ethicsiswhatguidesthe conductofprofessionalactivitiesinformed by normative moral values and beliefs consistent with an organi­sation’s mission and values statements (Du, Bhattacharya, and Sen 2010; Vieira 2019). Ethics can fill the gap not addressed by laws. • Philanthropic. Giving practices include all types of giving such as monetary, scholarships, grants, fundraising, products and services in kind, volunteerism by employees, sponsorship of prosocial cause events, and many more types of discretionary giving. ibm’s On Demand Community Initiative, Microsoft and the Gates Founda­tion,GileadSciences,andWalmarthaverobustgivingprogrammes. Some philanthropy relatestoacorporation’s corebusinesswhile other forms of giving do not (Quelch 2004). A Proposed csr Reporting System The annual corporate csr report’s audiences are stakeholders and the general public. Detailsof whatispresented canbeexploredinspecialty and more comprehensive reports geared toward different aspects of csr and specific stakeholders such as third-party reporting agencies, the an­nual report, environmental disclosures, and sec filings. Weproposeaformatthatisbothsufficientlycomprehensiveandprag­matic that includes csr goals, highlighted key practices to reach goals, and performance evaluation including summative objectives, tolerances, and ratings. Because of the sustainable nature of csr, relevant economic data should be presented in the report to demonstrate financial viability over the longer term. Disclosureofthepreviousyear’s csr effortswouldincludethefollow­ing steps: 1. Present the csr goals. 2. Highlight key practices deployed to achieve the csr goal. 3. Reporttheperformanceobjectivesrequiredtoassessthegoal,which might relate to 4. Employ more than one type of assessment such as financial impact. Evaluation may be addressed along with the outcomes as noted in the next one or two steps. 5. Indicate the quantitative outcomes for the targeted timeframe. 6. If informative and adds value, present the corresponding bench­marked tolerances. 7. Cite kpis if they are exemplars of practices that achieve goals. 8. Provide an assessment term, which may be presented in the narra­tive such as ‘Excellent’ or ‘Poor’ outcome. 9. If appropriate, reference the primary stakeholders for the presented csr initiative. Thesestepsprovideasystematicguide.Individualsituationsmayvary; however, effectively responding to stakeholder expectations in a credible andtransparentmanneriscritical.Forefficaciouscommunication,aclear understanding of the target audience and their expectations is required. Framing the requiredinformationin an engaging manner is also part art and part craft. The example in table 1 illustrates how the components are interrelated and is meant to serve as an internal document designed to capture the information required for csr disclosure. The reporting format can vary because of organisational circumstances, whether it is presented in a ta­ble, infographic, and/or narrative; however, for the most part, the same information would be disclosed. This approach provides a level of com­prehensionsothatthereaderunderstandswhattheorganisationdid,how itdidit,andwhetheritmetitsgoal(Lydenberg,Rogers,andWood2020). Inthisexample,theyearreportedis2020.Thegoalistoconvert25.of the corporate fleet to fuel efficient vehicles over a five-year period start- figure 1 Years 2017–2021 Trendline to Convert 25. of 37,000 Fleet to All-Electric and Hybrid Vehicles ing 1 January 2020. The bold numbers represent the year-end figures. This willbeachievedthroughtwobenchmarked performance objectives: converting 3. of the fleet to electric vehicles and 2. of the fleet to hy­brid vehicles by the end of 2020 with acceptable ranges or tolerances be­ing 2.50–3.00. and 1.75–2.00. respectively by the year’s end. The actual outcomes were 2.75. and 2.00., respectively. These outcomes are rated ‘Very Good’ and ‘Excellent,’ respectively. Althoughthegoalfocusesonthereplacementoffossilfuelpoweredve­hicles with electric/hybrid vehicles, it is relevant to the environment and thus includes impact data. The financial component speaks to sustain­ability. As we cansee,carbondioxide emissions were reducedby2021.13 metric tonnes by the end of the first year. Cost savings were $935,000 for the sameperiod.Ofcourse,the ultimatelonger-term goalis toreduceair pollutioninacost-efficientmanner. Last,alistofprimary stakeholdersis included. Although reporting focuses on annual plans and outcomes, much of theeffortcanbeunderstoodmoreclearlyovertimerelevanttolong-term goals, which can be subject to business, market, social, and economic cycles that impact social, environmental and financial roi (McLymont 2018; Nayakand Patjoshi2020). Forthisreason, sometimes trendline de­pictions convey a clearer longer-term picture of csr performance. As seen in figure 1, visuals trending positively can be represented through the presentation of graphs and charts. As the adage goes, ‘A picture is worth a thousand words’ (Speziale and Kloviene 2014). table 1 Annual mcs Interim and Summative Performance Evaluation csr Reporting Example Goal: To convert 25. of the corporatefl eet to fuel efficient vehicles over the next 5 years beginning 2020; the baseline is 37,000 vehicles Objective: Convert 3. of thefleet to all-electric vehicles Objective: Convert 2. of thefleet to hybrid vehiclesInterim Performance Outcome Final Outcome Interim Performance Outcome Final Outcome Outcomes 1/1/20–3/31/21 4/1/21–6/30/20 7/1/21–9/30/20 10/1/21–12/31/20 1/1/21–3/31/20 4/1/21–6/30/20 7/1/21–9/30/20 10/1/21–12/31/20 0.25. 0.50. 1.5. 0.50. = 2.75. 0.10. 0.40. 1.25. 0.25. = 2.0. Benchmarks0.5.1.1.0.50. = 3.0. 0.25.0.75.0.75.0.25. = 2. (tolerances) (0.40. – 0.50.) (0.75. – 1.0.) (0.75. – 1.0.) (0.40. – 0.50.) (0.20. – 0.25.) (0.60. – 0.75.) (0.60. – 0.75.) (0.20. – 0.25.) = (2.5. – 3.0.) = (1.75. – 2.) csrPoor Poor Outstanding Outstanding/Poor Poor Outstanding Excellent/ObjectivesVery Good Excellent Assessment Carbon106.38 212.75 638.25 212.75 = 1170.13 42.50 170.20 531.88 106.38 = 851.00 DioxideEmissions* Financial$50,000 $100,000 $300,000 $100,000 = $20,000 $80,000 $240,000 $45,000 =Assessment** $550,000 $385,000 notes *Reductionassessmentinmetrictonnes.**Operatingsavingsoverlifeofvehicles/yearminusacquisitioncost.Theboldnumbersareoperational,environmental,andfi nancialoutcomes.Currently,dependingonthemethodofgeneratingelectricityandnotaccountingforvehiclemanufacturing,electricvehiclesreduceairpollutionby17.–30. (European Environmental Agency 2020) or, on average, each vehicle reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 1.15 metric tonnes/year compared to gasoline poweredvehicles (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2018). There are numerous ways to place afinancial value on the achievement of a csr objective. One methodis Social Return on Investment, sroi = (siv – iia)/(iia × 100.), where siv is social impact value and iia is initial investment amount. Somefi nancial assessments aredirectly derived and others are proxy values. There are a number of other considerations worth mentioning. First, although the above approach provides a common set of general param­eters for inclusion in an annual csr report, each organisation within an industry has a set of unique conditions to various degrees that may re­quire a different component to csr reporting. Second, outcomes can be measured in financial, and ofteninother csr related,metrics. These mixes vary. For instance, financial metrics can be standardised to some measure of roi, contribution to the bottom line, sales, or some combi­nation of performance measures (McLymont 2018; Nayak and Patjoshi 2020). Nonfinancial measures can be reported as specific reduction of pollutants, educating workforce rates, unit or percentage changes, per­centages of a diverse workforce, and so forth. Third, the fourth com­ponent of an objective is the identification of the impacted stakeholder group(s). This is essentially an internal consideration and any mention of them in the official annual csr report would be arbitrary. Last, some organisations have elected to report goals and their assessment in terms of kpis that are relatable to readers, which would contribute to trans­parency providing that they are a truerepresentation ofoutcomeevalua­tion and understandable in terms of the csr goal. Conclusion Stakeholders,bothinternalandexternal,wanttoknowabout csr efforts (Arjalies and Mundy 2013). Unless interested parties are aware of the or­ganisation’s response to their concerns, the company’s credibility, legiti­macy, commitment, and level of stakeholder engagement may be called intoquestion(Arjaliesand Mundy2013;Bacinello,Tontini,andAlberton 2020; Stojanovic et al. 2020). Communicating csr goals, practices, and outcomes can affect a company’s productivity and bottom-line through such influences as the auto-communication effect (Hagen 2008; Spence 2009) where an organisation’s messaging about csr initiatives encour­agesemployeesandotherinternally-relatedstakeholderssuchasvendors and suppliers to engage with the organisation, and reinforce a culture of ethicalandsocialresponsibility. Insum,effective csr reportingnotonly informs, but serves to inspire. Yet, few large corporations comprehensively deploy mcs for csr. In reality, planning components are often disjointed and staggered at best (O’Riordan 2010). Scholars acknowledge the importance of a dynamic and integrated approach to csr that includes business strategy and con­sistent csr practices in collaboration with stakeholders in an environ-ment that requires adjustment over time owing to trade-offs (Winkler 2010). This can make performance evaluation a moving target (Morsing and Schultz 2006) and may be a significant reason why many organisa­tionswithlimitedresourcesstrugglewiththereportingprocess,resulting largely in the disclosure of aspirational and select gooddeeds (Hopwood 2009). Understanding this processwillaid organisationsin their journey toward reporting csr that is transparent and comprehensive. References Albertini, E. 2019. ‘The Contribution of Management Control Systems to Environmental Capabilities.’ Journal of Business Ethics 159:1163–80. Aqueveque, C.,P. Rodrigo,and I. J. Duran. 2018. ‘Be BadBut (Still)Look Good: Can Controversial Industries Enhance Corporate Reputation through csr Initiatives.’ Business Ethics: A European Review 27:222– 37. Arvidsson,S.2010.‘CommunicationofCorporateSocialResponsibility:A StudyoftheViewsofManagementTeamsinLargeCompanies.’Journal of Business Ethics 96:339–54. Arjalies, D. L., and J. Mundy. 2013. ‘The Use of Management Control Sys­tems to Formulate and Implement csr Strategy: A Levers of Control Perspective.’ Management Accounting Research 24 (4): 284–300. Bacinello, E., G.Tontini,and A. Alberton.2020. ‘InfluenceofMaturityon Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Innovation in Busi­ness Performance.’ Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 27 (2): 749–59. Battaglia,M.,E. Passetti,L.Bianchi,andM. Frey.2016. ‘ManagingforInte­gration: A Longitudinal Analysisof Management Control for Sustain­ability.’ Journal of Cleaner Production 136 (a): 213–25. Bonson,E.,andM.Bednarova.2015.‘csr ReportingPracticesofEurozone Companies.’ Spanish Accounting Review 18 (2): 182–93. Bouten, L., P. Everaert, L. Van Liedekerke, L. De Moor, and J. Christi-aens. 2011. ‘CorporateSocial Responsibility Reporting:A Comprehen­sive Picture.’ Accounting Forum 35 (3): 187–204. Carroll, A. B. 1991. ‘The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: To-wardtheMoralManagementof OrganisationalStakeholders.’ Business Horizons 34 (4): 39–48. ———. 2016.‘Carroll’sPyramidofCorporateSocialResponsibility:Taking AnotherLook.’ International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility 1(3): 1–8. Collier, D. A., and J. R. Evans. 2017. om6 Operations and Supply Chain Management. Boston, ma: Cengage Learning. Coombs, T.W., andS. J.Holladay. 2009.‘CorporateSocial Responsibility: Missed Opportunity for Institutionalizing Communication Practice.’ International Journal of Strategic Communication 3 (2): 93–101. Cooper,S., D. Crowther, M.Davies, andK.Davis.2001. Shareholder or Stakeholder Value: The Development of Indicators for the Control and Measurement of Performance. London: The Chartered Institute of Management Accountants. Costa, M., and P. Torrecchia. 2018. ‘The Concept of Value for csr: A De­bate Drawn from Italian Classical Accounting.’ Corporate Social Re­sponsibility and Environmental Management 25:113–23. Cresti, E.2009.‘Sustainability Management Control Systems: Towards a Socially Responsible Planning and Control Framework.’ Paper pre­sented at the Oxford Business and Economics Conference, Oxford, 24–6 June. Crilly, D., N. Ni,and Y. Jiang. 2016.‘Do-No-Harm versus Do-Good So­cial Responsibility: Attributional Thinking and the Liability of For­eignness.’ Strategic Management Journal 37 (7): 1316–29. Deegan, C. 2002. ‘Introduction: The Legitimising Effect of Social and En­vironmental Disclosures: A Theoretical Foundation.’ Accounting, Au­diting and Accountability Journal 15 (3): 282–311. DeTienne, K.B., andL. W.Lewis. 2005.‘The PragmaticandEthical Barri-erstoCorporateSocialResponsibilityDisclosure:TheNikeCase.’Jour­nal of Business Ethics 60:359–76. Du,S.,C.B. Bhattacharya,andS. Sen.2010.‘MaximizingBusinessReturns toCorporateSocialResponsibility(csr):TheRoleof csr Communi­cation.’ International Journal of Management Review 1:8–19. Elkington,J.1994.CannibalswithForks:TheTripleBottomLineof21stCen­tury Business. Oxford: Capstone. Escrig-Olmedo,E., M. Fernandez-Izquierdo,and M. Munoz-Torres. 2010. ‘SociallyResponsibleInvesting:SustainabilityIndices, esg Ratingand Information Provider Agencies.’ International Journal of Sustainable Economy 2(4): 442–61. European Environmental Agency. 2020. ‘eea Report Confirms: Electric Cars are Better for Climate and Air Quality.’ https://www.eea.europa .eu/highlights/eea-report-confirms-electric-cars. Feder, M., and B. E. Weibenberger. 2019. ‘Understanding the Behavioural Gap: Why Would Managers (Not) Engage in csr-Related Activities.’ Journal of Management Control 30:95–126. Ferreira,A.,andD.Otley.2009.‘TheDesignandUseofPerformanceMan­agementSystems:AnExtendedFrameworkforAnalysis.’Management Accounting Research 20:263–82. Font, X., A. Walmsley,S.Cogotti, L. McCombes, andN.Hausler. 2012. ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: The Disclosure-Performance Gap.’ Tourism Management 33 (6): 1544–53. Freeman,R.1984.StrategicManagement:AStakeholder’sApproach.Boston, ma: Pitman. Gond, J., S. Grubnic, C. Herzig, and J. Moon. 2012. ‘Configuring Manage-mentControlSystems:TheorizingtheIntegrationofStrategyandSus­tainability.’ Management Accounting Research 23:205–23. Goodland,R. 1995.‘TheConceptofEnvironmentalSustainability.’ Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 26:1–24. Gubova,K., P. Richnak, L. Zendulka,and M. Pavlikova. 2017.‘Importance ofStakeholderGroupsin Pursuit ofSustainableDevelopmentofMan­ufacturing Companies.’ Journal of Interdisciplinary Research 7 (1): 154– 8. Hagen,O. 2008. ‘Seducedby theirProactive Image?On Using Auto Com­munication to Enhance csr.’ Corporate Reputation Review 11 (2): 130– 44. Hahn, T., F. Figge, J. Pinkse, and L. Preuss. 2010. ‘Trade-Offs in Corporate Sustainability: You Can’t Have Your Cake and Eat it.’ Business Strategy and the Environment 19 (4): 217–29. Herremans, I. M., and J. A. Nazari. 2016. ‘Sustainability Reporting Driv­ing Forces and Management Control Systems.’ Journal of Management Accounting Research 28 (2): 103–24. Hickman, L. E., and J. Cote. 2019. ‘csr Reporting and Assurance Legit­imacy: A Client-Assuror Dyad Investigation.’ Journal of Applied Ac­counting Research 20 (4): 372–93. Hooghiemstra,R.2000.‘CorporateCommunicationandImpressionMan­agement:New PerspectivesWhy Companies Engagein CorporateSo­cial Reporting.’ Journal of Business Ethics 27 (1–2): 55–68. Hopwood,A.G.2009.‘AccountingandtheEnvironment:Accounting.’Or­ganisations and Society 34 (3–4): 433–9. Jahdi,K. S., and G. Acikdilli. 2009. ‘MarketingCommunications andCor­porate Social Responsibility (csr): Marriage of Convenience or Shot­gun Wedding.’ Journal of Business Ethics 88 (1): 103–13. Johnstone, L. 2018. ‘Environmental Management Decisions in csr-Based Accounting Research.’ Corporate Social Responsibility and Environ­mental Management 25:1212–22. Laguir, L., I. Laguir, and E. Tchemeni. 2019. ‘Implementing csr Activities through Management Control Systems: A Formal and Informal Con­trol Perspective.’ Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 32 (2): 531–55. Lock, I. 2015. ‘Analysing Sector-Specific csr Reporting: Social and Envi­ronmental Disclosure to Investors in the Chemicals and Banking and InsuranceIndustry.’ Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 22 (2): 113–28. Lydenberg, S., J. Rogers, and D. Wood. 2020. From Transparency to Per­formance: Industry-Based Sustainability Reporting on Key Issues. N. p.: Harvard University. Massung,E.,D. Coyle,K. Carter,M.Jay,andC.Preist.2013. ‘UsingCrowd-sourcing to Support Pro-Environmental Community Activism.’ In chi’13: Proceedings of the sigchi Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 371–80. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. McLymont, R. 2018. ‘csr Reporting.’ Network Journal 25 (3): 20–1. Metcalfe, C. 1998. ‘The Stakeholder Corporation.’ Business Ethics: A Euro­pean Review 7 (1): 30–6. Morsing,M.,andM.Schultz.2006.‘CorporateSocialResponsibilityCom­munication:StakeholderInformation,ResponseandInvolvementStrate­gies.’ Business Ethics: A European Review 15 (4): 323–38. Munoz-Torres, M. J., M. A. Fernandez-Izquierdo, L. Nieto-Soria, J. M. Rivera-Lirio,E.Escrig-Olmedo, and R. Leon-Soriano.2009.‘smes and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Perspective from Spanish Companies.’ International Journal of Sustainable Economy 1(3): 270– 88. Nayak, U., and P. K. Patjoshi. 2020. ‘Effect of csr Contribution on Finan­cial Performance: A Study on Automobile Companies of India.’ Inter­national Journal of Modern Agriculture 9(3): 981–9. O’Riordan,L.2010.‘PerspectivesonCorporateSocialResponsibility(csr): CorporateApproachestoStakeholderEngagementinthePharmaceu­tical Industry in the uk and Germany.’ PhD dissertation, Bradford University. Parmar,B. L., R. E. Freeman,J. S. Harrison,A. C. Wicks, L. Purnell, and S. deColle.2010. ‘StakeholderTheory:TheStateoftheArt.’Management Faculty Publications 99:1–62. Quelch, J. A. 2004. ‘ibm on Demand Community.’ Case Study 9-504-103. Harvard Business School, Cambridge, ma. Rinawiyanti, E. D., X. Huang, and S. As-Saber. 2020. ‘Adopting Manage­ment Control Systems through csr Strategic Integration and Investi­gatingitsImpactonCompanyPerformance:EvidencefromIndonesia.’ Corporate Governance. https://doi.org/10.1108/CG-04-2020-0150. Schonher, N., F. Findler, and A. Martinuzzi. 2017. ‘Exploring the Interface of csr andtheSustainableDevelopmentGoals.’ Transnational Corpo­rations 24 (3): 33–47. Shnayder, L., andF.J.Rijnsoever. 2018. ‘HowExpectedOutcomes, Stake­holders, and Institutions Influence Corporate Social Responsibility at Different Levels of Large Basic Needs Firms.’ Business Strategy and the Environment 27:1689–707. Simons, R. 2006. Levers of Organization Design: How Managers Use Ac­countabilitySystemsforGreaterPerformanceandCommitment.Boston, ma: HarvardBusiness School Press. Spence, C. 2009. ‘Social and Environmental Reporting and the Corporate Ego.’ Business Strategy and the Environment 18:254–65. Speziale, M. T., and L. Kloviene. 2014. ‘The Relationship between Perfor­mance Measurement and Sustainability Reporting: A Literature Re­view.’ Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 156:633–8. Stojanovic, A., I. Milosevic, S. Arsic, S. Urosevic, and I. Mihaljovic. 2020. ‘CorporateSocialResponsibilityasaDeterminantofEmployeeLoyalty and Business Performance.’ Journal of Competitiveness 12 (2): 149–66. Sweeney, L., and J. Coughlan. 2008. ‘Do Different Industries Report Cor­porate Social Responsibility Differently? An Investigationthrough the Lens of Stakeholder Theory.’ Journal of Marketing Communications 14 (2): 113–24. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2018. ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle.’ https://www.epa.gov/ greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle. Vieira, E.T.Jr. 2019. Public Relations Planning. New York: Routledge. Winkler, H. 2010. ‘Sustainability through the Implementation of Sustain-ableSupplyChainNetworks.’InternationalJournalofSustainableEcon­omy 2 (3): 293–309. Received: 13 April 2021 · Accepted: 18 May 2021 · Published online: 23 June 2021 Determining the Mediating Effects of Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy on the Relationship between Organizational Antecedents and Entrepreneurial Orientation Boris Urban University of Witwatersrand, South Africa boris.urban@wits.ac.za Lehlohonolo Maswabi University of Witwatersrand, South Africa l.maswabi@wits.ac.za A considerable literature points to entrepreneurial orientation (eo) as an essential component in fostering organizational performance. In order to advancetheoreticalandempiricalknowledgeinthefieldof eo,thisarticle undertakes an empirical inquiry into the extent to which entrepreneurial self-efficacy mediatesthe relationshipbetween organizationalantecedents and eo at public hospitals in South Africa. Results support the study hy­potheses insofar as organizationalstructure and performance rewardsex-plain a significant amount of variation in eo, while entrepreneurial self-efficacy partially mediates this relationship. The study makes a novel con­tributionbyhighlightingthesignificanceoftheconnectionbetweendiffer­entorganizationalantecedentsand eo,whileadditionallyinterpretingthe mediatingeffectofentrepreneurialself-efficacy,inanunder-researchedin­dustry and country context. Key Words: entrepreneurialorientation,innovativeness, risk taking, proactiveness, organizationalantecedents,structure, rewards, entrepreneurialself-efficacy jel Classification: d8, j24 https://doi.org/10.26493/1854-6935.19.145-166 Introduction Schumpeter (1934) highlighted the role of innovation in the entrepre­neurial process, and a Schumpeterian perspective of entrepreneurship, in terms of entrepreneurial organizations, is based upon their new en­tries (Wales et al. 2020), which offer the likelihood of ‘creatively destroy-ing’existingeconomicestablishments. DrawingonaSchumpeterianper­spective on innovation and entrepreneurship, entrepreneurial orienta- 146 Boris Urban and Lehlohonolo Maswabi tion (eo) as an organizational strategic orientation is conceived upon firm actions, which manifests as new entries (Estrin, Korosteleva, and Mickiewicz 2020; Kuratko and Morris 2018; Wales et al. 2021). A con­siderable literature points to corporate entrepreneurship and specifically eo as an important element in organizational development (Covin and Miller 2014;Liu andWang2020; Urban2021). eo embodies anorgani­zational orientation towards new entry and valuecreation, encapsulating the entrepreneurial decisions, methods, and actions of varying organi­zational actors in order to generate a competitive advantage (Covin and Lumpkin 2011; Wales et al. 2021). Notwithstanding the positive empirical findings that eo is a strategic requirement for organizations,several studiesshow diverse performance consequences(Poon,Ainuddin,andJunit2006),andsubsequentlyschol­ars have developed new research questions in order to progress the­oretical and empirical knowledge about the field of eo and the en-trepreneurialbehaviouronwhichitisestablished(CovinandMiller2014; Kuratko and Morris 2018; Liu and Wang 2020; Niemand et al. 2020). In this regard, entrepreneurship in the public sector is highly relevant con­sidering the deficiency of relevant management skills required to foster eo and a potential misinterpretation of what it means and/or is prereq­uisite to be entrepreneurial in this sector (Demircioglu and Chowdhury 2020;MeynhardtandDiefenbach2012;Maresovaetal. 2020;Moraisetal. 2020).Additionally,manyresearchersnotethatmost eo studiesfocuson the private sector, where existing theories are inadequate to explain eo in the public sector (Deslatte and Swann 2020; Klein et al. 2010; Morais et al.2020; Urbanand Nkhumishe2019). Consequently, in recognising the gap in the literature in terms of un­derstandingtheimportanceofdifferentorganizationalrequirementsnec­essarytofoster eo inthepublichealthcaresector(Kleinetal.2010;Kear­neyandMeynhardt2016;KuratkoandMorris2018;ÖzcanandReichstein 2009), particularly from an emerging market perspective where many firms are confronted with uncertain markets, fluctuating market systems and intense global competition (Anwar, Clauss, and Issah 2021), the re­search questionis conveyed as follows: ‘To what extent do organizational antecedents, such as structure and rewards, influence eo through the mediating effects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in the context of pub­lic hospitals in South Africa?’ Recognisingthat thereisaresearchneedforempiricalevidenceonin­novative and eo in the healthcare sector (Carlucci, Mura, and Schiuma 2019;Deslatteand Swann2020),thisstudy generatesanumber of im­portant theoretical and practical contributions to the management liter­ature. By focusing on specific organizational antecedents relevant to the public sphere, the study will extend current theory in terms of under­standing the mediating effects of entrepreneurial self-efficacy on the dif­ferent dimensions of eo. Focusing on organizational structure and per-formancerewardsallowsforamorerefinedanalysis,wherepriorresearch has found these antecedents to be particularly useful in the public sector context (Kearney and Meynhardt 2016; Maresova et al. 2020). Further-more,ratherthan merelytesting relationshiplinksbetweenstructure, re­wards and eo, a more refined approach is implemented to test the me­diating effect and interconnectedness of entrepreneurial self-efficacy to the distinctive eo dimensions of ‘innovativeness, risk taking and proac­tiveness’ (Covin and Miller 2014, 12). Moreover, while substitute concep­tualisations of organizational antecedents and eo are to be found, using existing constructs and measures has the benefit of theoretical support (Hornsby et al. 2013; Kloepfer and Castrogiovanni 2018; Kuratko, Mor­ris, and Covin 2011; Liu and Wang 2020). Building on such established constructs allows for replicative studies to take place in the future, and, similartootherrecentstudies,thestudyaddstotheunderstandingofme­diating variables in the eo relationship with other significant variables (Niemand et al. 2020; Urban 2021). Additionally,thestudycontextisfocusedonasinglepublicsector,pub­lic hospitals, and takes place in a comparatively under-examined emerg­ing African market context, South Africa, where the health area is one of the key pillars of economic expansion (Gauteng Department of Health 2017). The study took place in the South African public hospital sec-torinthe GautengProvince, whichhas themajor shareofthe popu­lation in South Africa with approximately 14.7 million people residing in the province (Statistics South Africa 2018). Research shows that pub­lic healthcare ‘engrosses an enlarged share of income in developed and emerging countries alike, and innovations are needed in this sector to provide care at a reduced cost while augmenting access and furthering quality’ (Zuckerman, Dowling, and Richardson 2000). In the healthcare context, healthcare employees’ innovativeness plays a crucial role in en­gendering innovation, but the causes of innovative work behaviour re­main largely unobserved (Carlucci, Mura, and Schiuma 2019; Deslatte andSwann2020;UrbanandMaboko2020). Inthisregard,priorresearch results show that complementary effects of different organizational fac- 148 Boris Urban and Lehlohonolo Maswabi tors may positively influence entrepreneurial behaviour (Urban 2021), specifically in terms of organizational levels of eo (Niemand et al. 2020; Urban and Nkhumishe 2019; Wales et al. 2021). Consequently, the study hasimportantresearch,policyandpractitionerimplicationsasitmayas­sist policy-makers and managers to benefit from a deeper understanding ofentrepreneurshipasameanstotacklepublicorganizations,andchange themselves into adaptableand responsiveorganizationsin order to inno­vatively deliver improved services to their societies (Morais et al. 2020; Özcan and Reichstein 2009). Thearticlebeginswithasynopsisofpriorresearchon eo,self-efficacy andorganizationalantecedents. Theresearchapproachisthendelineated intermsofdesignandwhichmeasuresareusedtocollectdata.Theresults are then presented and interpreted. The article ends with conclusions, practicalrecommendations,studylimitationsandpotentialresearchpos­sibilities. Entrepreneurial Orientation (eo) eo anditsconstituentdimensionshavebeenextensivelyemployedacross studies to describe ‘organizations demonstrating entrepreneurial be-haviour and processes, where eo is operationalized as the concomitant display of behaviour reflecting innovativeness, risk taking and proac­tiveness’ (Covin and Lumpkin 2011, 861). The relationship between en­trepreneurship and innovation is important to clarify, as not only are entrepreneurship and innovation complementary, but a combination of the two is fundamental to organizational success under conditions of a changing and dynamic environment (Kuratko and Morris 2018; Urban 2021;Walesetal. 2021).Whileentrepreneurship andinnovationareposi­tively related to each other and interact to ensure organizational success, scholarsnote that innovation has to attend to market needs, and compels entrepreneurship if it is to achieve organizational success (Pérez-Luńo, Wiklund, and Cabrera 2011; Urban and Maboko 2020). Similarly, in order for eo to be encouraged within public organiza­tions, more flexible and organic structures are required, as bureaucratic structures characterised by inflexibility and red tape do not align with eo (Kearney, Hisrich, and Roche 2009; Morais et al. 2020). Public sec­tor entrepreneurship has been conceptualised as ‘a form of public en­trepreneurship that exists within a public or non-profit organisation to remedy legacy problems of bureaucracy, changing organizational struc-tures,processes,and culturesthroughelements ofentrepreneurial orien­tation,thatareinclinedtothepromotionofgoodgovernance,redtapere- Managing Global Transitions duction, customer satisfaction, employee empowerment, stakeholder in-volvement,andcost-efficientperformance’ (UrbanandNkhumishe2019, 503). Researchers such as Kearney and Meynhardt (2016) indicate how eo in the public sphere depends on individual members assuming eo behaviours which need to be fostered by senior management and devel­oped as a key competency where employees feel empowered to behave and act entrepreneurially (Urban 2021). Accordingly for the intention of this study, eo and its constituent dimensions are conceptualised as ‘eo in a public sector organisation is demonstrated by the extent to which thetopmanagersareinclinedtofavourchangeandinnovationfortheor­ganization (the innovativeness dimension), to take business related risks (the risk taking dimension), and to take proactive strategic action (the proactivenessdimension),inordertoachievegoalsandobjectivesforthe greater good of society at large’ (Kearney and Meynhardt 2016, 20–1). Organizational Antecedents Organizational antecedents are responsible for creating a supportive en­vironment for eo to thrive within organizations, where the behaviour and entrepreneurial activity of managers and other employees are en­couraged (Deslatte and Swann 2020; Morris and Jones 1999). In the pri­vatesector context,research onorganizationalantecedents forencourag­ing eo iscomparativelyrecognisedinsofarasdifferentfactorsneedtobe in place, such as relevant ‘strategic goals, performance reward schemes, resources, management encouragement, and suitable organizational val­ues which indicate to middle managers and other employees that en­trepreneurial behaviour is anticipated’ (Hornsby et al. 2013,23). Research furtherhighlightshoworganizationalantecedentscaninfluenceworkers’ innovativeness both directly and incidentally through the organization’s proclivity to innovate and be proactive (Carlucci, Mura, and Schiuma 2019). Other studies highlight that those organizations who innovate by learningandleveragingtheirinternalresourcesandstructurecanachieve corporate sustainability, especially since the existing trend of strategic management is principally grounded on paradoxes, incorporating the ‘simultaneity of exploratory and exploitative learning’ (Wojcik-Karpacz, Karpacz, and Rudawska 2019). Several of these ingrained organizational antecedents from the private sector have been examined in the public sector context with differing results (Maresova et al. 2020; Meynhardt and Diefenbach 2012). For instance, there are contrasting views on the relationship between organizational antecedents and eo, where research highlights that the ‘rigid structures of the public sector can inhibit en- 150 Boris Urban and Lehlohonolo Maswabi trepreneurship,andmoreflexibilityandadaptabilityarerequiredtostim­ulate eo’ (Morris and Jones 1999). Moreover, rewards practices are cru­cial to performance and therefore organizational circumstances accom­modating entrepreneurial behaviour must provide appropriate reward processes and systems(Hornsbyetal. 2013;Kearney, Hisrich,and Roche 2009). Consequently, it has been noted that organizational antecedents in the public sector, specifically in terms of organizational structure and performancerewards,warrantfurtherinvestigationstogainanenhanced appreciationofthecomplexandmultifacetednatureof eo inthissetting (Urban 2021). organizational structure and eo Organizational structure is typically viewed as critical for promoting eo (Kuratko and Morris 2018) where structural elements such as hierarchy, red tape, and reporting lines can inhibit or promote entrepreneurial be-haviour within the organization. In the context of the public sector or-ganizationalstructure, KuratkoandMorris(2018) arguethat politicalin­terference and limited managerial independence impact directly on eo, while others show that ‘high power distance’ as a component of organi­zationalstructuretypicallyinhibitsorganizationalinnovation(Strowand Strow2018;Wojcik-Karpacz,Karpacz,andRudawska2019).Accordingto others, the unyielding and highly formalised strategic plans and mech­anistic structures of some public entities hamper the managers’ ability tostimulateentrepreneurialbehaviouramongstemployees(Demircioglu and Chowdhury 2020; Kearney, Hisrich, and Roche 2009). However, for eo to take root and flourish within the public sector, greater structural flexibility and adaptability are required for an entrepreneurial culture to permeate the entire organization (Urban and Nkhumishe 2019). In this regard, in recognising that entrepreneurial behaviour can be influenced by the organizational structures, in the first case a hypothesis is formu­lated which reflects: h1 There is a positive relationship between the organizational structure and eo innovativeness, eo risktaking,and eo proactivenessinthe context of public hospitals. performance rewards and eo Rewards enhance employee motivation, and organizations with devel­oped performance-based reward systems tend to encourage individu­als to pursue challenging work which is important to foster innovation (Hornsby et al. 2013). Organizations with well-defined performance re­wards createalignment between individualand organizationalgoals, and encourage eo, since such reward systems tend to generate an awareness of task ownership (Hornsby et al. 2013). Nevertheless, some studies on rewards conducted in the public organizational domain suggest a nega­tiveassociationbetweenrewardsandsomeofthe eo dimensions(Urban and Nkhumishe2019). Forinstance, not onlydoes a deficiency ofperfor­mance rewards dissuade innovativeness and risk taking behaviour (Ur­ban and Nkhumishe 2019), but at the same time there is also a general fear offailure asaresultofalowriskorganizationalclimate (Kuratko and Morris 2018). Nonetheless, research is evolving which shows that for eo to increase in the public sector organizations, an effectual and meaning-fulrewardsystemisrequired,encouragingrisktakingandmotivationfor employeestoparticipateininnovativeendeavours(ÖzcanandReichstein 2009). Consequently, in line with this emerging stream of findings, it is predicted in the second instance: h2 Thereisapositiverelationshipbetweentheperformancerewardsand eo innovativeness, eo risktaking,and eo proactivenessinthecon-text of public hospitals. Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy Self-efficacy is an imperative motivational concept in entrepreneurship research, where entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ese) has been used exten­sively to study entrepreneurial behaviour, as it refers to the ‘strengths of a person’sbelief that he/she is capableof successfullyperformingthe var­ious roles and tasks of an entrepreneur’ (Chen, Greene, and Crick 1998, 75). Social cognitive theory (sct) has much relevance to entrepreneur­ship in relation to the self-efficacy construct, which is structured on the supposition of a generative capability in which cognitive, social, and be-haviour sub skills are organised into combined pathways of action (Ban-dura 1989;Newman etal. 2019). In this sense, self-efficacyisregardedas animportantmotivationalconstructthatinducesan‘employee’spersonal goals,choices,emotivereactions,effort,copingandpersistence’(Bandura 1989, 14). Previousresearchindicatesfairlyreliableresultsforself-efficacyasper­taining to entrepreneurial behaviour (Chen and Urban 2018), including its effect on eo (Poon, Ainuddin, and Junit 2006). In the eo literature, findings highlight the mediating effect of different variables on the con-nectionbetweenorganizationalantecedents, employees’ innovativework 152 Boris Urban and Lehlohonolo Maswabi behaviour and eo (Carlucci, Mura, and Schiuma 2019). While several authors argue that eo has a significant direct influence on performance, othersindicatethat eo doesnotdirectlyaffectperformancebutisreliant on numerous internal factors and competences, which mediate its rela­tionship to performance (Wales et al. 2020). Additionally, studies show how self-efficacy enables an individual to navigate through the rigid or­ganizational structure of many public institutions while remaining self-motivated to deal with issues of red tape, organizational boundaries, and lack of management support (Kearney and Meynhardt 2016). Moreover, ese beencausallylinkedtodifferentorganizationalconstructsandoften represents a mediation effect on the relationship between intentions, its precursors and outcomes, including aspects of eo (Anwar, Clauss, and Issah 2021). Studies indicate that as a result of mediating and interaction effects, ese can positively influence entrepreneurial behaviour, innova­tion, and possibly lead to higher levels of eo (Chen and Urban 2018). Consequently, for the intention of this article, ese is positioned as a mediating variable which can strengthen, diminish, negate, or other­wisealtertheassociationbetweentheorganizationalantecedentsand eo. Recognising that any attempts to introduce or foster eo in public sector organizations are reliant upon the entrepreneurial behaviour of the indi­vidual members, in terms of ese, it is predicted that: h3a Entrepreneurialself-efficacypositivelymediatestherelationshipbe­ tweentheorganizationalstructureand eo innovativeness, eo risk taking, and eo proactiveness in the context of public hospitals. h3b Entrepreneurialself-efficacypositivelymediatestherelationshipbe- tween performance rewards and eo innovativeness, eo risk tak­ ing, and eo proactiveness in the context of public hospitals. Figure 1 displays the study model which highlights the hypotheses as perthepredictedrelationshipsbetweenthevariousconstructs.Whilethe selection of the study constructs, as presented in the literature review, is by no means all-inclusive, it is recognised that there are various organi­zational factors and processes which regulate how eo is manifested and mediatedatthefirmlevel,andthatnosinglesetofvariablescanunequiv­ocally determine the outcome of this process (Chen and Urban 2018). Research Design The study relied on a structured and self-reported survey to collect pri­mary data, with a cross-sectional design. The study hypotheses were sta- figure 1 Study Model tistically tested using regression analyses. The population for this study was the thirty-three hospitals located in the Gauteng province in South Africa that are scattered around the province (National Department of Health 2017). According to the Gauteng Department of Health Annual Report (2017), the department has a staff complement of 67,467 staff em­ployed at various levels of different disciplines, of which 111 are senior managers (levels 13–16)and 15,112 are middle managers/supervisors (lev­els 9–12). The percentage of managers (supervision level/middle level and senior level) is approximately 23 per cent of the total population of employees, which served as the study sampling frame as these study re­spondents carry the requisite influence to employ resources to capitalise on accessible opportunities and engage in eo activities (Hornsby et al. 2013). Primary datawas collectedfromthe sampledpopulation through an online structured and self-reported survey instrument, over a three-month period. These online surveys used an anonymous link devel­oped through Qualtrics (study data collection platform), allowing re-spondentstoconfidentially complete thequestionnaire (Cooper and Schindler 2014). Strict ethical procedures were followed where permis­sions were sought and obtained from the relevant hospital and/or re­gional head office, allowing staff to participate voluntarily and anony­mously in the survey. Initially, 2500 questionnaires were uniformly dis­seminated across all hospitals at various levels of care, including cen­tral/tertiary, district/provincial hospitals within the Gauteng region. Af­ter several datacollectionattempts, 255 responseswerereceived, yielding a 10.2 per centresponserate. However, dueto missingresponsesthe final samplewas172responses,whichwerejudgedadequateforonlinesurveys (Cooper and Schindler 2014). To test for sampling bias, t-tests realised no significant differences (p > 0.10) between respondents who replied 154 Boris Urban and Lehlohonolo Maswabi earlier versus later in terms of submissions, based on the type of hospital surveyed,whichsuggeststhatthesampleemergestobedescriptiveofthe population from which it is extracted. measuring instruments Entrepreneurialorientation(eo),asthedependentvariable(dv),wasop­erationalised by means of prevailing conceptualisations of eo, in respect of the three dimensions of innovativeness, risk taking and proactiveness (CovinandLumpkin2011;KearneyandMeynhardt2016). eo wasevalu­atedwithnineitemsalonga‘seven-pointbi-polarLikertscale,’measuring each of the three dimensions. The language in the survey was modified tomoreaccuratelyreflectthepublic-sectorcontext. Itemssuchasthefol-lowing questions were included on each dimension: ‘These new services are becauseofmodificationsorextensionsto existingservices,’‘Ourhos­pital is characterised by risk taking of senior management in seizing and exploring risky growth opportunities’ and ‘Our hospital is characterised by a top management philosophy that emphasises both exploration and experimentation of new service delivery ideas.’ Organizational antecedents, as the independent variables (ivs) were operationalised on prior constructs as refined by Hornsby et al. (2013), which have been used considerably and are documented as valid and re­liable scales (Kuratko and Morris 2018). Organizational structure, mea­suredwith6items,wasconcernedwiththemannerinwhichanorganisa­tion is designed through either an organic or mechanistic structure, and includes questions on decision making structures, nature of specializa-tion,distributionofpoweranddepartmentalization.Performancereward was operationalised with five items relating to ‘type of systems, their us­ageandalignmenttoentrepreneurship.’Tosafeguarduniformityinscales ‘a seven-point Likert scale’ comparable to eo was employed. ese, as the mediating variable (mv) was operationalised in terms of ‘the strength ofa person’s belief that he/she is capableof successfullyper-forming the various roles and tasks of an entrepreneur’ as identified by Chen, Greene, and Crick (1998, 77). A seven-point Likert scale was used andthelanguageoftheinstrumentwasrevisedaccordinglytoensurethat itis alignedtothe publichospitalcontext. Theseincluded questionssuch as: ‘I have confidence in my ability to manage all challenges imposed by external forces and solve problems in my environment,’ and ‘I have con­fidence in my ability to identify and design new services to improve pa-tients/clients service outcomes.’ data analysis quality checks The study followed the Baron and Kenny (1986) method when conduct­ing mediationanalysis. Several prescribedsteps wereundertaken to con­firm the results on spss and sas to complete the Sobel test for media­tion. Carewastakentominimiseanypotentialriskspertainingtocommon­method-bias. The survey ensured that all questions were in a ‘counter­balanced’ question order (Cooper and Schindler 2014), and due to an-onymityitwas anticipatedthatrespondents would answer eachques­tion truthfully. Furthermore, statistically to minimise bias, convergent and discriminant validity testing using factor analysis was employed to ensure that distinct factors were being analysed. Todetermine ifany ofthe controlvariables in terms ofsample charac­teristics had any significant interactions with the hypothesised relation­ships, different ‘comparisons of means tests were performed to calculate the consequences of single control variables on the dv in separation to other control variables’ (Cooper and Schindler 2014). However, both t-test and individual one-way anova tests indicated no significant statis­tical differences in the dv in this regard. Exploratory factor analysis (efa) was used to evaluate the validity of the study constructs where the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure (kmo) of SamplingAdequacyshowedavalueof0.842,abovetheminimumaccept-able value of at least 0.5, and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was signifi­cant with an approx. Chi-Square 1666.753(136) (p-value =0.000<0.05) (Cooper and Schindler 2014). Principal Axis Factoring with the Promax withKaiserNormalizationRotationMethodwasusedandshowedthatin somecases,several cross/multipleloadingswerepresent ontheextracted factors, especially on items in relation to proactiveness and performance rewards.Consequently,severalitemswereeliminatedbecausetheyeither had communality (< 0.3) or had factor loading less than 0.4 and were loading onto more than one factor. Table1showsthefinalfactorpatternmatrix,afterseveraliterationsand eliminations, where four factors were extracted and explained a total of 69.23 per cent of the variance. Cronbach’s Alpha was calculated for each constructtoassessthereliabilityofthescalefortheretaineditemsandthe resultsindicatevaluesallabovethe0.70threshold(CooperandSchindler 2014). Adoptingthisfinalfactorsolutionresultedinachangetothe study hypotheseswherethe eo dimensionofproactivenessandinnovativeness 156 Boris Urban and Lehlohonolo Maswabi table 1 Final Factor Pattern Matrix Constructs Factor . . . . eo: Risk taking (eort) q.._eo_rt Our hospital is characterised by seeking of unusual, novel solutions to problems by managers ..... q.._eo_rt Our hospital is characterised by risk taking of senior management in terms of seizing and exploring risky growth opportunities ..... q.._eo_rt Our hospital is characterised by a top management philosophy that emphasises both exploration and experi­mentation of new service delivery ideas ..... q.._eo_rt Our hospital encourages managers to take calculated risks with new ideas ..... Organizational structure and rewards (osr) q.._Rewards My manager helps me get my work done by removing obsta­cles/challenges ..... q.._Rewards My supervisor will give me special recognition and acknowledgement if my work performance is good ..... q.._Org_Structure Communication in our reporting structure is both top-down and down-up ..... q.._Org_Structure Our reporting struc­ture does not hinder the ease and speed with which we approve new projects and exploit new opportunities ..... q.._Org_Structure The empowering en­vironment encourages employee creativity and innovativeness ..... q.._Org_Structure Our hospital struc­ture is flat to facilitate the fluid flow of ..... communication Continued on the next page weremergedintoasingleconstructnamedinnovativeness/proactiveness (eoinpr) and the organizational antecedents were consolidated into a single construct named organizational structure/rewards (osr). Hence the study hypotheses were changed to reflect the efa results: Constructs Factor .... eo: Innovative-ness/proactive­ness q._eo These new services are because of modifications or extensions to existing services ..... (eoinpr) q._eo Our hospital is characterised by proactive management that is always pre­pared for all expected incidences. ..... q._eo Our hospital has introduced new services in the past two years. ..... q._eo Our hospital has introduced new creative operational processes compared with those of other hospitals. ..... Entrepreneurial self-efficacy (ese) q._ese I am confident that I have the necessary skills and knowledge to grow beyond my current job status. q._ese I have confidence in my ability to manage all challenges and solve problems caused by external factors q._ese I have confidence in my ability to identify and design new services to improve patients/clients s... q._ese I have confidence in my ability to supervise, delegate duties and train other employees ..... ..... ..... ..... notes Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. Rotation Method: Promax with Kaiser Normalization. Rotation converged in 6 iterations. h1 There is a positive relationship between the organizational struc­ture/rewardsandeo innovativeness/proactivenessinthecontextof public hospitals. h2 There is a positive relationship between the organizational struc­ture/rewards and eo risk taking in the context of public hospitals. h3a Entrepreneurialself-efficacypositivelymediatestherelationshipbe-tween the organizational structure/performance rewards and eo innovativeness/proactiveness in the context of public hospitals. h3b Entrepreneurialself-efficacypositivelymediatestherelationshipbe-tween the organizational structure/performance rewards and eo risk taking in the context of public hospitals. 158 Boris Urban and Lehlohonolo Maswabi table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Descriptive Statistics Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients msd . . . . .. osr .... .... . .. ese .... .... ....*** . .. eort .... .... ....*** ....*** . .. eoinpr .... .... ....*** .... ....*** . notes m – variable mean, sd – standard deviation, ***p <0.01. Results and Discussion Table 2 displays the mean scores, standard deviations and Pearson cor­relation coefficients amongst the study variables. Descriptive statistics were calculated, with the highest mean score observed for ese. There was a strong positive correlation between eoinpr and eort (r =0.51, p-value < 0.01), and a moderate correlation between osr that was posi­tive and significantly related to both eort (r =0.67, p-value < 0.01) and eoinpr (r =0.39, p-value < 0.01). There was a very weak and insignifi­cantcorrelationbetween ese and eoinpr (r =0.07,p-value>0.1),while the correlation between ese and eort was positive and significant (r= 0.26, p-value < 0.01). Furthermore, collinearity diagnostics were com-putedwhichreveal‘variableinflationfactor(vif)values’ of>1,whichare ‘valued asacceptable and canbeunderstood asno evidence of significant incidence of multicollinearity’ (Cooper and Schindler 2014). Multiple linear regression was conducted to test the study hypotheses using forced entry, since the control variables were not included in the studymodel,and thus there was no orderofentry designedfor the pre­dictor variables. Fundamentally, two models were formulated, denoted by the following equations: (a) Model a = eoinpr = (b0 + b1 osr) + ei; (b)Model b = eort =(b0 + b1 osr) + ei. Hypothesis 1 (h1) and hypothesis 2 (h2) were tested with a two-step linear regression approach to reflect each of the hypotheses separately, wherestep1 (Model a) used only eoinpr as a predictor variable, and eort was used in step 2 (Model b) to account for any additional vari­ance in osr. The results with the coefficients are presented in table 3, which shows two columns in terms of Model a (h1) and Model b (h2). The coefficients of determination (r2) was unchanged at 15 per cent for Model a (h1), while a slight change from 45 per cent to 44 per cent was observedwithrespecttoModel b (h2).Inbothmodelstherelationships Model a Model b b ß b ß Model .: eoinpr Intercept osr R2 ....*** ....*** .... .... .... ....*** ....*** .... .... .... Model .: eort Intercept osr R2 ....*** ....*** .... .... .... ....*** ....*** .... .... .... notes ***p <0.01. determined by the regression coefficients were positive and statistically significant,andsubsequently h1 and h2 arebothsupported.Thesefind­ingsreaffirmsimilarfindingsfrompriorstudieswhereapositiverelation­ship between organizational structure and eo has been reported (Kear­ney, Hisrich, and Roche 2009). This positive relationship is important insofar as middle-level managers who function in an organic/flat forma­tionseemtodemonstratehigherlevelsof eo. Therationaleforsuchare­lationship may well be prevalent due to structures which encourage less redtape,bettercollaborationandsupport,aswellaslessconvolutedcom­munication;allleadtowardscreatingperceptionsthatentrepreneurialac­tions are recognised and rewarded (Hornsby et al. 2013). Hypothesis 3a (h3a) predicted that entrepreneurial self-efficacy posi­tivelymediatestherelationshipbetweentheorganizationalstructure/per­formance rewards and eo innovativeness/proactiveness. Hypothesis 3b (h3b) predicted that entrepreneurial self-efficacy positively mediates the relationship between the organizational structure/performance rewards and eo risktaking. Bothofthesehypothesesweretestedwithmediation regression analyses where the mediation parameter comparisons results are displayed in table 4 and 5, respectively. Table 4, in terms of h3a, highlights that osr significantly predicts eoinpr in path c of the model, where F(8,163) = 6.17, p <0.01, R2 =0.23, ß = 0.422, p < 0.01, and suggests that when osr increases by 1 unit, eoinpr increases by 0.23 units. osr + ese together significantly pre­dict eoinpr in path c× =(a × b), F(9,162) = 5.48, p <0.01, R2 =0.23. Similarly, ese significantlypredicts eoinpr inpath b,where F(9,162) = 5.48, p <0.01, R2 =0.23, ß =0.06, p = 0.66, but was not significant. In terms of the Sobel Test, path a = 0.09, path b =0.06, path c =0.422 and osr > eo_i osr + ese > eo_. osr > ese b se ß b se ß b se ß Intercept ....*** .... ....*** .... ....*** .... osr ....*** .... .... ....*** .... .... ....** .... .... ese .... .... .... F ....*** ....*** ....** R2 .... .... .... notes Notes for parameters: b = unstandardized parameters, ß =standardized pa­rameters, ***p <0.01, **p <0.05, *p <0.10. table 5 Mediation Results for h3: ese Effect on osr and eort osr > eo_rt osr + ese > eo_rt osr > ese b se ß b se ß b se ß Intercept ....*** .... .... .... ....*** .... osr ....*** .... .... ....*** .... .... ....** .... .... ese ....** .... .... F .....*** .....*** ....** R2 .... .... .... notes Notes for parameters: b = unstandardized parameters, ß =standardized pa­rameters, ***p <0.01, **p <0.05, *p <0.10. path c× (patha× path b)=0.417. h3a isthereforenotsupportedsincethe addition of the new variable (ese) does not change the significant path; this means that the effect is very small, hence not significant. Table 5, in terms of h3b, highlights that osr significantly predicts eort in path c,where F(8,163) = 19.61, p <0.01, R2 =0.50, ß =0.69, p < 0.01, and suggests that when osr increases by 1 unit, eort increase by 0.5 units. ese significantly predicts eort in path b,where F(9,162) = 18.40, p <0.01, R2 =0.51; ß =0.24, p < 0.05. The Sobel Test revealed that path a =0.09, path b =0.24, path c =0.69and path c× (path a × path b)= 0.66. When the mediator (ese) was added, the slopes for osr changed significantly,sinceadding ese asamediatorcausesasmallchangetothe R-squarevaluechanges,meaning ese playsasmallroleinexplainingthe variability in eort. Hypothesis 3b is therefore supported, indicating the presence of partial mediation by ese on the relationship between osr and eort. These empirical findings can be interpreted in relation to prior stud­ies and theory which specify that an important set of entrepreneurial capabilities are higher levels of ese, which enable individuals to recog­nise innovations and engage in risk taking (Chen, Greene, and Crick 1998). This relationship is reaffirmed with the positive findings obtained in the present study, insofar as higher levels of eo seem to involve a dy­namic interplay between organizational antecedents, such as organisa­tional structure and rewards and ese. Such interactions between orga­nizational structure and rewards, ese, and eo highlight the usefulness of employing social cognitive theory (sct) in terms of explaining inter­actions between behaviour, personal factors, and contextual influences (Bandura1989).Researchshowsthatanentrepreneurwhoishighin ese is likely to ‘exert more effort for a greater length of time, persist through setbacks, and develop better’ (Chen, Greene, and Crick 1998). Such be-haviour is important in the public sector, since in order to behave en­trepreneuriallyemployeesoftenhavetorevealhigherlevelsof ese (Kear­ney and Meynhardt 2016). Moreover, the mediating effect of ese on the relationship between organizational antecedents, such as structure and rewards, and eo is increasingly recognised in healthcare organizations (Carlucci, Mura, and Schiuma 2019). Such findings highlight the rele­vance of entrepreneurship as an effective means for public bureaucra­cies, such aspublic hospitals,toconvert themselves into adaptable, more proactive units that deliver improved services through innovative prac­tices(Kearney,Hisrich,andRoche2009).Healthcareandpublichospitals takeinanenlargedshareofincomeindevelopedandemergingcountries alike,and eo hastheabilitytosupplyhealthcareatalowercostwhilead-vancinginclusivityandhigherquality(Ruffetal.2011).Inmanyemerging economies, one of the principal objectives of any organization is height­ened effectiveness and efficiency which can be attained by constantly in­novating, and cultivating higher levels of eo (Anwar, Clauss, and Issah 2021; Urban and Nkhumishe 2019). Conclusion This articlebrings original understandings into the relationshipbetween organizationalantecedentsand eo,whileclarifyingthemediatingeffects of ese onthisrelationship.Thefindingshaveprovidedanimportantem­piricalcontributiontoexplainingorganizationalantecedentsand eo and ese,andhighlightedtheirrelevancetothepublichospitalsectorinSouth Africa. 162 Boris Urban and Lehlohonolo Maswabi InSouthAfrica,wherethisstudytakesplace,theconstitutionspecifies the‘righttohealthcareservicesforallpersonslivingwithintheRepublic’ (Republic of South Africa 2015). However, entrenched inequalities and problems of service delivery, coupled with poor management in South Africa’s national health system frustrate innovativeness at public hospi­tals (National Department of Health 2017; Ruff et al. 2011). As a result, and despite its potential, entrepreneurial behaviour remains understud­ied and is not implemented in many firms in emerging economies, often hindering future economic growth (Urban and Nkhumishe 2019). Based on the study findings itis recommended that hospital managers not only undertake innovations but also find new ways to do more with fewer resources, in other words to be proactive by the nurturing of eo. Due to recent conditions of increased fiscal pressure as a direct result of the Covid-19 pandemic it is necessary for managers not only to be more resourceful and amplify efficiency in the providing of services, but also become entrepreneurial in terms of fostering eo (Urban 2021). Additionally, research-based educational training is required in the publicsectorhealthcaresystemtofosteranddevelop ese toimprovein­novation performance among all employees. Training of managers and employees should focus on developing higher levels of ese through di­rect interventions as well as through vicarious learning in terms of the sct, whileatthe same time considerthe prevailing organizational struc­ture and reward systems in the workplace. Research on sct confirms that self-efficacy can be developed through training and role displaying (Bandura1989).Thismeansthatentrepreneurialbehaviourintheformof eo isessentialtoovercomingpublicsectorbureaucraciesandrigidstruc­tures, and managers are advised to devise and implement structures and performance rewards that encourage entrepreneurial efforts by all staff members, who must be supported by a sense of ese (Urban 2021). Furthermore, not only is the Covid-19 pandemic centre stage as a global issue threatening the global economy, but digitization is changing the business model of many organizations across all sectors and indus­tries (Niemand et al. 2020). Consequently, understanding the role of eo and ese is fundamental, as both of these phenomena require flexibility in organizational behaviour in terms of enhancing resources, proficien­cies and systems, predominantly in emerging economieswhere firms are often attentive to developing ‘low cost type innovations’ (Al-Omoush, Simón-Moya, and Sendra-García 2020). While the article contains some limitations, these offer possible future research opportunities. The study being cross-sectional in design pre­vents drawing conclusions regarding the causal relationship between the study variables. Moreover, the studycollected dataonperceptions which may have been prejudiced by perceptual and motivational biases of the individual respondents. In addition, the study surveyed public hospitals in only the Gauteng province in South Africa, and hence the generaliz-ability of findings is somewhat limited. Caution is required in generalis­ing the findings to other contexts, as the study findings may not be ap­propriate for other economies with different environmental and institu­tional conditions (Urban and Nkhumishe 2019). Notwithstanding these limitations, the study results offer a valuable interpretation of how eo is affectedbydifferentorganizationalfactorsand ese inthehospitalpublic sector. In general, researchers would be well advised to conduct investi­gations to develop a greater appreciation of the complexities of fostering eo in public sector organizations in emerging economies by investigat­ingspecificcountrycontingency variablessuchasinstitutionalvoidsand scarce infrastructure and resources. References Al-Omoush, K. S.,V.Simón-Moya, andJ.Sendra-García. 2020. ‘The Im­pact of Social Capital and Collaborative Knowledge Creation on E-Business Proactiveness and Organizational Agility in Responding to the covid-19 Crisis.’ Journal of Innovation and Knowledge 5(4): 279– 88. Anwar, M.,T.Clauss, andW.B.Issah.2021. ‘Entrepreneurial Orienta­tion and New Venture Performance in Emerging Markets: The Medi­ating Role of Opportunity Recognition.’ Review of Managerial Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021-00457-w. Bandura, A. 1989. ‘Regulation of Cognitive Processes through Perceived Self-Efficacy.’ Developmental Psychology 25 (5): 729–35. Baron, R. M., and D. A. Kenny. 1986. ‘The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research -Conceptual, Strategic, andStatisticalConsideration.’JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychol­ogy 51 (6): 1173–82. Carlucci, D.,M. Mura,andG.Schiuma.2019. ‘FosteringEmployees’ Inno­vativeWorkBehaviorinHealthcareOrganizations.’International Jour­nal of Innovation Management 24 (2): 2050014. Chen, C. C., P. G. Greene, and A. Crick. 1998. ‘Does Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy Distinguish Entrepreneurs from Managers?’ Journal of Busi­ness Venturing 13 (4): 295–316. 164 Boris Urban and Lehlohonolo Maswabi Chen,J.Y.J., andB.Urban. 2018. ‘Behavioral and EnvironmentalInflu­ences on Entrepreneurial Orientation.’ Journal of Economics and Be­havioral Studies 10 (5): 73–88. Cooper,D.R., andP.S.Schindler, eds. 2014. Business Research Methods. New York: McGraw Hill Education. Covin,J.G.,andG.T.Lumpkin.2011.‘EntrepreneurialOrientationTheory and Research: Reflections On A Needed Construct.’ Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 35 (5): 855–72. Covin, J. G., and D. Miller. 2014. ‘International Entrepreneurial Orienta­tion: Conceptual Considerations, Research Themes, Measurement Is­sues, and Future Research Directions.’ Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 38 (1): 11–44. Demircioglu, M., and F. Chowdhury. 2020. ‘Entrepreneurship in Public Organizations:TheRoleofLeadership Behaviour.’ Small Business Eco­nomics 54 (1): 1–17. Deslatte,A.,andW.L.Swann.2020.‘ElucidatingtheLinkagesbetweenEn­trepreneurial Orientation and Local Government Sustainability Per­formance.’ TheAmerican Review ofPublicAdministration 50 (1): 92– 109. Estrin, S., J. Korosteleva, and T. Mickiewicz. 2020. ‘Schumpeterian Entry: Innovation,Exporting,andGrowthAspirationsofEntrepreneurs.’ En­trepreneurship Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1042258720909771 Gauteng Department of Health. 2017. Annual Report 2016/2017. Pretoria: Government Printers. Hornsby, J. S., D.F. Kuratko, D.T.Holt, and W.J. Wales. 2013. ‘Assess­inga Measurement ofOrganizationalPreparednessfor Corporate En-trepreneurship.’JournalofProductInnovationManagement 30(5):937– 55. Kearney, C., R.D. Hisrich,and F. Roche. 2009.‘Public andPrivate Sector Entrepreneurship:Similarities,DifferencesoraCombination?’ Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 16 (1): 26–46. Kearney, C., and T. Meynhardt. 2016. ‘Directing Corporate Entrepreneur­ship Strategy in the Public Sector to Public Value: Antecedents, Com­ponents and Outcomes.’ International Public Management Journal 19 (4): 543–72. Klein,P.G.,J.T.Mahoney,A.M.McGahan,andC.N.Pitelis.2010.‘Toward aTheoryofPublicEntrepreneurship.’European Management Review 7 (1): 1–15. Kloepfer, K., and C. J. Castrogiovanni. 2018. ‘Entrepreneurship: Venture CreationSubProcesses,Subdomains,andInterfaces.’International En­trepreneurship and Management Journal 14 (5): 681–96. Kuratko, D. F.,M.H. Morris, andJ.C. Covin. 2011. Corporate Innovation and Entrepreneurship. 3rd ed. Cincinnati: South Western Publishing. Kuratko, D. F., and M. H. Morris. 2018. ‘Corporate Entrepreneurship: A Critical Challenge for Educators and Researchers.’ Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy 1 (1): 42–60. Liu, Y., and M. Wang. 2020, ‘Entrepreneurial Orientation, New Product Development and Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Legit­imacy in Chinese High-Tech smes.’ European Journal of Innovation Management. http://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-05-2020-0204. Maresova, P., I. Soukal, R. Stemberkova, and K. Kuca. 2020. ‘Innovation in the Public Sector in a Small Open Economy-Initial Investigation of PatentActivityattheCzechUniversities.’JournalofInnovationandEn­trepreneurship 9 (1): 1–16. Meynhardt, T., and F. E. Diefenbach. 2012. ‘What Drives Entrepreneurial Orientation in the Public Sector? Evidence from Germany’s Federal Labor Agency.’ Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22 (4): 761–92. Morais, M., J. Valadares, M. Emmendoerfer, and T. Resende. 2020. ‘What Evidence of Entrepreneurshipin the Public Sector? An Analysisof In­ternational Scientific Production Abstract.’ Management and Business Entrepreneurship 9 (9): 454–74. Morris,M.H.,andF.F.Jones.1999.‘EntrepreneurshipinEstablishedOrga­nizations: The Case of the Public Sector.’ Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice 24 (1): 71–91. National Department of Health. 2017. White Paper on National Health Insurance: Towards Universal Health Coverage. Pretoria: Government Printers. Newman, A., M. Obschonka, S. Schwarz, M. Cohen, and I. Nielsen. 2019. ‘Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy: A Systematic Review of the Literature on its Theoretical Foundations, Measurement, Antecedents, and Out­comes, and an Agenda for Future Research.’ Journal of Vocational Be­havior 110 (3): 403–19. Niemand, T.,C. Rigtering,J.P. Coen, A. Kallmünzer, S.Kraus, and A. Maalaoui. 2020. ‘Digitalization in the financial industry: A Contin­gency Approach of Entrepreneurial Orientation and Strategic Vision on Digitalization.’ European Management Journal. http://doi.org/10 .1016/j.emj.2020.04.008. Özcan, S., and T. Reichstein. 2009. ‘Transition to Entrepreneurship from the Public Sector: Predispositional and Contextual Effects.’ Manage­ment Science 55 (4): 604–18. Pérez-Luńo, A., J. Wiklund, and R. V. Cabrera. 2011. ‘The Dual Nature of Innovative Activity: How Entrepreneurial Orientation Influences In- 166 Boris Urban and Lehlohonolo Maswabi novation Generation and Adoption.’ Journal of Business Venturing 26 (4): 555–71. Poon,J., R. A. Ainuddin, andS.H. Junit. 2006.‘Effects of Self-Concept Traits and Entrepreneurial Orientation on Firm Performance.’ Inter­national Small Business Journal 24 (1): 61–82. RepublicofSouthAfrica.2015. ConstitutionofSouthAfrica. Pretoria:Gov­ernmentPrinter. Ruff, B.,M.Mzimba, S. Hendrie, andJ.Broomberg. 2011. ‘Reflections on Health-Care Reforms in South Africa.’ Journal of Public Health Policy 32 (1): 184–92. Schumpeter, J. A. 1934. ‘The Theory of Economic Development.’ Cam­bridge: HarvardUniversity Press. Statistics South Africa. 2018. Mid-Year Population Estimates Report 2018. Pretoria:Government Printers. Strow, B., and C. Strow. 2018. ‘Institutional Barriers to Productive Public-Sector Entrepreneurship: An Exploratory Analysis.’ Journal of En­trepreneurship and Public Policy 7 (4): 306–19. Urban,B.2021.‘PublicSectorEntrepreneurialOrientationinSouthAfrica: AFocus on OrganisationalBoundaries,Strategyand Resources.’ Inter­national Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management 25 (1): 1–19. Urban, B.,and P. Maboko.2020. ‘Corporate Sustainability:AFocuson Entrepreneurship, Collaboration and Regulation in the South African Healthcare Industry.’ International Journal of Innovation and Sustain­able Development 14 (2): 199–218 Urban, B., and M. Nkhumishe. 2019. ‘Public Sector Entrepreneurship in SouthAfrica.’ Journal of Entrepreneurship and Public Policy 8 (4): 500– 12. Wales, W. J., A.Corbett, L.Marino, andP.Kreiser. 2020. ‘The Future of EntrepreneurialOrientation (eo) Research.’ In Entrepreneurial Orien­tation: Epistemological, Theoretical, and Empirical Perspectives, edited by A. K. Corbett, P. Marino, and L. W. Wales. Bingley: Emerald. Wales,W.J.,S.Kraus,M.Filser,C.Stöckmann,andJ.Covin.2021.‘TheSta­tus Quo of Research on Entrepreneurial Orientation.’ Journal of Busi­ness Research 128 (c): 564–77. Wojcik-Karpacz, A., J. Karpacz, and J. Rudawska. 2019. ‘Exploration and Exploitation of Good Practices by Technology Parks: Empirical Find­ings from Poland.’ Managing Global Transitions 17 (4): 317–34. Zuckerman,H.S.,W. L. Dowling,andM.L.Richardson. 2000. ‘TheMan-agerialRole.’InHealthCareManagement:OrganizationDesignandBe­havior, edited by S. M. Shortell and A. D. Kaluzny, 34–60. 4th ed. Al­bany, ny: Delmar. Received: 24 February 2021 · Accepted: 20 May 2021 · Published online: 22 June 2021 Analysis of Selected Aspects of an Organisation: The Organisation as an Instrument, an Interest Group and as a Process Dušan Gošnik University of Primorska, Slovenia dusan.gosnik@fm-kp.si Klemen Kavcic University of Primorska, Slovenia klemen.kavcic@fm-kp.si In this article, we discuss selected aspects of organisation: organisation as an instrument for achieving objectives, and organisation as an inter-estgroup,aswellasdefining theorganisation asa process. Basedon a lit­erature review we have summarised the findings of different authors and presentedwhatdefinestheorganisationfromtheaforementionedaspects. The structure of the article follows the aimrad methodology: abstract, introduction, methodology, researchand analysis, and discussion (Cargill andO’Connor2009).Theliteraturestudyresearchmethodwasused.Find­ingsare presenteddescriptively and in tabular form with a discussionand comments.Findingsofthisresearchareusefulforthegeneral,professional public, for the management of different organisations and for researchers from the fields of organisation and management, because selected aspects of organisations are intertwined, and their understanding is related to the basicmanagementactivitiesof eachorganisationsuchasplanning,organ­ising, leading and supervising and thus related decision-making. Key Words: aspects of organisation,interest group, instrumental aspect, process aspect, analysis jel Classification: d21, d23, l22 https://doi.org/10.26493/1854-6935.19.167-181 Introduction and Theoretical Background Organisationscanbestudiedfromdifferentangles,e.g.sociological,tech­nological, psychological, as a business or machine, an organism, a brain, as flows andchange, asystem, as an instrument,aninterestgroup or a process. Ifweareinterestedinpeople’sbehaviour,wecanstudytheorganisation fromasociologicalpointofview(Oh2020,558).Theorganisationasaso­cialformationstrivestoachieveacommongoal(BavecandManzin2012, 168 Dušan Gošnik and Klemen Kavcic 27). Ifweareinterestedinthetechnologyusedbyanorganisation,wewill be interested in the technological aspect of the organisation. This can be interesting from many perspectives. For example, today we are dealing with increasing use of information technology and thus related issues in organisations are: how is new knowledge created, how is knowledge sharedwithinorganisations,howdosharingpracticesbetweenorganisa-tionssupportinnovations(Chatterjee,Ghosh,andChaudhuri2020,1261; Hutahayan 2020, 1289; Khawaya et al. 2020, 237; Veiga et al. 2021, 590). If we look at an organisationas an environment of pressures and hard­ships, victories and defeats, cooperation and trust, the social aspect of employment, and how employees experience it, we will be interested in the psychologicalaspect of the organisation (Bavec and Manzin 2012, 27; Valitova and Besson 2021, 3). Understanding the organisation as an instrument (a machine) is sim­ilar to understanding the operation of a well-oiled machine to achieve a goal.Theorganisationcanalsobeaninstrumentofpowerinthisrespect. Insuchamachine,people(employees)arelikeitswheels.Thiskindofun­derstanding was typical at the beginning of the last century (Taylor 1911). Because tangible and intangible assets flow through organisations, and because organisations create value for customers in these flows, they can also be understood as flows and change (Suárez-Barraza, Miguel-Dávila, and Morales-Contreras 2021, 29). An organisation as an organism is comprised of people that change, trigger changesinan environment, andalsorespond to changesfromthe environment. From this perspective, organisations are living organisms, just like the human body. An organisation as a system changes the input quantities (people, raw materials, technology, energy, and information) into outputs (products and services). In the same way, we can also un­derstand and study organisations as a process in which we transform in-putsintoproducts/services(Tavcar2008;2009,107;ŠkrinjarandTrkman 2013; Gošnik 2019a; 2019b). Different authors worldwide (Kovacic and Bosilj-Vukšic 2005; Škrin­jar and Trkman 2013; Trkman et al. 2015; Hernaus, Bosilj-Vukšic, and Indihar-Štemberger 2016; Latif et al. 2020; Kwayu, Abubakre, and Lal 2021; Lodgaard and Dransfeld 2020) have studied organisation as a pro­cess. In the literature there are missing studies about specific aspect of an organisation, such as the organisation as an instrument for achieving objectives, or the organisation as an interest group and thus related com­parison studies, which has been detected as our research gap. The aim of this study is to emphasise importance of understanding organisationsfromdifferentanglesandtodescribeinstrumental,interest aspect of organisations and process-oriented organisations. In this article we have limited our study to selected aspects of an or-ganisation such as:organisation asaninstrumentfor achieving goals, an interest group and an organisation as a process. From research method­ology aspect we have limited ourselves to the literature review approach. Thispaperisorganisedasfollows:(1)introduction,(2)researchmeth-odology,(3) research and analysis,(4)summaryofthe findings,withdis­cussion and (5) conclusion with possible further research in this field. The Research Methodology Basedonthestudyofdomesticandworldliteraturefromthefieldofman­agement and organisation, we researched selected aspects of organisa­tions: organisationsas an instrument, an interest group, and as a process. Thesystematicreviewwasconductedwithinthefollowinglistofsources: Emerald, jstor, and Springer. Keywords such as: interest, instrumental, mechanic, organic, process, and aspect organisation were used. Based on the study of the literature in this field from 1990 onwards and citations of different authors,which includes also the latest sources from2020 and 2021, we present and discuss findings as defined in the research ques­tions. Comparison of the findings by different authors are presented and discussed. In this research we answered the following research questions (rq): rq1 What defines an organisation as an instrument? rq2 What defines an organisation as an interest group? rq3 What defines an organisation as a process? By synthesising the findings, we prepared summaries, brought them together in a tabular form, and provided comments. The findings are in­teresting for the general, professional public and the management of ser­viceandproductionorganisations,asselectedaspectsoforganisationsare intertwined, and their understanding is related to the basic management activities of each organisation such as planning, organising, leading, and supervising as well as the related decision-making. Research and Analysis of Selected Aspects of Organisations According to the research questions, we present three selected aspects of the operationof eachorganisationin the following:(1)an organisationas 170 Dušan Gošnik and Klemen Kavcic table1 TheConceptionofManagementActivitiesfromanInterestandInstrumental Aspect The activity The organisation as an in-The organisation as an in-of management terest group strument Planning Conceptualizing ideas Developing plans Organizing Connecting Arranging, designing Leading Leading people Managing business Supervising Assessing, judging Measuring notes Adapted from Tavcar (2009, 24). an instrument, (2) an organisationas an interest group,and (3)an organ-isation as a process. the organisation as an instrument for achieving goals Every organisation can be observed as an instrument (machine, device) for achieving objectives, first and foremost subordinated to the inter­ests of owners (Biloslavo2006, 18; Tavcar 2008; 2009, 107; Gošnik 2019a; 2019b). Thisaffects the company’scoremanagement activities,whichare planning, organising, leading, and supervising (table 1). Planning as part of management activities in instrumental terms is based on short-term results. It focuses primarily on fulfilling of the owner’s interests. Managers put regulations on the front line and ana­lytical decision-making prevails (Tavcar 2009, 107). In this case, plan­ning focuses on existing services, existing products, maintaining current processes, high productivity, short term financial benefits and financial resources, and not on creating new core capabilities, new processes or new products and services (Tavcar 2009, 221–2). Organising as a part of management activities in the instrumental as­pect is called arranging (designing) and means primarily formalising, standardising work tasks, and sanctioning violators. Division of tasks among employees puts the needs of the organisation up front. Interests andwishesofemployeesarenotsoimportant.Processarranging(design­ing) is focused on determination of employee responsibilities.Achieving efficiency and high productivity of employees and processes predomi­nate (Tavcar2009, 328–9).Leadinginthe instrumentalaspect focuseson business(documentation)andresults.Financialdecisionsplayakeyrole. Consequently,italsoaffects the core and supportingprocesses in an or-ganisation, material flows, strategy, and quality. The leading style is autocratic, and management tries to circumvent co-workers’ resistance. The focus is on existing products, not developing new ones. The organisationrespondspoorlytoenvironmentalinfluences (Tavcar 2009, 474–5). Supervising, as part of management activities in the instrumental aspect, is called measuring. Quantitative measurement of business performance is in the forefront. Employees are constantly su­pervised (controlled, monitored), the emphasis is on costs, economics, and the highest possible returns, is short-term oriented and oriented on quick wins (immediate results) (Tavcar 2009, 537). Each organisation is not only an instrument for achieving goals but also an interest group (interest-based society) which we present below. the organisation as an interest group The understanding of an organisation as an interest group is related to a social understanding of the purpose of organisations. Organisations perform better if they consider the interests of external participants (customers, suppliers and partners) and the interests of internal partici­pants (employees,management andowners).Theinterestaspectempha-sises the organisation as a society of interests of different participants (Biloslavo 2006, 18; Tavcar 2009, 107–8; Gošnik 2019a; 2019b). Planning as a management activity within the aspect of interest can be called conceptualising ideas. Conceptualisation is subordinate to the interests of all participants (suppliers, employees, customers, managers, owners, and other market participants). It is oriented towards the long-termgrowth andperformance oftheorganisation. Conceptualisationfo­cusesonacquiringnewknowledgeandbasicabilities,andinimplement­ing goals and strategies, and emphasises coordination with as many par­ticipants as possible (Tavcar 2009, 222–3; Trkman et al. 2015, 250–66; Gošnik 2019a; 2019b). Organising as a management activity within the aspect of interest is called connecting. Relationships between employees in the company arebased, inthisrespect,ontheir interestsand also on theinterests of other participants (e.g. suppliers, customers), and create opportunities for creative cooperation between employees; cooperation between dif­ferent participants is flexible (Tavcar 2009, 329–30). The interest aspect emphasises people (employees) and is therefore called leading people or co-workers (employees). It is characterised by dealing with employees and other participants of the organisation as a source of new knowledge and ideas for further growth (Nodeson et al. 2012, 466; Gošnik 2019a; 172 Dušan Gošnik and Klemen Kavcic 2019b). Organisations that in-corporate external knowledge are more likely to achieve product innovations (Hernández, Nieto, and Rodríguez 2021, 155). Knowledge generation and knowledge flow have a central role in achieving innovation and company performance and competitive ad­vantage (Hutahayan 2020, 1289; Obeso et al. 2020, 1859; Ramayah et al. 2020, 1021). Leadingemployeesintheinterestaspecttakesintoaccountemployees’ needsandisbasedonknowledge.Itislessauthoritarian.Cooperationbe-tween participants is oriented towards the common benefit and satisfac­tion of different interests. Management consider the abilities of employ­ees and communication between different participants, based on trust (Tavcar 2009, 476–9). The interest aspect of supervising can be called assessing (judging). Goals are the result of the interests of different par­ticipants. Business goals are assessed based on relative comparisons and understanding, through participant satisfaction and longevity. It is less strict than measuring and includes the intuition of the decision maker (Tavcar 2009, 537; 539; Gošnik 2019a; 2019b). the organisation as a process Wecanalsolookatanyorganisationthroughtheprismofinterconnected processes, and not as a hierarchical organisational structure. Until re­cently, the prevailing opinion was that the most important thing for the successful operation of an organisation is to define the organisational structure. Thesedaysitistruethatweput processes inthe foreground and those organisational structures and rules, as elements pertaining to the orderliness of the organisation, follow processes (Bavec and Manzin 2012,13).Vila(2000,81)saysthatiftheprocessesinanorganisationcease tofunction,theorganisationalsoceasestofunction,regardlessofthefact that the structure still remains in place. This, therefore, requires organi­sationstofocus on processesrather than structures. We areincreasingly replacing the traditional view of the organisation as a hierarchy with a process view, which states that every organisation is a process (Markic 2003; Škrinjar and Trkman 2013, 48). An organisation as a process is like a system that responds to inputs and generates outputs. Processes in an organisation direct managers to consider who customers are, what they expect, what value they expect, what we can offer them, what else to im­prove,whatprocesseswouldenableustomeetcustomerexpectationsand what resources we need to do so. Processes also guide managers to consider new strategies and produc-tivity. More and more companies use process orientation also because functional organisation is an obstacle for organisations, as it prevents effective integration between individual functional areas (departments) and market responsiveness (Kovacic and Bosilj-Vukšic 2005, 32; Škrin­jar and Trkman 2013, 48). Managing processes is today basic require-mentforfurtherdevelopmentofcompanies,nomattertheirsizeandfield of operation (Trkman et al. 2015; Hernaus, Bosilj-Vukšic, and Indihar­Štemberger 2016). From this perspective, managers should be primarily interestedintheprocessesthattakeplaceinorganisations(Gošnik2019a; 2019b; Latif et al. 2020; Kwayu, Abubakre, and Lal 2021; Lodgaard and Dransfeld2020).Theprocessviewofanorganisationrequiresaflatteror­ganisationand anintegration of businessfunctions inorder to effectively develop new value for the market (Potocan and Nedelko 2015, 21). The processes within organisationsalso enable the more efficient servicing of customers, and improving existing and designing new processes; qual­itybecomesaconditionforsuccessfulbusiness,iteliminates the problem of hierarchical business functions, and in the face of challenges sets the teamwork cooperation among employees (as well as suppliers and other market participants), just as business process implementation time is a key factor in competitiveness (environmental responsiveness, overtak­ingcompetitors)andsimilarlytailoredstrategies(Glavan-Milanovic2011, 25; Suárez-Barraza,Miguel-Dávila,andMorales-Contreras2021,29).Ac­cording to Hrabal et al. (2020, 275) the human role presents the most important factor at bpm implementation. Kovacic et al. (2004, 61) states that organisations that make the transi­tion to a process oriented organisation experience the following changes (table 2). Thereareseveralreasonsforthetransitionfromaclassical(functional) to a process organisation: (1) complicated transfer of information along the vertical hierarchy; (2) large delays during the transmission of in­formation, documents, material, etc. between functions, departments or services; (3) the danger that functional departments do not cooperate enough (Unterlechner, Meško Štok, and Markic 2009, 118–9). Looking at an organisation as a process is nothing new these days. Throughout history, humans have always dealt with processes. From the Industrial Revolutionand the emergence of factories in the 18th century, the field of management also developed. Managers primarily focused on production processes. Among them was Henry Ford, who founded the Ford Motor Company in 1903 and designed a new concept for the pro- 174 Dušan Gošnik and Klemen Kavcic table 2 Traditional and Process View of an Organisation Issue Traditional Process-oriented organisation organisation Emphasis in organisation Business function Business Process Organisational unit Department Working group/team Description of the work Narrowly defined Wide Focus Supervisor Customer/buyer The role of leadership Supervision Mentorship The key person Business Director The owner (administrator) of the process Business culture Conflict-oriented Cooperation notes Adapted from Kovacic et al. (2004, 61). duction of the car – the assembly line. Work was standardised, a limited number of versions were produced and of only one colour. Therefore, productioncostswerelowandcarsbecamemoreaffordable. Thisalsore­sulted in changes to other processes in the factory, to procurement, and suppliers (Unterlechner, Meško Štok, and Markic 2009, 120–6). Mogensen and Rausa (1989) came to the realisation that the greatest loss in processes is the disregard for the professional and experience-basedabilitiesofworkerstoimplement changesinprocesses. Heempha­sised the need to measure processes, be open to change, understand pro­cesses, and understand and emphasise human relationships; the ability to take an analytical approach to problem-solving; a cleaner and tidier work environment; and the ability to accept improvements (Mogensen and Rausa 1989; Unterlechner, Meško Štok, and Markic 2009, 120). The manufacturer market was slowly transitioning towards a customer mar­ket. The supplyofproducts was becominggreater than demand. This re­sulted in the need for organisations to introduce new changes into their operations and thus into their processes (Unterlechner, Meško Štok, and Markic 2009, 25). In 1990, Rummler and Brache found that most problems in processes arise when work passes from department to department. As a solution, they presented the idea of managing the process as a whole. The term Business Process Reengineering (bpr) was developed (Rummler and Brache 1990). According to Champy (1995), bpr organisations needed to treat business processes as comprehensive, ranging from order activ­ity to product delivery, and use the necessary information technologies tohelptheminterconnect. Many bpr attemptswereunsuccessful.Man­agershadbecomemorecautious.Theadventofnewdataprocessingsoft-ware made it easier to capture and process data and produce the reports needed to run businesses. That led to redundancies in management ser­vices. Under the pretext of bpr, organisations carried out a reduction in thenumberofemployees,andso bpr gainedabadreputationandatthe endofthe90sfellintooblivion.Asanalternative,manyorganisationsbe­gan to use new terms to describe business process rearrangements, such as Business Process Improvements (bpi) or Business Process Redesign (Unterlechner, Meško Štok, and Markic 2009, 25). A period of business standardisation followed. Approaches such as Total Quality Management (tqm) have emerged. According to Edward Deming, tqm envisages the continuous improvement of all organisa­tional processes, products, and services and is based on the assumption that quality improvement is a key factor in achieving business efficiency andeffectiveness(Kovacicetal. 2004,68;Chatterjee,Ghosh,andChaud­huri 2020, 1261). tqm strives to ensure that there are no errors in pro-cesses,tocontinuouslyimproveprocesses,employeecooperationandde­velopment,andqualityasdictatedbythecustomer. FindingsofBabuand Thomas (2021, 157) show positive direct and indirect effects of tqm on employee satisfaction as well. These days, the competitiveness of any organisation stems from the competitiveness of core processes (Gošnik 2019a; 2019b). The common features of core processesare: (1) coreprocesses musthave a recognisable benefit forcustomers;(2)coreprocessesmustbedifficulttocopy;and(3) core processes must be irreplaceable with other solutions (Sinur, Odell andFingar2013inPotocanandNedelko2015;Gošnik2019a;2019b). Sup-portprocesses,ontheotherhand,enableorganisationstoharmonisecore processes with standards, legal requirements, and business instructions (Potocan and Nedelko 2015, 46). Supporting processes include (Smith and Fingar 2003, 53): guarantee implementation processes, information support, invoicing, data management, order preparation, business per­formance monitoring, market analyses, and market analysis, etc. A Summary of the Findings and Discussion Different definitions of an organisation have many aspects in common. They define organisations as dynamic formations in which people (em­ployees) play a key role; they are focused on achieving goals and ben­efitting society. We can study organisations from different perspectives, 176 Dušan Gošnik and Klemen Kavcic dependingontheoneweareinterestedin.Wepresentedthreeselectedas­pectsoftheoperationoforganisations:theorganisationasaninstrument, the organisation as an interest group, and the organisation as a process. Every organisation is an instrument (machine, device) for achieving the goalsofitsowners. Understanding an organisationas aninterestgroupis relatedtoabroadersocialpurposeoforganisations.Theinterestaspectof an organisation emphasises the organisation as a community of interests of different participants. In every organisation, there is an instrumental (rigid, mechanical) and at the same time interest (soft, organic) aspect, regardless of the size, industry, or type of organisation. Long-term busi­nesssuccessdependsonthebalanceofthesetwoaspects. Thisisreflected inallfourbasicmanagementactivities(planning,organising,leadingand supervising). At the forefront of the notion of the functioning of organ-isations these days is the process aspect, with an emphasis on core pro­cesses. Core processes are comprehensive and dynamically coordinated sets of activities that enable the supply of customers (clients) with prod­ucts and services. These take place in time and space, have clearly de­fined inputs and outputs (results), and must necessarily be coordinated. Consequently,inevery company, it requires notonlyknowledge of the principles and mastery of general management, but above all the prin­ciples of business process management, with a focus on core business processes. Changes in business processes should be a constant practice andtheworkofmanagersinanycompany.Whenchangingbusinesspro-cesses,the connectionof changeswiththefundamental directions,goals, and strategies of each specific company must be taken into account. Suc­cessful management of an organisation as a process requires the involve­ment of customers, as products/services are intended for them, and pro­cesses must create value just for them. It should also involve employees as well as suppliers as they can be a source of ideas. Managing an organ-isation as a process with an emphasis on core processes is a particularly strategicopportunityforthedevelopmentofnewcompetitiveadvantages of organisations. Conclusion Thesedays,thereisaneedforcompaniestosimultaneouslyintegratedif­ferent approaches into business process management, such as focusing on goals, customers, process control and quality; involving different par­ticipants; and standardising good practices, with the support of e.g., Six Sigma, Lean Management, and at the same time to manage basic sup-port processes, e.g. Lean Administration. Management in organisations mustalsointegrateprocesses,strategydevelopment,andgoalsinbusiness process innovation in an appropriately comprehensive manner, with an emphasis on customer benefits (Lei, Leaungkhamma, and Le 2020, 481). AccordingtoMooi,Rudd,anddeJong(2020,741)processinnovationisa keydeterminantofbusinessperformance(Mooi,Rudd,anddeJong2020, 741).Innovationstrategyhasasignificanteffectonfinancialperformance (Hutahayan 2020, 1289). Consequently, in every organisation, it requires not only knowledge of the principles and mastery of general manage­ment, interest, and instrumental, but above all the mastery of business processes with focus on core business processes (Gošnik 2019a; 2019b). Every organisation can be observed as an instrument (machine, de­vice)forachievingobjectivesanditisfirstsubordinatedtotheinterestsof owners(Biloslavo2006,18;Tavcar2008;2009,107;Gošnik2019a;2019b). This affects the company’s core management activities, which are plan­ning, organising, leading, and supervising. Eachorganisationisalso aninterest group(interestbased society). For better performance organisations should consider the following: organ-isations perform better if they consider interests of external participants (customers, suppliers and partners) and interests of internal participants (employees, management and owners) (Biloslavo 2006, 18; Tavcar 2009, 107–8; Gošnik 2019a; 2019b). Theinterestaspectemphasisestheorganisationasasocietyofinterests of different participants. Conceptualisation as an instrumental aspect of planning is subordinate to the interests of all participants (suppliers, em­ployees, customers, managers, owners,and other market participants).It shouldbeorientedtowardsthelong-termgrowthandperformanceofthe organisation. Relationshipsbetweenemployeesinthecompanyinthein­terest aspect should be based on their interests and also on the interests ofotherparticipants(e.g.,suppliers,customers),andcreateopportunities forcreativecooperationbetweenemployees(Tavcar2009,222–3;Trkman et al. 2015, 250–66; Gošnik 2019a; 2019b). Leadingemployeesintheinterestaspecttakesintoaccountemployees’ needs and is based on knowledge. Knowledge generation and knowledge flow have a central role in achieving innovation and firm performance andcompetitiveadvantage.Businessgoalsfromtheinterestaspectshould bebasedonrelativecomparisonsandunderstanding,throughparticipant satisfaction and longevity (Tavcar 2009, 537–9; Gošnik 2019a; 2019b). Managing an organisation as a process is today a basic requirement 178 Dušan Gošnik and Klemen Kavcic for further development of companies, no matter their size and field of operation (Trkman et al. 2015; Hernaus, Bosilj-Vukšic, and Indihar­Štemberger 2016). From this perspective, managers should be primarily interestedintheprocessesthattakeplaceinorganisations(Gošnik2019a; 2019b; Latif et al. 2020; Kwayu, Abubakre, and Lal 2020; Lodgaard and Dransfeld 2020). Thisresearchislimitedtodefininganorganisationasaninterestgroup, an organisationas an instrument for achieving goals and an organisation as a process. From the research methodology aspect, this research is lim­ited on the literature review approach. Despitelimitations,the findings ofthis research are usefulforthe gen­eral professional public, for the management of different organisations and for researchers in the field of organisation and management, as the selected aspects of organisations are intertwined, and their understand­ing is related to the basic management activities of each organisation: planning, organising, leading and supervising and thus related decision-making, regardless of size and industry of the organisation. Further research in this area could be focused on the relation between differentaspectsofanorganisationandcompanyperformance. Also,fur­ther research could be focused on systematic research of the literature in thefieldofotheraspectsoforganisations,suchasanorganisationasaso­ciological formation, psychological formation, technological formation, organisationas flows,organisationas change, organisationas a system or organisation as a brain. References Babu,F., andS.Thomas. 2021.‘QualityManagement Practices as aDriver of Employee Satisfaction: Exploring the Mediating Role of Organiza­tional Image.’ International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 13 (1): 157–74. Bavec, C., and M. Manzin. 2012. Strukturni vidiki organiziranosti. Koper: Fakultetaza management. Biloslavo, R. 2006. Strateški management in management spreminjanja. Koper: Fakultetaza management. Cargill, M.,and P. O’Connor.2009. Writing Scientific Research Articles: Strategy and Steps. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Champy, J. 1995. Reengineering Management: The Mandate for New Lead­ership. London: Harper Collins. Chatterjee, S., S. Ghosh, and Chandhuri, R. 2020. ‘Knowledge Manage-mentinImprovingBusinessProcess:AnInterpretativeFrameworkfor Successful Implementation of ai-crm-km System in Organizations.’ Business Process Management Journal 26 (6): 1261–81. Glavan-Milanovic,L.2011.‘UnderstandingProcessPerformanceMeasure­ment Systems.’ Business Systems Research 2(2):1–56. Gošnik,D. 2019a. ‘CoreBusinessProcessManagementandCompanyPer­formance.’ Management 14 (1): 59–86. Gošnik, D. 2019b. Management temeljnih procesov: instrumentalni in in-teresni vpliv na uspešnost podjetij. Koper: ZaložbaUniverzenaPri­morskem. Hernández, V., M. J. Nieto, and A. Rodríguez. 2021. ‘Product and Process Innovations and the Institutional Context of Transition Economies: The Effects of External Knowledge.’ In The Multiple Dimensions of In­stitutional Complexity in International Business Research, edited by A. Verbeke, R. van Tulder, E. L. Rose, and Y. Wei, 155–70. Progress in In-ternationalBusinessResearch 15. Bingley: Emerald. Hernaus, T.,V.Bosilj-Vukšic, and M. Indihar-Štemberger. 2016. ‘How to Go from Strategy to Results? Institutionalising bpm Governance within Organisations.’ Business Process Management Journal 22 (1): 173–95. Hrabal, M., D. Tucek, V. Molnár, and G. Fedorko. 2020. ‘Human Factor in Business Process Management: Modeling Competencies of bpm Roles.’ Business Process Management Journal 27 (1): 275–305. Hutahayan, B. 2020. ‘The Mediating Role of HumanCapital and Manage-mentAccountingInformationSystemin theRelationship betweenIn­novation Strategy and Internal Process Performance and the Impact on CorporateFinancial Performance.’ Benchmarking: An International Journal 27 (4): 1289–318. Latif, K. F., A. Nazeer, F. Shahzad, M. Ullah, M. Imranullah, and U. F. Sahibzada. 2020. ‘Impact of Entrepreneurial Leadership on Project Success: Mediating Role of Knowledge Management Processes.’ Lead­ership & Organization Development Journal 41 (2): 237–56. Kwayu, S.,M.Abubakre, andB.Lal.2021. ‘The Influence of Informal So­cialMediaPracticesonKnowledgeSharingandWorkProcesseswithin Organizations.’ International Journal of Information Management 58 (102280). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102280. Kovacic, A., J. Jaklic, M. Indihar-Štemberger,and A. Groznik. 2004. Pren-ova in informatizacija poslovanja. Ljubljana: Ekonomska fakulteta. Kovacic, A., and V. Bosilj-Vukšic. 2005. Management poslovnih procesov: prenova in informatizacija poslovanja s prakticnimi primeri. Ljubljana: gv založba. Kralj,J.2003.Management:temeljimanagementa,odlocanjeinostalenaloge managerjev. Koper: Fakulteta za management. 180 Dušan Gošnik and Klemen Kavcic Lei, H.,L.Leaungkhamma, and P. B. Le.2020. ‘How Transformational Leadership Facilitates Innovation Capability: The Mediating Role of Employees’ Psychological Capital.’ Leadership & Organization Devel­opment Journal 41 (4): 481–99. Lodgaard,E., andS. Dransfeld. 2020. ‘OrganizationalAspects for Success­fulIntegrationofHuman-MachineInteractionintheIndustry4.0era.’ Procedia cirp 88:218–22. Markic,M.2003. Inoviranje procesov kot pogoj za odlicnost poslovanja. Kranj: Fakulteta za organizacijske vede. Mogensen, A.H., andR.Z.Rausa. 1989. Mogy: An Autobiography; Father of Work Simplification. Chesapeake: Idea Associates. Mooi, E., J. Rudd, and A. de Jong. 2020. ‘Process Innovation and Perfor-mance:The Roleof Divergence.’ European Journal of Marketing 54(4): 741–60. Nodeson, S., P. Beleya, G. Raman, and C. Ramendran. 2012. ‘Leadership Role in Handling Employee’s Resistance: Implementation of Innova­tion.’ Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business 4 (1): 466–77. Obeso, M., R. Hernández-Linares, M. C. López-Fernández, and A. M. Serrano-Bedia. 2020. ‘Knowledge Management Processes and Orga­nizational Performance:The Mediating Role of OrganizationalLearn­ing.’ Journal of Knowledge Management 24 (8): 1859–80. Oh,K.E.2020.‘SocialAspectsofPersonalInformationOrganization.’Jour­nal of Documentation 77 (2): 558–75. Potocan, V., and Z. Nedelko. 2015. Poslovni procesi v organizacijah. Mari-bor: Self-published. Ramayah, T.,P.Soto-Acosta, K.K. Kheng,and I. Mahmud. 2020. ‘De­veloping Process and Product Innovation through Internal and Exter­nal Knowledge Sources in Manufacturing Malaysian Firms: The Role of Absorptive Capacity.’ Business Process Management Journal 26 (5): 1021–39. Rummler, G. A., and A. P. Brache. 1990. Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space on the Organization Chart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sinur, J.,J.Odell,and P. Fingar. 2013. Business Process Management: The Next Wave. Tampa: Meghan-KifferPress. Smith, H., and P. Fingar. 2003. Business Process Management. The Third Wawe. Tampa: Meghan-Kiffer Press. Suárez-Barraza, M. F., J. A. Miguel-Dávila, and M. F. Morales-Contreras. 2021. ‘Application of Kaizen-Kata Methodology to Improve Opera­tional Problem Processes: A Case Study in a Service Organization.’ International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 13 (1): 29–44. Managing Global Transitions Škrinjar, R., and P. Trkman. 2013. ‘Increasing Process Orientation with Business Process Management: Critical Practices.’ International Jour­nal of Information Management 33 (1): 48–60. Tavcar, M.I.2008. Management in organizacija: celostno snovanje politike organizacije. Koper: Fakulteta za management. Tavcar, M.I.2009. Management in organizacija: sinteza konceptov orga­nizacije kot instrumenta in kot skupnosti interesov. Koper: Fakulteta za management. Taylor, F. W. 1911. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: Harper. Trkman, P., W. Mertens, S. Viaene, and P. Gemmel. 2015. ‘From Business ProcessManagementtoCustomerProcessManagement.’BusinessPro­cess Management Journal 21 (2): 250–66. Unterlechner,M.,Z.MeškoŠtok,andM.Markic.2009.Inoviranje,kakovost inLean Six Sigma vproizvodnem procesu. Koper:Fakultetazamanage­ment. Valitova,A.,and D. Besson.2021. ‘InterpersonalCommunicationsat Core ofConflicts’EscalationinOrganization:TheInterplayofInterpersonal Communication Escalation, People’s Habitus and Psycho-Sociological ProcessesAreMoreImportantThanContextualFactors.’JournalofOr­ganizational Change Management 34 (1): 3–27. Veiga,P. M.,P.,R. Figueiredo,J.J. M.Ferreira,andF.Ambrósio. 2021.‘The Spinner Innovation Model: Understanding the Knowledge Creation, KnowledgeTransferandInnovationProcessin smes.’BusinessProcess Management Journal 27 (2): 590–14. Vila,A.2000. Organizacijavpostmodernidružbi. Kranj:ZaložbaModerna organizacija.