The creation of public value from the action of hybrid organisations
Keywords:hybrid organization, value creation
Increasingly, organisations occupy an intermediate position between public and private ownership;
such organisations are called hybrid organisations (Doherty et al., 2014), whose goal is to create
innovation and synergy in addressing complex social issues, leading to more sustainable
development (Karré, 2020).
In the paper, we investigate how the actions of hybrid organisations produce public value, adopting
a conceptual scheme that relates broad strategic objectives of general (and public) interest to the
policies that public administrations put in place.
The objective is to plan and report on the sustainability and social impact dimensions of hybrid
organisations, information that is central to the public sector entity, whose principal and specific
role is to provide quality services to the target community. The hybrid organisation must account
for its social performance, report on it and draw up an action plan to improve its performance.
Therefore, it is a process through which public administration can better understand the impact of
its actions on the community and, consequently, be accountable to its primary stakeholders.
In this paper, we address the research question of how value creation is accounted for in hybrid
Several approaches for reviewing the scientific stream can be applied in the management sector. For
example, bibliometric reviews use a qualiquantitative approach to evaluate and monitor published
research, considering statistics on authors, journals and countries (Zupic & Čater, 2015).
According to Massaro et al., (2016), in bibliographic and bibliometric analysis, researchers may be
interested in representing a static picture, providing answers about the history of the research field
under investigation, and using bibliographic pairing of authors, keywords and citations.
In our analysis, the composition of the research field was set: only products from the subject area
'Business, Management & Accounting'. Following the studies by Mariani & Borghi, (2019),
Massaro et al., (2016) and Secinaro et al., (2020), only "articles" written in the "English" language
were considered. Following studies Li et al., 2017; Xu et al., (2018), articles published in journals
on the ABS list (2018) with the classification at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 4* were considered. This choice is
widely adopted in bibliometric studies, and researchers commonly employ it to identify quality
scientific articles. We have also carefully reviewed the selected papers, highlighting those aspects
that are useful for research and considering only those papers that have been published in journals
in the relevant subject area.
To perform the biometric analysis, we used the Bibliometrix application: a statistical package
available on R-Studio (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017); the software allows the representation of
bibliometric information, including authors, citations, countries of production and keywords and
Structured literature review.
Amelio, S., & Orlandini, P. (2020). Public interest network and new public governance, the role of the third sector in the government equation. European Journal of Volunteering and Community-Based Projects, 1(1), 23-38.
Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public Managers. Public Administration Review, 66, 56–65.
Alford, J., & Hughes, O. (2008). Public Value Pragmatism as the Next Phase of Public Management. The American Review of Public Administration, 38, 130–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074008314203
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975.
Aschhoff, N., & Vogel, R. (2018). Value conflicts in co-production: Governing public values in multi-actor settings. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 31. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-08-2017-0222
Barberis, P. (1998). The new public management and a new accountability. Public administration, 76(3), 451–470.
Bozeman, B. (2007). Public values and public interest: Counterbalancing economic individualism. Georgetown University Press.
Bracci, E., Papi, L., Bigoni, M., Gagliardo, E. D., & Bruns, H.-J. (2019). Public value and public sector accounting research: A structured literature review. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management.
Brandsen, T., & Karré, P. M. (2011). Hybrid organizations: No cause for concern? International Journal of Public Administration, 34(13), 827–836.
Brown, P. R. (2021). Public Value Measurement vs. Public Value Creating Imagination – the Constraining Influence of Old and New Public Management Paradigms. International Journal of Public Administration, 44(10), 808–817. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1903498
Bryson, J., Sancino, A., Benington, J., & Sørensen, E. (2016). Towards a multi-actor theory of public value co-creation. Public Management Review, 19, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1192164
Bryson, J., Sancino, A., Benington, J., & Sørensen, E. (2017). Towards a multi-actor theory of public value co-creation. Public Management Review, 19(5), 640–654.
Campra, M., Riva, P., Oricchio, G., & Brescia, V. (2022). Bibliometrix analysis of medical tourism. Health Services Management Research, 35(3), 172-188.
Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997). Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Annals of internal medicine, 126(5), 376–380.
Doherty, B., Haugh, H., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social enterprises as hybrid organizations: A review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 16(4), 417–436.
Dumay, J., Bernardi, C., Guthrie, J., & Demartini, P. (2016). Integrated reporting: A structured literature review. Accounting forum, 40(3), 166–185.
Esposito, P., Brescia, V., Fantauzzi, C., & Frondizi, R. (2021). Understanding social impact and value creation in hybrid organizations: The case of Italian civil service. Sustainability, 13(7), 4058.
Gebauer, H., Johnson, M., & Enquist, B. (2010). Value co-creation as a determinant of success in public transport services: A study of the Swiss Federal Railway operator (SBB). Managing Service Quality: An International Journal.
Greiling, D., & Grüb, B. (2015). Towards Citizen Accountability of Local Public Enterprises. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 86(4), 641–655. https://doi.org/10.1111/apce.12098
Greiling, D., Stötzer, S., & STOETZER, S. (2016). Accountability Reporting in Austrian Non-Profit Organizations-More Than a Compliance Instrument? Public Administration Quarterly, 256–287.
Grönroos, C. (2011). Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing theory, 11(3), 279–301.
Guthrie, J., Ricceri, F., & Dumay, J. (2012). Reflections and projections: A decade of intellectual capital accounting research. The british accounting review, 44(2), 68–82.
Hefetz, A., & Warner, M. (2004). Privatization and Its Reverse: Explaining the Dynamics of the Government Contracting Process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(2), 171–190. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muh012
Hoque, Z. (2014). 20 years of studies on the balanced scorecard: Trends, accomplishments, gaps and opportunities for future research. The British accounting review, 46(1), 33–59.
Karré, P. M. (2020). Hybridity as a result of the marketization of public services: Catalyst or obstruction for sustainable development? Deductions from a study of three hybrid waste management organizations in The Netherlands. Sustainability, 13(1), 252.
Kelly, G., Mulgan, G., & Muers, S. (2002). Creating public value: An analytical framework for public service reform. London: Strategy Unit, Cabinet Office.
Koppenjan, J., Karré, P. M., & Termeer, K. (2019). New Governance Arrangements. Towards Hybrid and Smarter Government? Smart Hybridity: Potentials and Challenges of New Governance Arrangements; Eleven International Publishing: Den Haag, The Netherlands, 11–28.
Li, J., Wu, D., Li, J., & Li, M. (2017). A comparison of 17 article-level bibliometric indicators of institutional research productivity: Evidence from the information management literature of China. Information Processing & Management, 53(5), 1156–1170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2017.05.002
Mariani, M., & Borghi, M. (2019). Industry 4.0: A bibliometric review of its managerial intellectual structure and potential evolution in the service industries. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 149, 119752.
Massaro, M., Dumay, J., & Guthrie, J. (2016). On the shoulders of giants: Undertaking a structured literature review in accounting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 29(5), 767–801. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2015-1939
Nabatchi, T. (2012). Putting the “Public” Back in Public Values Research: Designing Participation to Identify and Respond to Values. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 699–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02544.x
O’Flynn, J. (2007). From New Public Management to Public Value: Paradigmatic Change and Managerial Implications. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(3), 353–366. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00545.x
O’Flynn, J. (2021). Where to for Public Value? Taking Stock and Moving On. International Journal of Public Administration, 44, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2021.1884696
Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public management review, 18(5), 639–653.
Osborne, S., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-Production and the Co-Creation of Value in Public Services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18, 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927
Petrescu, M. (2019). From marketing to public value: Towards a theory of public service ecosystems. Public Management Review, 21, 1733–1752. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619811
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. John Wiley & Sons.
Picazo-Vela, S., Gutiérrez-Martínez, I., Duhamel, F., Luna, D., & Luna-Reyes, L. (2017). Value of inter-organizational collaboration in digital government projects. Public Management Review, 20, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1305702
Rhodes, R. a. w., & Wanna, J. (2007). The Limits to Public Value, or Rescuing Responsible Government from the Platonic Guardians. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(4), 406–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2007.00553.x
Rutgers, M. (2014). As Good as It Gets? On the Meaning of Public Value in the Study of Policy and Management. The American Review of Public Administration, 45, 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074014525833
Secinaro, S., Corvo, L., Brescia, V., & Iannaci, D. (2019). Hybrid organizations: A systematic review of the current literature. International Business Research, 12(11), 1-21.
Secinaro, S., Calandra, D., Petricean, D., & Chmet, F. (2021). Social Finance and Banking Research as a Driver for Sustainable Development: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability, 13(1), 330. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010330
Secundo, G., Rippa, P., & Cerchione, R. (2020). Digital Academic Entrepreneurship: A structured literature review and avenue for a research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 157, 120118.
Silva, F. N., Amancio, D. R., Bardosova, M., Costa, L. da F., & Oliveira, O. N. (2016). Using network science and text analytics to produce surveys in a scientific topic. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 487–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.03.008
Skelcher, C., & Smith, S. R. (2015). Theorizing hybridity: Institutional logics, complex organizations, and actor identities: The case of nonprofits. Public administration, 93(2), 433–448.
Smith, R. (2004). Focusing on public value: Something new and something old. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(4), 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2004.00403.x
Stoker, G. (2006). Public Value ManagementA New Narrative for Networked Governance? American Review of Public Administration - AMER REV PUBLIC ADM, 36, 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005282583
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British journal of management, 14(3), 207–222.
Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2009). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.
Wal, Z., Nabatchi, T., & Graaf, G. (2015). From Galaxies to Universe: A Cross-Disciplinary Review and Analysis of Public Values Publications From 1969 to 2012. The American Review of Public Administration, 45, 13–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074013488822
Williams, B., Kang, S., & Johnson, J. (2015). (Co)-Contamination as the Dark Side of Co-Production: Public value failures in co-production processes. Public Management Review, 18, 692–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1111660
Xu, X., Chen, X., Jia, F., Brown, S., Gong, Y., & Xu, Y. (2018). Supply chain finance: A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Production Economics, 204, 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.08.003
Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2022 European journal of volunteering and community-based projects
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.