Interrelationship between Factors 1, 2, 3 and 4

This section discusses the relationship between all the four factors, initiating with Factor 1 through to Factor 4.

Factor 1 in relation to Factor 2, 3 and 4:

Factor 1 labelled (Action-driven social value) is an account from people who consider that social value is created by actively participating in the society and identifying solutions to solve societal problems (discussed in Section 6.2.1 above). The key aspects of this factor are taking risks, social and community investment and supporting organisations to deliver social impact. However, the participants in this factor did not believe that social value is the sole responsibility of individuals, rather they suggest that social value is the product of the total value created by all the members and actors of society. Yang (2015) argues that in order to construct a strong society, all the actors of society need to work in tandem. It is also believed that the socialism values (such as freedom, equality and justice) play a key role in forming a cohesive socialism society (Long, 2014; Yang, 2015). Factor 1 and Factor 2 labelled (Outcomes-driven social value, discussed in Section 6.2.2 above) are found to be more dissimilar than similar with each other. As regards similarity, Factor 1 and Factor 2 are equal in the following ways: taking risks (+4 on F1 and +3 on F2), creation of economic and environmental value along with social

136 | P a g e value (+3 on F1 and +4 F2) and choosing one option (-4 and -4 on F1 and F2). This suggests that Factor 1 and Factor 2 agree that the social value is created along with other values, such as economic and environmental, and for the creation of these values, it may be required to take risks and choose many options or take different course of actions.

There are a number of features that are unique to each of Factor 1 and Factor 2. Factor 1 places greater emphasis on supporting other organisations to create social value (+3), building evidence base (+3), utilisation of all resources (+3) and developing culture around social value creation (+4) that, however, may not necessarily involve having good leadership skills (-2) or seeking expert opinions (-5) to be able to create social value. Respondents in Factor 2 have a reverse psychology, where they prioritise leadership skills (+4) and expert opinion (0) that may contribute to social value; whilst resource utilisation (-4), supporting organisations (-3), building evidence (-3) and culture development (-3) are not as important for social value creation. Additionally, Factor 2 suggests that in order to create social value, it is important to take care of the environment (+5), other forms of life (+5) and reduce waste (+3), whilst Factor 1 apparently shows disagreement with the view expressed by Factor 2 as the respondents in Factor 1 have placed these items at -2, -4 and -4 respectively. This evidence suggests that, although, for Factor 1, social value is pro-people specific, and for Factor 2, social value is pro- environment specific in addition to being pro-people, both these factors believe that social and environment value are created along with each other. Factor 1 revolves around maximising social impact for community and societal benefit rather than concerns for sustainability (-1), whereas, Factor 2 revolves around maximising social and environmental impact for the wider human, social and environment benefit that may, finally, lead to sustainability (+3).

Factor 1 and Factor 3 labelled (Sustainability-driven social value, discussed in Section 6.2.3 above) demonstrate interesting viewpoints in comparison to each other. Factor 1 and Factor 3 both agree that social value includes supporting other organisations (+3 on F1 and +1 on F3), creation of environmental and economic value along with social value (+3 at F1 and +5 on F3), development of social value culture (+4 in F1 and +1 in F3) and utilising resources in a way so as to maximise social value (+3 on F1

137 | P a g e and +4 on F3). Conversely, Factor 1 and Factor 3 also disagree that social value is not created by reducing monetary costs (-2 on F1 and -5 on F3), building relationships with political leaders (-3 on F1 and -5 on F3), using leadership skills (-2 on F1 and -3 on F3), implementation of governmental laws (-3 on F1 and -1 on F3) and choosing one option to create social value (-4 on F1 and -2 on F3). This indicates that Factor 1 and Factor 3 have a similar aim that is to create social value for the longer term societal benefit without focussing and depending on the individuals, such as governmental or non- governmental leaders, and law enforcement to create social value.

Respondents of Factor 1 and Factor 3 have contrasting views in relation to sustainability (-1 on F1 and +5 on F3), caring for other forms of life (-4 on F1 and 0 on F3), protecting the environment (-2 on F1 and +3 on F3), reducing waste (-4 on F1 and +4 on F3), increasing economic benefit (-2 on F1 and +4 at F3), seeking beneficiary views (0 on F1 and +2 on F3), seeking expert opinions (-5 on F1 and 0 on F3), taking risks (+4 on F1 and -2 on F3), identifying solutions (+5 on F1 and -2 on F3) and social value being an added value (+2 on F1 and -2 on F3). The differences of opinion as depicted in the placement of these items demonstrate that in Factor 3, environmental sustainability and economic sustainability is as important as social sustainability for social value to be created, which may involve seeking beneficiary and expert views. In comparison, Factor 1 represents the need for identifying solutions to societal problems, even if, that means taking risks without considering sustainability. Having said that, it is still unknown to what extent the practical approach of Factor 1 and long term view of Factor 3 could help in the creation of social value.

Factor 1 is closely linked to the Factor 4, labelled (Pluralism-driven social value, (discussed in Section 6.2.4 above)) as parallels can be drawn with regards to the focus on the resource utilisation for maximum benefit by the members of society (+3 on Factor 1 and +5 on Factor 2). Factor 1 and Factor 4 also support the development of a culture that helps in the creation of social value by the members of society (+4 on Factor 1 and 4), thus, contributing towards long term capacity building in the community (+3 and +5 on Factor 1 and Factor 4). Evidently, this demonstrates that both the factors’ perspectives support that by focussing on resource mobilisation and culture development, we will increase our

138 | P a g e understanding of the shared beliefs and values that could act as guiding tools to steer and produce social value that may be useful for societal development.

However, there are some differences in both Factor 1 and Factor 4. For Factor 1, the main features of social value are: accessing resources (+5), value created by social enterprises (+5), identifying solutions (+4) and taking risks (+4), whilst Factor 4 does not support these claims. For Factor 4, accessing resources is not that important (+1), social value is not about the value created by social enterprises (-3), does not believe in identifying solutions (-2) and taking risks (-2) for social value creation. Furthermore, Factor 4 advocates that individual values (+4) and building networks and connections (+4) with the other members of society is critical for social value creation, whereas Factor 1 proposes that focussing on individual values (-1) and network building (-1) is too narrow to be considered for the concept of social value. These differences between the two factors indicate that Factor 1 views social value from community or societal perspective and believes in taking instantaneous actions to solve societal problems head on instead of depending on the networks or individual action. Factor 4, instead, views social value from an individuals’ perspective and believes in giving freedom to everybody to act in their own ways to create social value, be it through building networks with other members of society or individual value and action that guide them to create social value.

Factor 2 in relation to Factor 1, 3 and 4

Factor 2 in relation to Factor 1 has already been discussed above. Factor 2 labelled (Outcomes-driven social value) reveals the importance of an action-directed approach that allows leaders and the organisations to dynamically contribute to social value to make a real impact to society (discussed in Section 6.2.2 above). Miragliotta (2006) as well as Yang, Xu and Tao (2014) found that radical leaders may adopt different approaches (such as being pragmatic) to reach their objectives (Yang et al., 2014; Miragliotta, 2006), thus, creating impact on society. Factor 2 and Factor 3 labelled (Sustainability-driven social value) are closely associated to each other. The participants in Factor 2 and Factor 3 supports the view that social value involves accessing resources (+2 on F2 and +1 on F3), reducing waste (+3 on F2

139 | P a g e and +4 on F3), protecting the environment (+5 on F2 and +3 on F2), considering sustainability (+3 on F2 and +5 on F3), creating social value along with economic and environmental value (+4 on F2 and +5 on F3), achieving social justice (+2 on F1 and +3 on F3) and accessing opportunities (+2 on F2 and +3 and +2 on F3). These factors do not back the view that social value could be created by reducing monetary costs (-3 on F2 and -5 on F3), achieving value for money (-5 on F2 and -2 on F3) and doing the right thing at the right time (-2 on F2 and -3 on F3). Both Factor 2 and Factor 3, therefore, support exhibiting pro-environment behaviour in addition to pro-social behaviour, and propose that social value isn’t about considering any concerns for economic expenditure or waiting for the right time to do something, but involves considering the creation of environmental impact in addition to social impact.

However, there are stark differences in the content of their two factors and the understanding of social value that this engenders, as demonstrated in their item rankings. The dissimilar views expressed on the statements within Factor 2 and Factor 3 include: possessing leadership skills (+4 on F2 and -3 on F3), utilising resources for maximum benefit (+4 on F2 and -4 on F3), developing skills (+5 on F2 and -1 on F3), measuring social impact (-5 on F2 and +2 on F3), and social value being a perceptive value (-5 on F2 and +3 on F3) and economically beneficial (-1 on F2 and +4 on F3). Factor 2, therefore, hold the view that social value creation requires taking risks, developing individual skills and leadership skills to be able to effectively utilise resources to maximise social impact, irrespective of the economic benefit involved. Factor 3, in comparison, indicates that social value doesn’t necessarily involve leaders, developing skills to achieve maximum benefit, instead, social value requires measuring actual economic benefit that is crucial for achieving economic, environmental and social sustainability in society, that may involve seeking beneficiary views.

Factor 2 and Factor 4 labelled (Pluralism-driven social value) are accounts of participants who believe that there are many aspects of social value creation that are a mix of tangible and intangible elements, which needs to be understood for its deeper meaning-making, these include: developing connections and networks (+2 on F2 and +4 on F4), access to opportunities (+2 on F2 and F4), social justice (+2 on F2 and F4), building capacity (+3 on F2 and +5 on F4), sustainability (+3 on F2 and +5 on F4),

140 | P a g e protecting the environment (+5 on F2 and +2 on F4), accessing resources (+2 on F2 and +1 on F4) and producing social outcomes and impact (+1 on F2 and +3 on F4). Factor 2 and Factor 4 also suggest that social value is not about choosing one option among many possible options (-4 on F2 and F4) and social value cannot be created and/or destroyed by an individual (-2 by F2 and F4). Thus, both these factors indicate that it is important to have access to opportunities and resources to be able to make a difference in society which requires building support structures, be it capacity or networks, to produce social outcomes and impact in society.

There are some major differences that are highlighted in Factor 2 and Factor 4. Participants from Factor 2, in comparison to Factor 4, do not believe that in order to create social value, it is important to utilise all available resources (-4 on F2 and +5 on F4), reduce costs (-3 on F2 and 0 on F4), seek stakeholder views (-2 on F2 and +2 on F4), and develop culture around social value (-3 on F2 and +4 on F4). This suggests that Factor 2 focuses on the end product more than what creates social value. Factor 2, as opposed to Factor 4, also reinforce that social value is not about achieving value for money (-5 on F2 and +3 on F4), measuring social impact (-5 on F2 and +1 on F4) and involving stakeholders (-1 and +5), whereas, Factor 4 supports that social value requires involvement of stakeholders in order to measure social impact and achieve value for money. According to respondents in Factor 2, social value is not about perceived value (-5 on F2 and +1 on F4), whilst for respondents for Factor 4, social value is not about seeking expert opinion at all (0 on F2 and -5 on F4). Factor 4 also stress that social value is not produced in addition to economic and environmental value (-1), and that social value does not necessarily involve caring for other forms of life (-3), developing leadership skills (-2) and implementing laws (-4), as opposed to Factor 2, where these items were placed at +4, +5, +4 and +1 respectively. This evidence indicates that Factor 4 is more individual action focussed than depending on the governmental laws, leaders and other individuals to create social value for them. Factor 2 and Factor 4, therefore, are distinct from each other on many levels. First, Factor 2 is more result-oriented and does not believe that economic aspect is important for social value to be created in society, whilst Factor 4 advocates that seeking stakeholder views are integral to social value creation at individual level, which requires economic development for the well-being of society. Second, for Factor 4, social value is a

141 | P a g e process (+1), whereas it is an outcome for Factor 2 (-1). Additionally, respondents in Factor 4 propose that social value is an integral part of individual values and that it can neither be created nor destroyed, and can only be influenced by internal or external factors. But, for Factor 2, social value is societal value that is bigger than its individual elements, and no one individual can destroy it on its own.

Factor 3 in relation to Factor 1, 2 and 4

Factor 3 in comparison to Factor 1 and Factor 2 has already been discussed above. Factor 3 labelled (Sustainability-driven social value) demonstrates an account of participants who believe in sustainability approach to creation of social value (discussed in Section 6.2.3 above). It is identified that sustainability- values possessed by the members of society play a crucial role in in the decision-making of individuals ranging from government policy through to the individual citizen level (Martin, 2015). In comparison, Factor 4 labelled (Pluralism-driven social value) believes in heterogeneity as an important feature for different types of social value creation in society. According to Kang (2012), choice, clash and construction of values in a society have a unique contribution as regards positive transformation of a society, and hence, should be mutually integrated to create a core value system for positive value creation in society. Factor 3 and Factor 4 are closely associated as they are more similar than dissimilar to each other. Factor 3 and Factor 4 agree on the view that social value is about utilising all available resources (+4 on F3 and +5 on F4), sustainability (+5 on F3 and +3 on F4), perceived value (+3 on F3 and +1 on F4), developing culture for social value (+1 on F3 and +4 F4) and protecting the environment (+3 on F3 and +1 on F4), thus, demonstrating that social value is different for each person as it is perceived value and all the resources need to be utilised in a way that may develop a culture for social value creation in order to maximise social and environmental sustainability. Both the factors also disagree that social value does not include choosing one option among many (-2 on F3 and -4 on F4), taking risks (-2 on F3 and F4), developing leadership skills (-3 on F3 and -2 on F4) and that social value is an added value (-2 on F3 and -3 on F4). Although for Factor 3, social value is not about reducing costs (-5 on F3 and 0 on F4) and developing relationships with the political leaders (-5 on F3 and 0 on F4), it is the expert opinion (0 on F3 and -5 on F4) that Factor 4 believes is not about social value. The

142 | P a g e perspectives displayed in Factor 3 propose utilising all the resources to produce social outcomes and impact (+5), that may involve seeking stakeholder views (+2), expert opinions (0) and beneficiary perceptions (+1), to achieve long-term sustainability for the well-being of society. Factor 4, however, advocates that the members of society should develop trust and connections (0 on F3 and +4 on F4), and utilise all available resources to develop a culture for social value to maximise benefit for society.

Some features that are unique to Factor 3 and Factor 4 include the creation of social value along with environmental and economic value (+5 on F3 and -1 on F4), the involvement of stakeholders (-2 on F3 and +5 on F4), doing the right thing at the right time (-3 on F3 and +3 on F4) and achieving value for money (-2 on F3 and +3 on F4). This indicates that although Factor 3 believes that social value is produced along with economic and environmental value, it does not involve seeking stakeholder views, doing the right thing or achieving value for money, thus, in order to create social value, one need not wait for the right time or right understanding, as well as be concerned about achieving value for money. In contrast, Factor 4 suggests that as social value is created by individuals, therefore, involving stakeholders is the most important feature of social value creation, and economic viability is as important as doing something that is right for the well-being of society.

Having provided the four main subjectivities that emerge from the factors above, it becomes clear that although these factors may share some common ground in relation to what social value is, they equally possess unique and distinct viewpoints on understanding of social value (Paradice, 2001). Although Q does not seek to generalise its findings as the main intent was not that of quantifying the degree or proportion of population that support or hold such views, Q does allow for the injection of a degree of legitimacy in the interpretative studies (Baker and Jeffares, 2013; Klaus et al., 2010). In this study, Q facilitates an empirical understanding of the subjective opinions of participants in relation to the factors and the construct of social value (Stergiou and Airey, 2011) by actively engaging them in discussions on social value (Irie, 2014).

143 | P a g e To summarise, participants in Factor 1, Factor 3 and Factor 4 believe that social value creation is values- driven (discussed in Section 6.2 above). Participants in Factor 1 advocate that social value is produced by shared viewpoints, and is the overall value produced by all the members of society. Factor 3 proposes that social value is created by maximising economic, environmental and social sustainability. Factor 2 suggests that social value creation is outcomes-driven, and that its’ creation may be guided by inherent radicalism or pragmatism-oriented results. These factors, thus, demonstrate how social value is perceived by the participants embracing different positions with distinct outlooks on what constitutes social value. Table 6.7 demonstrates understanding of social value with respect to each factor and their differences (also discussed in Chapter 8, Section 8.3).

Table 6.7: Factor-Specific Similarities and Differences of Social Value

It will, however, be interesting to investigate in future research to what extent the participants belonging to these factors may agree or disagree with the views of the others, and may be willing to compromise on a single shared viewpoint to facilitate understanding of social value. Figure 6.5 presents a conceptualised image of all the four factors in relation to social value, and how they contribute to social value. The figure posits that social value is driven by values, such as pluralism and sustainability, driven

SV Factor 1 Factor 2 (+) Factor 2 (-) Factor 3 Factor 4

Nature People- specific People and environment- specific People and environment- specific People, money and environment- specific People- specific Level

Societal level Individual-level Organisational- level Individual and organisational- level Individual- level Creators All actors together create value Individuals, but leaders play an important role Individuals and organisations Individuals and organisations Individuals Final outcome Creation of social impact Caring for present and future generations Measurement of social and environmental impact Economic, environmental and social sustainability Cultural change and social justice

144 | P a g e by outcomes, such as radicalist or pragmatist or driven by action (also discussed in Chapter 8, Section 8.3).