Social Enterprise Referents: How Social Enterprises Help Organize Nascent Fields to Address Complex Societal Problems

Reinecke, Pauline C.; Wrona, Thomas Article — Published Version Social Enterprise Referents: How Social Enterprises Help Organize Nascent Fields to Address Complex Societal Problems Journal of Management Studies Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Reinecke, Pauline C.; Wrona, Thomas (2024) : Social Enterprise Referents: How Social Enterprises Help Organize Nascent Fields to Address Complex Societal Problems, Journal of Management Studies, ISSN 1467-6486, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 62, Iss. 6, pp. 2302-2328, https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13169 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/330210 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Social Enterprise Referents: How Social Enterprises Help Organize Nascent Fields to Address Complex Societal Problems Pauline C. Reinecke and Thomas Wrona Hamburg University of Technology ABSTRACT Addressing societal challenges requires engaging diverse actors, but clashes between social and commercial interests often hinder coordination. In established fields, conflicting social interests can be integrated by challenging dominant commercial positions and rallying powerful actors. However, creating new fields without established actors and coordination mechanisms is more complex, especially when interests conflict. We explore this challenge through the development of reusable containers for takeaway food and beverages, where incompatible perspectives initially led to a field impasse. A pioneering social enterprise blending commercial and social interests emerged as a referent, facilitating collaboration and breaking the impasse. After initial field organizing succeeded, regulatory changes and increased demand exposed the shortcomings of early solutions, leading to setbacks. New social enterprises developed solutions to fill supply–demand gaps, anchoring new models in a market and driving both standardization and innovation. We introduce the concept of ‘social enterprise referents’ to highlight their essential role in organizing nascent fields to address complex societal issues. Without these referents, models for building new fields struggle to take hold. Successfully transitioning from an underorganized to an organized field requires sustained efforts from multiple social enterprise referents to anchor solutions in a market and uphold collaboration with field actors. Keywords: social enterprises, nascent field, conflicting interests, complex societal problems, systems theory Journal of Management Studies 62:6 September 2025 doi:10.1111/joms.13169 Address for reprints: Pauline C. Reinecke, Institute for Strategic and International Management, Hamburg University of Technology, Am SchwarzenbergCampus 4, 21073 Hamburg, Germany (pauline.reinecke@ tuhh.de). This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 2303Social Enterprise Referents © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. INTRODUCTION A major societal challenge is the accumulation and mismanagement of waste on a global scale (George et al., 2016; HowardGrenville et al., 2014). As populations and economic activities proliferate, so does the volume of waste generated (George et al., 2015). In Germany alone, the consumption of disposable cups for takeaway beverages has surged by 500 per cent over the past two decades (Federation of German Consumer Organizations, 2021). Although the problem is widely recognized, coordination efforts to promote waste reduction, recycling, and new circular economy models focused on reuse have stalled due to conflicts between the social and commercial interests of key field actors (Lounsbury et al., 2003; Patala et al., 2022). Social enterprises adopt models that integrate social and commercial goals (Doherty et al., 2014; Pache and Thornton, 2020), as seen in fields such as microfinance (Battilana and Dorado, 2010), renewable energy (York et al., 2016), locally produced food (Hedberg and Lounsbury, 2021), and waste recycling (Lounsbury et al., 2003). These models’ potential to tackle societal problems increases if they diffuse within a field (Battilana et al., 2017; Bergman, 2017; McMullen, 2018). In organized fields like energy production, this process is supported by existing coordination mechanisms such as rules and norms (York et al., 2016; Zietsma et al., 2017) and involves challenging and transforming dominant commercial interests by mobilizing powerful actors (Hedberg and Lounsbury, 2021; Lounsbury et al., 2003) to incorporate renewable forms of energy (York et al., 2016). However, addressing many societal challenges requires creating entirely new models that integrate social and commercial interests in nascent fields without established coordination mechanisms (Hoffman, 1999; Maguire et al., 2004; Purdy and Gray, 2009). This requires engaging fragmented actors who may recognize a common problem, but have conflicting interests (Buchanan et al., 2023; Greenwood et al., 2011; Zietsma et al., 2017). In such underorganized fields (Trist, 1983), actors struggle to take coordinated action due to uncertainty about others’ goals and intentions, especially when interests conflict (Luhmann, 1995). This surfaces a crucial question: How are nascent fields with conflicting interests organized, and what role do social enterprises play in this process? Our embedded case study (Ozcan et al., 2017) traces the 6year evolution of reusable containers for takeaway food and beverages aimed at addressing Germany’s waste problem. Initially, the field stagnated due to conflicting interests among businesses, politicians, waste authorities, and environmental organizations, leading to poor coordination. A social enterprise addressed this field impasse by developing a model for reusable containers, which served as a practical template for organizing the reusable container system and a reference point for various actors to support and engage in the development of a reusable container system while still pursuing their own interests. When temporary interactions and experimentation caused setbacks, new social enterprises helped organize the field to embrace the new model. This research emphasizes the critical role of ‘social enterprise referents’ in reconciling divergent interests and organizing nascent fields around new models to address complex societal problems (e.g., inconsistent labour standards, environmental degradation, income instability, and inadequate worker protections). We contribute to understanding 2304 P. C. Reinecke and T. Wrona © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. how field organizing, despite conflicting interests and the absence of established actors, models, or coordination mechanisms, relies on continuous engagement among diverse actors (Hoffman, 1999; Purdy and Gray, 2009; Trist, 1983), especially those that bridge social and commercial interests (Battilana and Dorado, 2010; Battilana et al., 2017; Pache and Thornton, 2020). Social enterprise referents play a crucial role in (a) overcoming initial field impasses and organizing nascent fields by bridging conflicting interests and enabling collaboration to drive the adoption of new models and (b) anchoring solutions in markets when setbacks occur, ensuring the sustained progress necessary to transition to an organized field. LITERATURE REVIEW Organized and Underorganized Fields Our research focuses on fields (Buchanan et al., 2023; Zietsma et al., 2017) where actors regularly interact based on a shared understanding of specific issues (Hoffman, 1999; Scott, 2008), but may have conflicting interests (Purdy and Gray, 2009; Thornton et al., 2012). Scholars classify fields by their level of organization, which influences how actions are coordinated within them (Buchanan et al., 2023; Greenwood et al., 2011). Organized fields are governed by common institutional rules and norms that guide field actors’ practices (Fligstein and McAdam, 2012). Powerful actors and regulatory frameworks often promote certain interests and practices as dominant and successful, particularly the commercial interests and practices of powerful corporations (Reay and Hinings, 2005; Thornton, 2002; Thornton and Ocasio, 1999). In underorganized fields, which typically lack these shared rules and values (Hoffman, 1999; Maguire et al., 2004), actors with different (often, conflicting) interests seek to address the same issues, and coordination efforts involve negotiating, organizing, or competing to establish meanings and practices (Trist, 1983; Wooten and Hoffman, 2008; Zietsma et al., 2017). As the same problem carries different meanings for different actors, it is more common to encounter multiple and conflicting viewpoints rather than a single, unified perspective. As a result, nascent underorganized fields tend to be more contested and dynamic than established organized fields (O’Sullivan and O’Dwyer, 2015), even though they may become settled and organized over time (Scott, 2008). Field boundaries and stable networks of interactions are still being established, influenced by field entries and exits of multiple actors and interests, related power dynamics and experimentation with new models (Battilana et al., 2009; Purdy and Gray, 2009). Integrating Commercial and Social Goals in Organized Fields Commercial interests, goals, and practices often clash with social interests that emphasize environmental and societal benefits. In established fields, the process of integrating social interests often requires challenging dominant commercial interests resistant to change (Marquis and Lounsbury, 2007; Pache and Thornton, 2020; York et al., 2016). 2305Social Enterprise Referents © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Examples include the integration of renewable energy in the energy sector (York et al., 2016), recycling in waste management (Lounsbury et al., 2003), local food in the food industry (Hedberg and Lounsbury, 2021), and labour standards in supply chains (Schüßler et al., 2023). For example, York et al. (2016) examined how clean energy organizations were integrated into Colorado’s energy sector, Hedberg and Lounsbury (2021) explored the scaling of local food procurement, and Lounsbury et al. (2003) demonstrated how recycling replaced incineration as the dominant waste management practice. Integrating social interests typically involves dismantling established commercial practices (Lounsbury et al., 2003), aligning social goals with economic priorities (Hedberg and Lounsbury, 2021), and introducing regulations that facilitate the integration of social and environmental standards (Ansari et al., 2013; Schüßler et al., 2023). For example, Schüßler et al. (2023) showed that in competitive sectors like the global apparel industry, labour standards require a legislative shift that prioritizes social over commercial goals to establish lasting social standards. While these findings have advanced our understanding of integrating commercial and social goals in organized fields, they may not be applicable to underorganized fields where models are often underdeveloped, and regulation is rare due to the early stages of development. Thus, the integration of commercial and social goals is likely more complex, requiring extensive negotiation, experimentation, and coordination among fragmented actors. Although social enterprises are recognized as crucial for developing innovative solutions, how organizing and coordinating such efforts takes place remains unclear (Battilana et al., 2017; Bergman, 2017). Integrating Commercial and Social Goals in Underorganized Fields Literature on organizing nascent fields, marked by conflicting interests and goals, is limited. However, we can approach the question of how these fields can be organized by drawing on theoretical insights from institutional and systems theory. In underorganized fields, actors often share a common problem but lack established templates, rules, and values, leading to negotiation or competition over meanings shaped by different interests (Trist, 1983; Wooten and Hoffman, 2008; Zietsma et al., 2017). Organizations interpret these problems according to the logics of the systems they operate in – such as law, science, politics, or the economy (Friedland and Alford, 1991; Thornton et al., 2012). This diversity becomes evident when addressing societal problems, resulting in varied and often conflicting approaches (Reay and Hinings, 2009). For example, businesses might frame societal issues in terms of costs and profits, while political organizations might focus on votes and power (Luhmann, 1995; Wright and Nyberg, 2017). In nascent fields, boundaries and stable networks gradually develop through interactions with new entrants and emerging models (Scott, 2008). Niklas Luhmann’s social systems theory offers an approach to understanding the dynamic and nuanced processes shaping these field interactions (Cornelissen and Werner, 2014; Purdy et al., 2019; Wadhwani, 2018) by viewing society as a collection of social systems – similar to logics – in which actors enable and structure communication based on the codes (logics) of their systems (Deroy and Clegg, 2015; Luhmann, 1989, 1995). 2306 P. C. Reinecke and T. Wrona © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Although they are basically bound to the logic of the system they operate in, they can also engage with other logics and adopt them through interactions (Schneider et al., 2017; Seidl and Becker, 2006). For example, a company integrating legal regulations (law system) into its corporate processes (business system) demonstrates multireferentiality and bridges different logics (Besio and Meyer, 2015; Seidl, 2005; Stichweh, 2015). This is similar to Trist’s (1983) argument that referent organizations can align the interests of disparate actors within a field to resolve coordination problems and integrate different logics. However, Luhmann (1995) highlighted the challenges actors face in taking meaningful actions due to uncertainty about each other’s intentions and expectations – a situation he refers to as ‘double contingency’, which is particularly acute when different logics are at play. In new markets, for instance, the absence of established supply and demand structures exacerbates this challenge. Double contingency emerges because, on one hand, a sustainable product concept requires sufficient demand, while on the other hand, generating demand is difficult without an existing and viable product in the market. This creates a circular dilemma that hinders coordination and market development. Overcoming double contingency requires an initial action by one actor that creates opportunities for resonance, allowing others to respond (Luhmann, 1995) – such as an entrepreneur entering a field and creating new opportunities for engagement. This dynamic is crucial for sustaining new models in an underorganized field, but it remains unclear how this process unfolds and whether organizations manage to integrate conflicting interests or continue operating within their dominant logic. Therefore, we ask the following: How are nascent fields with conflicting interests organized and what role do social enterprises play in this process? CONTEXT AND METHODS Research Context Our case study explores the development of reusable containers for takeaway food and beverages in Germany, commencing in 2015 when the field was in its infancy. At the time, there was growing public demand, but no solution to the waste problem associated with singleuse takeaway containers. Numerous political, market, and environmental stakeholders with divergent agendas attempted to address the issue (see Table I). Despite these efforts, however, a coordinated approach, formal standards and regulations, and practical solutions remained elusive, underscoring the richness of the context for exploring the organization of nascent fields. In Germany, awareness of the waste issue has escalated alongside a dramatic, 500 per cent surge in the consumption of disposable cups for takeaway beverages over the past two decades (Federation of German Consumer Organizations, 2021). Annually, approximately 2.8 billion hot drinks are served in disposable cups, resulting in 28,000 tons of waste per year. The explosion in waste from singleuse packaging has been compounded by the surge in takeaway food consumption since the onset of the COVID19 pandemic (German Environment Agency, 2022). In response, 2307Social Enterprise Referents © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Table I. Fieldlevel actors Actors Who they are Role System’s objectives Political actors European Commission (EC) oversees European Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC) and formulates supranational waste and environment policy goals Develops supranational legislation for ecological and waste issues that require a coordinated effort by EU countries Represents EU interests The Federal Government of Germany formulates national waste and environment policy goals and appoints the Federal Ministry of Environment Sets priorities, transposes EU laws, enacts national laws, oversees strategic planning, information and public relations, and defines requirements for waste facilities Political subsystem, secure votes State governments in Germany have their own national constitutions, parliaments, administrative structures, and competences Adopt their own waste management acts with regulations to supplement the national law pertaining to regional waste management and disposal requirements Political subsystem, secure votes Market actors Food/beverage providers meet market/ consumer demand for takeaway food/ beverages Providers of takeaway food/ beverages in disposable packaging and contributors to waste production Economic subsystem, increase returns Industry associations representing the interests of food service businesses Represent the broader interest of market participants Economic subsystem, secure legitimacy and membership fees Reusable system providers offer reuse system to takeaway food/beverage providers Implement reusable solutions in the market Hybrid subsystem, reduce waste, fees from food/beverage providers Environmental actors Waste authorities are responsible for implementing waste management Tasked with collecting household waste, operating waste disposal facilities, and implementing measures to promote waste prevention Administrative subsystem, organize and reduce waste Environmental organizations monitor national and communal waste management Work closely with political and business actors on ecological problem definition and solution development Social subsystem, represent ecological interests in society Environmental activists, for example, the Fridays for Future movement Strike to generate public attention, shape discourse, and put environmental issues on the political agenda Social subsystem, represent ecological interests in society 2308 P. C. Reinecke and T. Wrona © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. several social enterprises have emerged, spearheading efforts to develop reusable takeaway containers. Among these pioneers is CIRCLE (pseudonym), founded in 2016, which embraced the circular economy principle of reuse over single use (e.g., Patala et al., 2022), integrating the social and commercial logics to reduce waste while generating revenue within a hybrid model. While there was initially no market for reusable containers for takeaway food and beverages, CIRCLE helped establish a new market from 2016 to 2022, involving various players in market development (see Table II). Organizations and industry associations involved in takeaway food and beverage production and distribution played pivotal roles as both users and producers of takeaway packaging. Historically reliant on singleuse packaging, their readiness to transition to reusable containers varied, typically due to economic considerations. On the political front, waste management in Germany is regulated by entities at the international, national, and federal state levels. Waste collection, disposal, and prevention fall under the jurisdiction of federal states and local public waste disposal authorities (European Environment Agency, 2013). National and local policymakers contribute to waste reduction and prevention through regulatory measures and public communication in response to demands from citizens and constituents. Environmental organizations and activists raise awareness about the ecological ramifications of escalating waste volumes. This diverse array of actors piqued our interest in understanding how the underorganized field for reusable solutions was structured. Data Collection Our study leverages data collected from a diverse array of primary and secondary sources between August 2016 and December 2022. Employing a triangulation approach, we integrated retrospective insights from interviews and secondary data with realtime observations to bolster the robustness of our findings. We conducted 77 semistructured interviews with a broad range of actors involved in building the new market for reusable takeaway containers, including the first and largest startup social enterprise in the field, CIRCLE, as well as its commercial and social partners, representatives of ministries and government authorities, and environmental organizations. Our interview inquiries aimed to elucidate CIRCLE’s hybrid mission, trace the evolution of the field, and discern the motivations driving field actors to collaborate with CIRCLE and other startup social enterprises in developing a new market for reusable takeaway containers. We also spent 28.4 hours observing field events, including conferences and informational meetings focused on the evolving market for reusable takeaway containers and pertinent implementation challenges. Among others, we observed a hearing of providers and users of reusable takeaway containers in the Berlin Senate, and a discussion between CIRCLE’s founders and the Minister for the Environment about singleuse packaging regulations. These observations enabled us to document how different actors worked together in real time. We also collected secondary data comprising CIRCLE’s external communications on social media (1189 Instagram and website posts), 41 (trans- )national policy documents 2309Social Enterprise Referents © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. and 330 German newspaper articles, which enabled us to develop a solid understanding of the waste discourse in Germany. Data Analysis Our data analysis followed an openended iterative process as we moved back and forth between our data, the literature, and emerging theoretical insights (Sætre and Van de Ven, 2021). Our analysis proceeded in four steps, summarized below (see Table III for further details). First, we developed a thick narrative of the key actors, events, and issues (Geertz, 1973). Second, we used temporal bracketing (Langley, 1999) to reconstruct two distinct market development episodes. Episode 1, from August 2016 to December 2018, was characterized by market development, including CIRCLE’s founding and launch of reusable products with initial partners. Episode 2, from January 2019 to December 2022, was characterized by market growth, including the expansion of CIRCLE’s network, the entry of competitors into the nascent market, and the introduction of regulations. Table II. Summary of data sources Data Amount Interviews (Number of interviewees)77 interviews CIRCLE Founders (2) 9 interviews Managers (5) 14 interviews Investors (2) 2 interviews Network B2Bpartners (20) 21 interviews Municipalities (8) 14 interviews Politicians (6) 6 interviews Environmental organizations (6) 6 interviews Other social enterprises (1) 1 interview Restaurant/food service associations (3) 3 interviews German Environment Agency (1) 1 interview Observations (Number of events observed)28 hours 40 minutes Conferences (3) 17 hours 40 minutes Information events (5) 6 hours Social media events (8) 5 hours Secondary data 1560 documents CIRCLE data: 1037 social media posts +152 company documents (website information, blog posts, press kits, marketing brochures, and business reports) 1189 Discourse data: 41 policy documents +330 media articles 371 2316 P. C. Reinecke and T. Wrona © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. chain explained that ‘it was a winwin situation’, as ‘piggybacking’ on CIRCLE helped them pursue their ecological goals (Coffee chain manager 1). Politicians also pursued interconnected political and ecological objectives, combining the goals of urban development with political positioning on ecological problems. ‘This is a strong communicative task in the ministry. You can do that with campaigns, with initiatives, with projects you support’ (Former State Minister for the Environment). In this stage of marketbuilding, politicians engaged in the field to raise awareness of the waste issue, connect relevant stakeholders, and facilitate joint voluntary measures to tackle waste: ‘You don’t always have to bring in an initiative for new legislation. You can also just do a roundtable’ (Local politician). Environmental organizations and municipal waste authorities also supported CIRCLE by aligning administrative and ecological goals. Actors from these organizations provided exceptional support to establish the reusable cup system in the field, especially because there were no other options available on the market at that time. A representative of Municipality 2 recalled, ‘no formal tendering was necessary and no rules of distortion of competition could be broken’. A representative of Municipality 7 explained why it was necessary to ‘help out the free market economy’ to encourage uptake: ‘If we’d simply left the market to its own devices, then maybe in the last three years the market would have grown from 15 to 25 or 50, but not to 150 or 200, or however many there are now … thanks to our acceleration efforts’. Overall, CIRCLE successfully established a reusable cup system in the market and overcame the prevailing impasse in the field. By scaling down the broad issue of waste prevention to the solution of reusable coffee cups, CIRCLE facilitated a shared understanding of the problem and enabled actors to see the aims of waste reduction as achievable, especially through local initiatives. The previous longterm positioning of potential measures and their effects in a distant future were brought into the present via the implementation of reusable coffee cups. Diverse actors supported CIRCLE’s reusable cup system, thereby establishing a market for reusable solutions and integrating various field actors and logics. Consequences of field organizing. The creation of this market for reusable cups was not without unforeseen consequences, particularly during its initial phase characterized by extensive experimentation and a lack of targeted coordination. One politician explained that at this stage, ‘the actual question of impact is of no interest to anyone’, reflecting the lack of nationwide metrics to gauge the actual reduction in disposable cup usage (Local politician 1). One unintended consequence of CIRCLE’s solution was the emergence of a dual supply of both disposable and reusable cups, a phenomenon known as ‘rebound’. ‘Our goal was to offer a reusable system that works. To take the idiotic disposable cups out of the program, which we can’t do. We still have them because the customer doesn’t really accept the reuse cups’ (Local coffee shop 4). Most coffee providers did not switch completely to the reusable cup system, but used it as a complement to disposable cups to ensure they could meet demand. Thus, an important repercussion was an initial increase, rather than a decrease in resource consumption: The goal is to only offer reusable cups in the long term. But we are not yet at the point where we can do that without losing customers. That’s why the first step is to implement the system in the first place and get it up and running. (Coffee chain manager 2) 2317Social Enterprise Referents © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. In the absence of quantifiable savings, many stakeholders turned to alternative metrics to assess the efficacy of their efforts to phase out disposable cups. Politicians highlighted increased attention from voters. The Former State Minister for the Environment explained: ‘It was important for me to bring this to my constituency … There was a lot of interest’. Likewise, municipal officials highlighted how their communication campaigns had successfully captured public attention and raised awareness of the waste issue: ‘That was definitely a success when we look at the press coverage we had throughout Germany on the subject’ (Municipality 1). Having initially broken the impasse and organized the field for a reusable cup system, progress slowed as actors reverted to ‘business as usual’ (Wright and Nyberg, 2017). ‘Of course, you could do a lot more, also in terms of monitoring … But honestly … we have other core tasks’ (Municipality 7). This eventually changed in the next episode when intensified discourse brought the issue increasingly to the forefront of societal attention. Episode 2: From Organizing to an Organized Field (2018–2022) Intensified political and societal problematizing and legislation. From 2018 onwards, new dynamics emerged in European and national legislation as well as public discourse in Germany on the waste issue. Tentative proposals initiated by the EC in 2015 had been discussed in parliament for 3 years by this time and were now presented in an EU Directive explicitly calling on member states to ‘encourage the use of products that are suitable for multiple use’ (EU Directive 2019/904) and reduce waste from singleuse plastic products. Alongside these legislative efforts, 2019 also saw a strong resurgence of public attention to and discourse about climate change and EU climate policy. This was triggered in large part by the youthled Fridays for Future movement, where students skipped school on Fridays to participate in demonstrations to demand stronger climate action from policymakers. Whereas key actors attempting to address the waste issue in Germany had previously focused on voluntary engagement to reduce the use of disposable cups, from 2019 onwards there was increasing criticism of the inefficacy of extant measures, with some actors complaining that ‘large chains … so far … have not joined in’ and that although ‘deposit systems already existed’ they still needed to be ‘much more widely disseminated’ (Media 21 May 2019). Calls now arose for stricter regulation to force the major providers of disposable packaging to adopt reusable systems through ‘a binding reduction target for the number of disposable cups or a reusable quota’ (Environmental organization 1). In 2021, the EU Directive on waste was finally incorporated into German law, with major providers now legally required to offer alternatives not only for cups, but also for disposable food containers beginning in 2023. Together, new regulations and intensified social discourse on all aspects of sustainability were compelling many more actors in Germany to attempt to address the issue. Although such dynamics might be expected to lead to a rapid proliferation of new solutions, a new impasse emerged much like the one at the beginning of the marketbuilding episode. This time, however, insufficient responses stemmed from an initial lack of solutions for what was now a much larger issue field and number of affected stakeholders. 2318 P. C. Reinecke and T. Wrona © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Field setback. The introduction of regulations immediately and dramatically expanded the issue field beyond cups by explicitly requiring that sustainable alternatives be offered by large suppliers who had not previously joined a reuse system, including takeaway food suppliers for whom there was no preexisting solution in the field. The regulations thus defined new supply and demand structures in the market, precipitating a field setback as those demanding a solution encountered a lack of supply in the market, while providers were confronted with a new demand that they were not yet able to meet. One of CIRCLE’s founders described how new regulations led to a field setback: The regulation really affects the majority of the German takeaway catering industry. They have to offer an alternative to disposable [containers] from January 1, 2023, both for drinks and for food. And, of course, this is very, very good for us with our deposit system, but it also brings certain growth challenges because we’re talking about at least 120,000 businesses in Germany that will have to find a solution by the first of January 2023 … We now have 11,000 partners … That means there’s still a lot to do! (CIRCLE founder 2) This field setback was also described to us in interviews with two large players in the takeaway food sector who had both hesitated for a long time before working with CIRCLE. Corporate category manager 1, who was responsible for over 1000 takeaway establishments, recalled their corporation’s comparatively late entry into the market and described why they decided to use CIRCLE: ‘We needed a wellestablished, functioning national system. … [CIRCLE] were then the only ones who could offer … a certain size … and a certain stability’. This was confirmed by a manager from another large national chain who emphasized that negotiations had ‘demanded a fine sense of proportion’ to assess whether ‘joint development was possible’: Especially when you have such an imbalance between a large corporation and a startup, you have to share the responsibility of looking out for the partner in case of doubt, right? It’s no use playing out your dominance, because you want to grow together with your partner. So, we weighed up the conditions of acting economically on the one hand, but at the same time growing sustainably together with the partner. (Corporate category manager 2) The circumstances of the COVID19 pandemic intensified the prevailing field setback. Awareness of the waste problem from disposable food containers had risen due to the massive increase in takeaway orders during lockdowns. Restaurant operator 2 recounted, ‘with the pandemic, much, much more people ordered takeaway food’. Similarly, a representative of Municipality 1 recalled, ‘we could see when [the pandemic] started that the waste container levels were going up rapidly’. However, market structures were still lacking for reusable food containers. At the same time, restaurants were struggling due to lockdowns and were reluctant to invest in or experiment with solutions. CIRCLE and new competitors responded to this setback by expanding the market for reusable containers. 2319Social Enterprise Referents © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Social enterprise market. The now much broader issue field was increasingly recognized by CIRCLE as an opportunity to provide additional offerings in the growing market for reusable takeaway containers. Even more consequentially, new startup social enterprises began to enter the growing market with their own solutions, building directly on CIRCLE’s experience and success in the reusable coffee cup segment to experiment with novel products, tap into new customer groups, and develop alternative financial models. A local restaurant operator described how the market for reusable container systems had expanded significantly due to competition: Competition is good for business. And I think all the developments we’ve seen in the last two years, especially in product diversity, have come because they’ve been competing with each other. Who can launch the first Sushi Box and get all the Asian restaurants on board, for example. (Local restaurant operator 3) This growing market was hybrid in nature, as CIRCLE and its new rivals competed to achieve not only the economic goals of securing strategic market position and building brand awareness, but also the social goal of waste reduction. ‘In this growth phase, our competitive moves were driven by the mission to eliminate disposables’ (CIRCLE manager 1). Revealing how most newcomers adopted and imitated CIRCLE’s successful pioneering model, Competitor 1 succinctly declared: ‘Our core business model has this 1:1 link. We only earn money when we really make an impact’. CIRCLE’s founders also justified their moves to ‘beat the competition’ (CIRCLE founder 2) on economic and social grounds, linking the goal of eliminating disposables with market leadership in reusables. In their growth strategy, they emphasized the need for a single overarching system for cups and boxes that is more convenient for the food service industry and consumers: ‘Our overall vision has always been to eliminate disposable cups for coffeetogo, and since 2020, we’ve also offered BOX and expanded the vision to eliminate disposable cups for togo drinks to disposable boxes for takeaway food’ (CIRCLE founder1). To accelerate growth of its system, CIRCLE introduced reusable containers for takeaway food establishments to attract larger chains representing hundreds of distribution points. Compared to working with small owneroperated cafés, this constituted a major scaling of CIRCLE’s distribution system and impact on waste reduction. By December 2022, CIRCLE had expanded its network to some 15,000 distribution points. A representative of an environmental organization commented, ‘When the first petrol station chain came, that was the point where I thought, “Okay, wow, this is a huge step!”’ (Environmental organization 1). The social enterprise market that now comprised CIRCLE and its competitors provided new reference points from which new local dynamics developed. Numerous initiatives were launched in cities and communities across Germany to establish reusable solutions and inform takeaway food establishments about the wider availability of alternative reusable container systems. Politicians and public authorities increasingly involved industry associations and developed climate initiatives as ‘multipliers’ to help prepare for Germany’s new waste regulations: 2320 P. C. Reinecke and T. Wrona © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. From January next year the catering industry will be obliged to offer a reusable [packaging] alternative. We’ve proactively contacted [Restaurant association 1] with the desire to prepare the industry for this … We’ve had several roundtables with interested parties to find out how we can best help them. (Municipality 2) These preparations for the new waste regulation included identifying the most suitable reusable container system for local restaurants in various municipalities, discussing obstacles to implementation, financing implementation and promoting the use of reusable container systems through marketing and communication measures. As in the marketbuilding episode, these measures collectively had the effect of disseminating reusable solutions and reorganizing actors in a social enterprise market. Organized field. Interactions with CIRCLE and their competitors led various actors to engage in hybrid forms of organizing. At the national level, policymakers supported the rapid growth of reusable systems by aligning political means and ecological goals. At one event, the federal Minister of Environment expressed her goal to ‘make reusable the standard and abolish singleuse completely, to finally end this nonsense’, by supporting initiatives on reusables and by working on further regulatory projects to ban singleuse products for waste reduction. Similarly, local politicians, authorities, and environmental organizations initiated events and campaigns to inform stakeholders about reusable container systems. Local politicians appeared at these events, thereby incorporating wastereduction solutions into their political agendas. Authorities implemented programs to make their communities more sustainable, while environmental organizations highlighted the environmental impact of reusable containers. Although similar to earlier field organizing efforts, the field now accounted for a broader scope of solutions for takeaway food and drinks as well as for a broader group of actors: A working group was formed here to deal with the topic of how to promote a plasticfree life in [Municipality 6]. And they worked with us on this topic of reusable cups and boxes to reduce the amount of disposable packaging in restaurants, bakeries, and others. (Municipality 6) Among these actors, a new sense of urgency arose to comply with new waste regulations as deadlines loomed. A representative of Municipality 2 explained: ‘This legislation suited us just fine, since we can say, ‘It’s not just political will, dear people – it’s in the law. Please do something now!’ And that works very well’. The chief concern among many actors involved in the field was that they would be unprepared for the new waste regulation. However, this episode differed from the first one in that many more system providers introduced variability across initiatives. Some initiatives focused on supporting a single system with the aim of ensuring uniformity in the market and strengthening the system’s effectiveness from the outset. In such cases, decisionmakers typically chose providers that had established track records during the marketbuilding episode. For example, Municipality 5 justified its selection of CIRCLE’s reusable box system based on the fact that CIRCLE’s cups were already established in the market: 2321Social Enterprise Referents © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. From the following year reusability would be compulsory. And individual food and beverage providers approached us and said, ‘Before everyone starts working together with a different system, can’t we all do something uniform together?’ And I first looked at what we already had and … all [except one] … had CIRCLE. So, the question was settled. … And that was different in [neighboring city] where they had three different systems in use. Other initiatives allowed providers to select their own reusable container systems, leading to a high density and variety of system providers in certain municipalities. We really went from business to business and said, ‘Look, this is available. Choose what you like, and within the framework of the project we’ll take over the costs for half a year, so you don’t have to be afraid of possible additional costs’. … In [Municipality 9], 33 catering businesses … tried out the reusable system of their choice for six months. (Environmental organization 2) In this episode, the impasse of undersupply was resolved by the development of a market encompassing multiple reusable container systems by various startup social enterprises. Through interactions with these social enterprise referents, multiple actors were able to join the field and support its development. All these developments accelerated the implementation of reusable container systems and fueled market growth to a point where it could support multiple systems. Consequences of the social enterprise market. Aside from making it more difficult for consumers to use these systems, heterogeneity in the market constrained the development of standards and infrastructures, especially in the absence of a central coordination mechanism in a nascent market: There are efforts to say ‘We want to standardize this’. We’ve already heard that. I believe this was somehow intended by the consumer protection ministers and the conference. But in a market that’s still so young and only just developing, it’s difficult to say ‘Now we’re going to standardize it’ when things haven’t even really started yet, especially because someone will always be disadvantaged. (Municipality 2) Our informants were aware of these issues, but rationalized that they could not be addressed because their systems did not allow for further interventions. Politicians and waste authorities emphasized that further interventions in the market were ‘not permissible in terms of market policy’ (Local politician 2), and projected that ‘many of these problems would be solved in the free market economy’ (Municipality 7). A willingness to engage in additional activities to support uptake of reusable container systems thus was no longer shared by all actors in the field, with some reverting to their respective systems’ logics and attributing responsibility for further action to others: We’ve actually now paved the way with this startup story and we’ve pushed CIRCLE. They’re now established in [Municipality 7]. If they now also push these boxes, we 2322 P. C. Reinecke and T. Wrona © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. think that’s great, but from our point of view, it doesn’t need this effort from the city administration again. (Municipality 7) I’ve heard from another municipality saying, ‘I’ve given up. There’s just no point anymore! We provided them [takeaway establishments] with information, but we just can’t get them to do it. … We’re not going to help them anymore, and if they don’t get it done, we’re going to start imposing fines on January 2023. We’ve tried the carrot long enough. Now we have to use the stick!’ (Municipality 2) While this episode contributed to establishing a broader market for reusable solutions, it ended as the previous one had, with actors reverting to their social systems and logics. Outlook as of December 2022 Our study ended in December 2022 with the establishment of CIRCLE and other systems in the market for reusable containers. The implementation of functioning supply and demand structures for reusable container solutions in Germany had unfolded across two successive episodes of field organizing and reorganizing. Social enterprises played a critical role in this process by serving as reference points for actors’ activities, thereby enabling them to work towards reducing waste from disposable takeaway containers. When our study period ended in December 2022, additional episodes of field organizing were already on the horizon. Looking to the future, actors projected that infrastructure issues would dominate the next phase in the diffusion of reusable systems. A representative of Environmental organization 2 explained, ‘the topic of central washing is basically what we want to tackle next’ because the logistics involved in returning and cleaning containers prevented smaller establishments without inhouse dishwashing capabilities from joining the system, and also became more and more problematic for larger establishments as the increasing number of reusable containers exceeded their existing dishwashing capacities. A representative of Environmental organization 1 recalled, ‘there was this other milestone when CIRCLE got into pilot projects in [Municipality 7] and [Municipality 3] to develop central cleaning and return machines’. At a conference, one of the new providers for infrastructure solutions problematized the ‘chickenandegg problem’ whereby food service establishments and providers of reusable container systems ‘call for an infrastructure solution to enter the market, while an infrastructure solution requires high turnarounds that can only be achieved by the participation [of food service establishments] … in large reusable [container] systems’, indicating another impasse arising in the market. Key stakeholders also anticipated that regulation would be ‘tightened’ (Municipality 2) in the near future, with Municipality 3 referring to current efforts at the EU level to ‘change [the current directive] into a packaging regulation … with binding quotas of how much disposable [containers] should be reduced … and be replaced by reusable [containers]’ (EU proposal 2022/0396). These latest developments indicated that another episode of field organizing was unfolding, which in turn confirmed our findings on the need for 2323Social Enterprise Referents © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. recurring processes of organizing and reorganizing actors around complex societal problems in nascent fields, facilitated by social enterprise referents. DISCUSSION Our study highlights the crucial role of social enterprise referents in organizing nascent and uncoordinated fields and advancing new models that integrate social and commercial interests. First, we identify social enterprises as a novel type of referent organization in emerging issue fields (Buchanan et al., 2023; Zietsma et al., 2017). Building on existing literature about referents such as trade unions and civil society organizations (Trist, 1983), social enterprises stand out by operating at the intersection of commercial and social logics (Battilana and Lee, 2014; Pache and Santos, 2021; Vedula et al., 2022), effectively navigating conflicting priorities like profitability and social impact. This dual focus allows them to introduce new models and act as referents in underorganized fields where conflicting interests hinder progress, offering practical templates for organizing various actors from different sectors (Hoffman, 1999; Maguire et al., 2004; Purdy and Gray, 2009). By seizing an initial moment of field impasse as an opportunity to introduce models that bridge conflicting interests, social enterprise referents organize the field and bring together previously uncoordinated actors. Similar to the role of social enterprises addressing institutional voids (Mair et al., 2012), a field impasse distinctly builds on double contingency (Luhmann, 1995) which arises when isolated efforts by field actors address either supply from a commercial perspective (e.g., coffee chains offering to fill customers’ cups) or demand from a social perspective (e.g., campaigns against disposable cups). These isolated efforts fail to connect actors and intensify conflicts between commercial and social interests, creating a cycle of unmet supply and demand that is resistant to conventional solutions. Social enterprise referents address these gaps in weak supply– demand structures, and offer solutions that integrate both commercial and social goals, unifying actors around a common model. While our case demonstrates how CIRCLE has reduced waste by introducing reusable containers in collaboration with politicians, authorities, businesses, and environmental organizations, future research can expand the concept of social enterprise referents across various contexts. Many industries face societal challenges stemming from fragmented efforts, such as inconsistent labour standards in garment and coffee sectors, environmental degradation in forestry, fisheries, and agriculture, lack of access to education, financial services, healthcare, and sanitation in underserved regions, and income instability and inadequate worker protections in the gig economy. These challenges offer opportunities for social enterprises to introduce innovative solutions and organize new fields. For example, Patagonia set standards in sustainable fashion, and microfinance organizations address economic disparities through small loans. Further research can explore how social enterprise referents like Patagonia not only create solutions but also coordinate diverse actors to drive the emergence of nascent fields. 2324 P. C. Reinecke and T. Wrona © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Second, we emphasize the role of ‘social enterprise markets’ in institutionalizing new models that help fields transition from an initial state of organizing to becoming fully organized. In underorganized fields without established actors or stable systems, progress depends on multiple social enterprises anchoring their models within the market. Without this support, models may struggle to take root, leading to setbacks when early solutions fall short, governance is weak, and actor interactions become transient (Grodal and O’Mahony, 2017; van Wijk et al., 2013; Wright and Nyberg, 2017). When multiple social enterprises are organized in a market, they continuously refine their models through competition, balancing social and economic goals. This competition renews interactions that capture broader market demand, fosters growth, and restores momentum to overcome setbacks in the field (Battilana et al., 2009; Purdy and Gray, 2009). Scholars have argued that nascent fields require ongoing interactions to become organized (Hoffman, 1999; Purdy and Gray, 2009; Trist, 1983). We have extended this literature by revealing the crucial role of social enterprise markets. Our findings show that new social enterprises entering the field to address supply–demand gaps drive isomorphic developments by replicating successful models, while also introducing adaptive innovations to meet specific market needs. Thus, transitioning a field from underorganized to organized promotes both standardization and innovation, fostering models that balance diverse interests and goals. Sustained efforts from multiple social enterprises involve competitive interactions with each other and collaboration with field actors to anchor solutions, ensuring the ongoing progress necessary to transition the field into a more stable, organized state. Our case illustrates how CIRCLE and its competitors helped develop the market for reusable containers in industries dominated by heavy users of disposables, such as coffee chains and fast food restaurants. In our case, these actors initially observed the development of a nascent market and experimented with new models. Future research could explore the power dynamics and struggles for dominance that arise as fields evolve (Battilana et al., 2009; Purdy and Gray, 2009), especially the critical tipping points that occur when the field grows large enough to threaten the existing business models of established players (Schüßler et al., 2023). Building on our study, future work could investigate the power plays that emerge when incumbents react to growing social enterprise markets by attempting to disrupt or halt further development (Gray et al., 2022; Hedberg and Lounsbury, 2021; Marquis and Lounsbury, 2007). CONCLUSION Our case study on reusable takeaway containers has shown how social enterprises contribute to the development of underorganized fields characterized by diverse actors and conflicting logics. A nascent field is organized through repeated interactions with social enterprise referents who offer new models. Unlike organized fields, underorganized fields are more fragile due to a lack of stable actors and systems, and require sustained effort to align conflicting logics and build a stable model. We hope this study encourages further research on the role of social enterprise referents for addressing societal problems in underorganized fields. 2325Social Enterprise Referents © 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are grateful to Special Issue Editor Silvia Dorado, JMS Editor Gideon Markman, and the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback, which helped us realize the potential of this work. Special thanks to Shaz Ansari, Ignas Bruder, Marc Krautzberger, Andreas Rasche, Markus Reihlen, Hannah TrittinUlbrich, and participants at the Academy of Management Conference 2022, the 2023 EGOS Colloquium, and the 2024 German Academic Association for Business Research Annual Conference. Finally, we thank Jill KüberlingJost for her support in the early stages of idea generation in this research project. This research has received funding from the Horizon 2020 Program of the European Union within the OpenInnoTrain project under grant agreement no. 823971. The content of this publication does not reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Responsibility for the information and views expressed in the publication lies entirely with the authors. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to the content of this article. REFERENCES Ansari, S., Wijen, F. and Gray, B. (2013). ‘Constructing a climate change logic: an institutional perspective on the “tragedy of the commons”’. Organization Science, 24, 1014–40. Battilana, J., Besharov, M. and Mitzinneck, B. (2017). ‘On hybrids and hybrid organizing: a review and roadmap for future research’. In Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T. B. and Meyer, R. E. (Eds), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 133–69. Battilana, J. and Dorado, S. (2010). ‘Building sustainable hybrid organizations: the case of commercial microfinance organizations’. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 1419–40. Battilana, J., Leca, B. and Boxenbaum, E. (2009). ‘How actors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship’. Academy of Management annals, 3, 65–107. Battilana, J. and Lee, M. (2014). ‘Advancing research on hybrid organizing: insights from the study of social enterprises’. Academy of Management Annals, 8, 397–441. Bergman, B. (2017). ‘Agents of change? An interorganizational research agenda on hybrid new ventures’. In Corbett, A. C. and Katz, J. A. (Eds), Hybrid Ventures. Bingley: Emerald Publishing, 219–32. Besio, C. and Meyer, U. (2015). ‘Heterogeneity in world society: how organizations handle contradicting logics’. In Holzer, B., Kastner, F. and Werron, T. (Eds), From Globalization to World Society: NeoInstitutional and SystemsTheoretical Perspectives. New York: Routledge, 237–57. Buchanan, S., Zietsma, C. and Matten, D. (2023). ‘Settlement constellations and the dynamics of fields formed around social and environmental issues’. Organization Science, 34, 700–21. Cloutier, C. and Ravasi, D. (2021). ‘Using tables to enhance trustworthiness in qualitative research’. Strategic Organization, 19, 113–33. Corbin, J. and Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cornelissen, J. P. and Werner, M. D. (2014). ‘Putting framing in perspective: A review of framing and frame analysis across the management and organizational literature’. Academy of Management Annals, 8, 181–235. Deroy, X. and Clegg, S. (2015). ‘Back in the USSR: introducing recursive contingency into institutional theory’. Organization Studies, 36, 73–90. Doherty, B., Haugh, H. and Lyon, F. (2014). ‘Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: a review and research agenda’. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16, 417–36. European Environment Agency (2013). Municipal Waste Management in Germany. ETC/SC Working Paper. Available at https:// www. eea. europa. eu/ publi catio ns/ manag ingmunic ipalsolid - waste/ germa nymunic ipalwaste - manag ement/ view (accessed 15 July 2023). European Union. (2013). Green Paper: On a European Strategy on Plastic Waste in the Environment. Available at https:// eurlex. europa. eu/ legal - conte nt/ EN/ TXT/ PDF/? uri= CELEX: 52013 DC012 3& rid= 10 (accessed 15 July 2023).