Creative legitimacy

Social ventures provide increasingly important services in countries seen as “authoritarian”, but have frequently aroused suspicion and drawn the wrath of such governments. A new study co-authored at Cambridge Judge Business School outlines how such ventures can gain legitimacy and thrive.

The study published in the?Academy of Management Journal?argues that such social ventures should seek “optimal assimilation” through a two-pronged approach: “protective disguise” coupled with “harmonious advocacy”.

“Organisational legitimacy may need to be conceptualised differently when examining social ventures – and indeed other forms of organisation – in authoritarian regimes,” says the study, which notes that research on social venture legitimation had previously focused on developed democracies with institutionalised civil liberties.

Creating social ventures in authoritarian regimes ‘dangerous’

Yet social ventures are prevalent in more than 50 countries governed by “authoritarian regimes” according to the Economist Intelligence Unit – and creating such social ventures “can be outright dangerous”, risking censorship and political sanctions if the venture’s agenda is seen to clash with government interests, the authors say.

The study is co-authored by Isabel Neuberger, a Lecturer at Southampton Business School, who is a?Cambridge Judge PhD?graduate and an Associate Research Fellow at the Business School’s?Cambridge Centre for Social Innovation;?Jochem Kroezen, Assistant Professor in International Business at Cambridge Judge; and?Paul Tracey, Professor of Innovation & Organisation at Cambridge Judge. The study is entitled?“Balancing ‘Protective Disguise’ with ‘Harmonious’ Advocacy: Social Venture Legitimation in Authoritarian Contexts”.

The study focuses on a social venture in Egypt named Amal (a pseudonym, meaning “hope” in Arabic) to further access and other rights for disabled people, who make up nearly 15% of Egypt’s population but have long faced exclusion and discrimination.

Mass protests in January 2011 led to the Egyptian Revolution that ushered in several changes to Egypt’s government, yet Egypt ranked 137 of 167 countries on the Economist Intelligence Unit democracy index (2019) and was classified as “authoritarian”. A new terrorism law enacted in 2015 was criticised by some observers for using a “broad definition of terrorism that also included social activism. For example, individuals could be accused of orchestrating peaceful demonstrations to mobilise anti-government efforts,” the study says.

Social change agenda was cloaked behind ‘innocuous’ facade

Early on in its journey, Amal used “protective disguise” to “cloak” its social change agenda, deliberately taking on the appearance of an “innocuous” service organisation and limiting public advocacy. Although it took the legal form of a non-governmental organisation (NGO), Amal “camouflaged” itself as a consulting firm offering accessibility services to make public spaces and tourism more accessible.

“Rather than framing its mission as being about human rights issues, which was likely to be viewed as politically subversive, Amal rhetorically constructed congruence – or ‘functional overlap’ between its goals and those of the government. This meant emphasising how Amal’s efforts to support disabled people helped promote social stability, economic prosperity, and national interests, rather than social reform.”

The study focuses on a social venture in Egypt named Amal (a pseudonym, meaning “hope” in Arabic) to further access and other rights for disabled people, who make up nearly 15% of Egypt’s population but have long faced exclusion and discrimination.

Mass protests in January 2011 led to the Egyptian Revolution that ushered in several changes to Egypt’s government, yet Egypt ranked 137 of 167 countries on the Economist Intelligence Unit democracy index (2019) and was classified as “authoritarian”. A new terrorism law enacted in 2015 was criticised by some observers for using a “broad definition of terrorism that also included social activism. For example, individuals could be accused of orchestrating peaceful demonstrations to mobilise anti-government efforts,” the study says.

Social change agenda was cloaked behind ‘innocuous’ facade

Early on in its journey, Amal used “protective disguise” to “cloak” its social change agenda, deliberately taking on the appearance of an “innocuous” service organisation and limiting public advocacy. Although it took the legal form of a non-governmental organisation (NGO), Amal “camouflaged” itself as a consulting firm offering accessibility services to make public spaces and tourism more accessible.

“Rather than framing its mission as being about human rights issues, which was likely to be viewed as politically subversive, Amal rhetorically constructed congruence – or ‘functional overlap’ between its goals and those of the government. This meant emphasising how Amal’s efforts to support disabled people helped promote social stability, economic prosperity, and national interests, rather than social reform.”