Keywords

1 Introduction

The spread of COVID-19 and the consequent restrictive measures that became necessary in the first months of 2020 hit humanity hard. The profound crisis that ensued forced scholars to investigate various issues, including the resilience and recovery capacity of the companies. The meaning of resilience is much broader than simple adaptation; it encompasses resistance, elasticity, and flexibility, the ability to regain lost form, struggle and combat, fortitude and courage, will and determination, recovery and relaunch, and finally, readjustment. From this point of view, only a few studies focus on the resilience capacity of social enterprises. SEs are private organizations whose hybrid nature places them between profit-oriented enterprises and philanthropic bodies. Even less attention is paid to the impact that women’s management of social enterprises can have on the resilience of the social enterprise (SE).

This contribution aims to analyze the ability of Italian SEs to be anti-cyclical and resilient during times of crisis, focusing the analysis on those runs by women or in which women play an important managerial role.

In its social and community declination typical of SEs, resilience refers to the search for a new balance between socio-economic functions, social bonds, and the environment following widespread and progressive impacts (Prati and Pietrantoni 2009). In this sense, the crisis of socio-economic and environmental systems manifests itself through a significant alteration of the traditional balances on which the stability of communities was based. From this point of view, social resilience can act, more than as a solution, like a working methodology aimed at addressing the impacts of change in a proactive and not a mere adaptation key.

The concept of resilience contributes to designing a semantic field within which to place community subjectivities of various origins but characterized by the common need to cope with systemic changes (Colucci 2012). In addition, the economic, social, and technological transformations prompt the emergence of new community aggregation forms distinguished in both generative processes and organizational and governance structures, such as those found in SEs.

Various studies (Campagnaro and D’Urzo 2021; Pansera and Rizzi 2020; Ammirato 2018) have confirmed the persistence of a growth in cooperation that has proceeded continuously since the 1990s, which concerns the number of companies, turnover, and employees. Conversely, although SEs have demonstrated anti-cyclical and resilient capabilities over time, they have nevertheless suffered the negative impact caused by the recent pandemic spread from Covid-19. Recent studies have shown that at least half of the SEs had short-term liquidity shortages. The repercussions on employment were also heavy, and almost 60% of SEs had great difficulty paying their employees’ salaries, while 15% had to lay off at least one employee by May 2021 (Legacoop 2020). Furthermore, growing interest is assuming the role that women play in SEs, but the contributions in the literature on the subject are scarce. This study intends to bridge the gap by answering the following research questions:

RQ1: Were SEs’ anti-cyclical nature and resilience confirmed during the COVID-19 pandemic?

RQ2: If SEs were anti-cyclical and resilient during the pandemic crisis, did those with strong female leadership perform better/worse than male ones?

A qualitative methodology based on multiple case studies is used to answer the research questions (Yin 2014). In particular, a homogeneous sample by size (small-medium) and ATECO code (catering sector) of companies is analyzed. The catering sector was chosen as it represents one of the most affected during the pandemic. The sample comprises companies profit-oriented and SEs (no-profit oriented). The data will be taken from the Aida Bureau van Dijk™ database, relating to the 5 years 2016–2020.

The comparison between 51 profit enterprises and 20 SEs demonstrates the anti-cyclical nature of SEs and their resilience to systemic crises. At this stage, no distinct differences emerge between SEs led by women or men.

Our research contributes to the resilience studies focusing on the role played by the SEs and supporting recent literature that argues that social entrepreneurship is a critical tool for addressing issues both created and exacerbated by the COVID-19. Additionally, this paper extends research on gender studies applied to non-profit management by increasing the analyses focusing on women’s leadership and the impacts they achieve in terms of economic and social performance, including employment. Our results strive for new lines of research and may push scholars to analyze in depth the differences in male and female management in social enterprises.

The contribution is developed in the following paragraphs. Paragraph 2 analyzes the relevant literature on resilience and focuses on SEs. Paragraph 3 describes the research methodology while paragraph 4 presents the results and related discussion. Paragraphs 5 is devoted to the conclusions.

2 Literature Review

Despite a widely accepted acknowledgment of cooperatives as resilient organizations, a consolidate body of literature on the subject is still lacking (Wulandhari et al. 2022).

Resilience is a multidimensional and multidisciplinary concept, explored with different theoretical approaches and perspectives of analysis (Gunderson 2000; Holling 1973, 2001; Ponomarov and Holcomb 2009; Walker et al. 2002; Burnard and Bhamra 2011; Duchek 2014, 2019; Linnenluecke 2017; Williams et al. 2017), relating to material sciences, psychology (Ponomarov and Holcomb 2009; Walker et al. 2002), and ecology (Williams et al. 2017), becoming, only recently, an integrant part of company organization and management studies (Duchek et al. 2020).

Different authors have tried to provide an exhaustive definition of resilience, but the utilized notions and definitions of resilience vary greatly depending on the particular research context (Bhamra et al. 2011; Sawalha 2015; Linnenluecke 2017; Williams et al. 2017).

For instance, Gunderson and Holling (2001) define resilience as “the magnitude of disturbance the system can tolerate and still persist.” Cumming et al. (2005) state the concept of resilience is linked to the ability of a system to return to a stable state after a disruptive condition. Still, McCann et al. (2009) define resilience as an essential key factor for organizations in unstable and uncertain times that allows them to cope with various kinds of disturbances from adverse developments to major crises. Johnson et al. (2013) argue that the concept of resilience is representative of the “ability of an organization to resist to shocks and extreme events through its ability to adapt to new circumstances,” while other authors, referring to the concept of system, describe that a resilient system is the one capable of responding adequately to any adverse event, drawing opportunities for growth (Linnenluecke 2017).

Some schools of thought interpret the concept of resilience as a passive phenomenon, i.e., limited to the ability to return to the equilibrium situation before the “bouncing-back” rupture without seeking a new equilibrium (Pimm 1984; Mayer 1982; Home and Orr 1997). According to this approach, resilience is also defined as the ability to be rebound-oriented or recover from unforeseen, stressful, adverse situations and return to the status quo before the crisis (Lengnick-Hall et al. 2011).

According to others, however, the return to previous stable conditions is intended as an intense vulnerability and a potential element of fragility that can quickly determine the recurrence of a critical event (Hollnagel et al. 2007; Weichselgartner and Kelman 2015). In this sense, it is preferred to refer to resilience as a “bouncing-forward” process, capable of developing recovery actions, preventing and reducing risk factors, and seizing the opportunity to recombine and renew structures and processes. Business systems need to continuously evolve, employing new knowledge to respond to critical events by reaching new equilibriums (Lengnick-Hall et al. 2011; Vogus and Sutcliff 2007; Weick and Sutcliffe 2007).

According to this perspective, resilience is a process (Börekçi et al. 2021). It consists of a set of adaptive capacities, in the constant assimilation of skills to be able to face a critical event and face the risk, in the organizational capacity that transforms internal and external threats into opportunities for growth and learning (Flier et al. 2003; Folke 2006).

More recently, the term resilience has been used at the organizational level to describe a characteristic of those organizations that are able to respond quickly, recover fast, or develop unusual ways of doing business under pressure (Akgün and Keskin 2014), while Santoro et al. (2020) have defined resilience a multidimensional concept relates to a variety of fields.

From the examined definitions, the concept of resilience can be summarized in the ability of an organization to resist adverse and unexpected events and its inherent tender to transform them into an opportunity for development and rebirth.

This concept has been applied by many scholars also to SEs.

Before delving into this aspect, it is necessary to briefly define what social enterprise does mean.

Social enterprise in Italy is regulated by Legislative Decree 112/2017. The social enterprise is a qualification recognized for private organizations that carry out business activity of general interest, non-profit and for civic, solidarity and social utility purposes on a stable and primary basis. The law requires that they adopt responsible and transparent management methods and foster the broader involvement of workers, users, and other interested parties in their activities. The Italian social enterprises to which this research is dedicated can assume any legal form, but the one that sees them as protagonists is that of a cooperative company. Thus, in Italy, the SEs is positioned at the crossroads between the traditional cooperative forms and the non-profit form of business (Tortia and Troisi 2021; Battilana and Dorado 2010; Doherty et al. 2014), taking a unique position between non-profit and for-profit enterprises (Billiet et al. 2021).

According to the most up-to-date data accessible, there are 16,557 ex lege social enterprises in Italy (Carini and Lori 2020). This number increases to 22,516 if we consider de facto ones, i.e., non-profit enterprises with at least one employee, of which at least 50% of their revenue comes from selling goods and services in the market (Borzaga and Tallarini 2021). Predominant enterprises’ form is represented by social cooperatives, which, as established by Legislative Decree 112/2017, acquire the social enterprise status. However, the social enterprise universe is also comprised of organizations that operate under other legal forms, such as associations and foundations. The SEs mainly supply social, educational, and health services, but they also operate in the work integration sector and many others, all of the general interest and social relevance.

SEs are member-owned, member controlled, and member benefitting enterprises (Battilana 2018; Levi and Davis 2008). SEs usually are founded by persons sharing a common need and a collective identity of a community of destiny (Defourny and Develtere 1999) to ensure the provision of products or services which the market, and/or the State, fail to provide them with (Mushonga et al. 2019; Battilana 2018; Levi and Davis 2008; Shantz et al. 2020).

More in detail, SEs are mission-driven organizations, characterized by human-capital intensive processes (Bontis et al. 2018), where the main aim is to create social and economic well-being to promote the integration and development of people (Madill et al. 2010; Meadows and Pike 2010; Onyeiwu 2003; Kong 2010). Thus, they incorporate both a business logic and a community logic (Battilana and Dorado 2010; Doherty et al. 2014), taking a unique position between non-profit and for-profit enterprises (Billiet et al. 2021).

Anyhow, the very definition of social enterprise resilience is still absent (Wulandhari et al. 2022).

In its “social” and “community” declination typical of SEs, especially in the form of social cooperatives, resilience refers to the search for a new balance between socio-economic functions, social bonds, and the environment following widespread and progressive impacts (shocks) (Prati and Pietrantoni 2009).

As history reveals, SEs often emerge during times of crises (Billiet et al. 2021). Gorgievski and Stephan (2016), state that entrepreneurs with resilient capabilities can act in times of adversity and have a higher propensity to act than non-resilient individuals, who are easily discouraged by challenges and dangerous environments. Consequently, SEs are often founded by persons sharing a common need and a collective identity of a community of destiny (Defourny and Develtere 1999) to ensure the provision of products or services which the market, and/or the state, fail to provide them with (Mushonga et al. 2019). Many authors argue that cooperatives resist better in times of crisis than their capitalist counterparts (Birchall and Ketilson 2009; Roelants et al. 2012).

In detail, Duchek et al. (2020) state that diversity can play a central role for enhancing organizational resilience if it is well managed.

In particular, what differentiates SEs from classic business models in times of crisis are the following three characteristics:

  1. (a)

    first, the central place of its members; SEs are owned by their members, which implies that members jointly possess the enterprise. Additionally, if SEs assumes the cooperative form, its typology of ownership differs significantly from the capitalist logic in that shares in cooperatives are not transferable and cannot be traded on the market (Mikami 2016);

  2. (b)

    second, SEs have a democratic decision-making governance structure. In addition, if the SE is a cooperative each member usually has one vote, regardless of the number of shares they own (Novkovic 2008);

  3. (c)

    third, SEs aim to benefit their members through their economic production activity (Peredo et al. 2018).

Various studies have already shown that the purpose of SEs, other than profit, allows them to adopt a behavior in contrast with the market and maintain high employment levels (Billiet et al. 2021; Euricse 2013).

Of particular interest is the role that women exercise in SEs. Nevertheless, studies that explore the role of SEs in empowering their women members are limited. Few studies focused only on the cooperatives (differing by SEs), but the conclusions can be extended to the social cooperatives as a kind of SEs. We refer mainly to a gripping study by Martinez-Leon et al. (2020) where the authors state that as cooperatives offer a non-traditional context to do business, being value-based organizations, it becomes necessary to analyze the effect of value systems on leadership styles. The scholars argue that few investigations have focused on leadership styles in cooperatives. Previous studies have not investigated gender differences in leadership behavior in SEs, including the influence of management team composition on this behavior. Furthermore, the absence of empirical studies that analyze gender differences in transformational and transactional leadership styles in the cooperative context does not aid in identifying their existence and importance.

As far as we know, few studies have focused on how female leaders have fostered sustainable organizations through prioritizing social, over economic and governance investments (Jeong and Compion 2021). Thus, this study aims to bridge the gap in the literature regarding the role played by women within social cooperatives, especially during the crisis. Notably, we focus on gender diversity’s impact on the economic and social performance of social cooperatives to investigate the SEs ability to be resilient even in a condition of crisis generated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

3 Research Design and Methodology

A qualitative methodology based on multiple case studies has been used to answer the research questions (Yin 2014). A sample of companies operating in the catering sector was analyzed, as it represents one of the sectors most affected by the pandemic. The selected sample was homogeneous in terms of size, sector, and ATECO code (catering), and it included profit enterprises and SEs. The data was taken from the Aida Bureau van Dijk™ database for an observation period ranging from 2016 to 2020, but focusing on the last 2 years available.

For the construction of a homogeneous sample, we proceeded following this research protocol (Dewey 1938; Yin 2014):

  • Sample identification: the data relating to all profit and non-profit enterprises active at the date of the survey belonging to the catering sector were extracted (ATECO CODE 56101—“Catering services with dining area”). The initial sample was made up of 189 profit enterprises, 29 social cooperatives, and 14 social enterprises different from cooperative. The analysis of the dispersion was subsequently carried out, which made it possible to identify the numerically most significant sample, considering only SMEs (i.e., those with revenues of less than 10 million euros and less than 50 employees). The sample resulting from the dispersion analysis was made up of 71 companies (51 profit, 20 social enterprises). The sample was homogeneous and allowed us to respond to RQ1.

  • Focus on SEs and female management: the RQ2 required to focus attention on the comparison between the performances achieved by SEs with a purely female leadership versus those run by men. The second phase saw the following logical moments:

    1. (a)

      the initial sample was reduced considering only SEs

    2. (b)

      the top management composition was observed on the basis of the following variables: President, Vice President, Board of Directors’ composition.

The final sample of this second phase was made up of 20 SEs of which 2 with exclusively female governance, with female President, Vice President, and Board of Directors. The two SEs will be indicated with social enterprise F1 (coding with SE F1) and social enterprise F2 (coding with SE F2). The economic and social performances of the SEs were also analyzed, comparing the average results of the male ones with the exact results of the two SEs with entirely female leadership.

Table 1 summarizes the research protocol.

Table 1 Research protocol
Full size table

4 Results and Discussion

4.1 Sampling Procedure and Data Analysis

The development of the analysis started from the collection of information from the Aida Bureau van Dijk database, applying the ATECO code (“catering”) as a first selection criterion to obtain relevant information relating to limited, profit and non-profit oriented companies that operate exclusively in this sector. Table 2 summarize the above.

Table 2 ATECO codes selected for identification of the sample
Full size table

Through the analysis of the dispersion, we have extracted the most representative sample which turned out to be that of SMEs (10 million euros in revenues and number of employees below 50). Figure 1 shows the dispersion analysis limited to the last 3 years available.

Fig. 1
Three scatterplots of revenues for S Es, joint-stock companies, and limited liabilities companies plot more dot clusters that represent the year 2018 at around 0 to 1.000 at 10 to 30, 0 to 400.000 at 0 to 70, and 0 to 40.000 at 0 to 200. Three scatterplots of staff headcount of the same categories also plot more dot clusters for the year 2018.

Results of dispersion analysis. Source: Authors

Full size image

The initial sample was obtained using the dimensional variables “revenues” and “employees,” as objective quantities, as opposed to the item “assets” notoriously subject to estimates and valuations. The dimensional parameters were observed for three consecutive years (2018–2020). The results of the subsequent extraction are reported in Table 3.

Table 3 Results of the first extracted sample
Full size table

So, the final sample resulting from the dispersion analysis was made up of 71 companies (51 profit, 20 non-profit) (Table 4).

Table 4 Final sample
Full size table

4.2 Performance Analysis

Our analysis shows that SEs have proven to be resilient and adaptive. The positive results see them as the main protagonists, while the negative ones occur both in profit-oriented enterprises and in SEs, albeit to a lesser extent.

In 2020, SEs recorded a 75% increase in value added, while LLCs and JSCs recorded a reduction of 23% and 69% respectively. All other economic indicators are negative, but the SEs react better than the JSCs. Figure 2 shows the economic performance in the period 2019–2020.

Fig. 2
A positive negative stacked column chart has a y-axis labeled economic performance in percentage. The turnover, production, added, and earnings values, all at negative, for joint-stock companies are 52,81, 49,59, 68,84, and 113,87, and for limited liability companies, 11,75, 9,91, 23,11, and 48,50, and under social enterprises, only added value is positive at 74,93.

Economic performance: focus on 2019–2020. Source: Authors

Full size image

Another important result concerns the reduction in the number of employees which is more contained in the SEs than that recorded in the LLCs and JSCs, confirming the attention of the SEs for maintaining employment even in the face of an increase in the cost per employee and of the reduction in revenues. Figure 3 shows the employees performance during the period 2019–2020.

Fig. 3
A positive negative stacked column chart has a y-axis labeled employee performance in percentage. The staff headcount, labor cost per employee, and employee performance values for social enterprise are all negative at 7,14, 9,06, and 11,19, respectively, and in joint-stock and limited liability companies, only employee performance has positive values.

Employees performance: focus on 2019–2020. Source: Authors

Full size image

Conversely, the analysis of the equity situation shows a significant reduction (−13.48% of equity), as opposed to what happens in profit-oriented companies. This last aspect highlights a certain fragility of the SEs in the observation period; in particular, the merit of having maintained the growth of added value and having contributed to alleviating the employment and social effects of the crisis must be acknowledged, making use of social safety nets as little as possible. This result is consistent with what appears in the relevant literature (Hynes 2009; Battilana et al. 2012; Weaver 2020).

Figure 4 shows the financial position during the period 2019–2020.

Fig. 4
A positive negative stacked column chart has a y-axis labeled financial position in percentage. Joint stock companies have higher intangible asset value at 58,14, limited liability companies have higher equity and total assets at 21,19 and 14,86, respectively, and social enterprises have higher tangible asset values at 7,08.

Financial position: focus on 2019–2020. Source: Authors

Full size image

4.3 Performance Analysis: Male and Female Enterprise Comparison

The composition of the top management was analyzed through the following variables: (1) President, (2) Vice President, (3) Board of Directors.

From the available data it emerged that in some SEs the Vice President was a woman, but the President and the composition of the Board of Directors were solely or predominantly male. These cases, hence, were removed from the sample. Therefore, definitively, there were only two SEs that could be defined as female, as they had an entirely female composition of governance.

From the comparison between the SEs managed and directed by women and the total number of SEs in the sample, it is interesting to observe the different reactions following the crisis triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The first aspect analyzed were revenues. Comparing the data for the 2-year period 2019–2020, the results are not surprising since, having chosen one of the sectors most affected by the pandemic, it was physiological to find downward trends. In particular, the two women’s SEs recorded greater decreases (−20% and −14%) compared to the rest of the SEs which, on average, suffered an 11% reduction in revenues.

It is also interesting to analyze the net income, a key factor of the entire analysis to be compared, subsequently, with the data relating to employment. From Fig. 5, an inflection point in the year 2019 is evident. The decrease was much more impacting for SE F1. Less drastic were the losses recorded by the other SEs in the sample but, in any case, the results were not positive.

Fig. 5
Two-line graphs. 1. A graph of revenues versus years for S E F 1, S E F 2, and male S E plots lines that begin at around 100,00, 1.250,00, and 2.400,00 in 2016, and end at around 1.000,00, 1.400,00, and 2.750,00 in 2020, respectively. 2. A positive negative graph of net income versus years that has the S E F 1 line with a huge drop to negative 290,00 in 2020.

Economic performance. Source: Authors

Full size image

As for the financial position, the assets had different growth rates. The male SEs recorded a 10% growth in assets; the average values referred to male SEs reveal the element that grew the most in 2020 were intangible assets (41%) compared to only 8% of tangible assets.

SE F1 and SE F2 recorded a 25% and 1% decrease in total assets, respectively; the most reduction is due to intangible assets decreasing by 68% and 42%.

Tangible assets remain roughly constant, increasing by 8% for SE F1 while decreasing slightly for SE F2 (−3%).

As for the shareholders’ equity, the results were mixed. If for male SEs in general and for SE F2 the growth rates were positive, respectively, +6%, +5%, for SE F1 it was not the same, with a drastic reduction. SE F1 had, in fact, a net worth definitely below the average of the male SEs and the female SE of the champion.

This capital weakness did not make it possible to absorb the significant losses recorded in 2020, the year of the pandemic.

Figure 6 shows the above comments.

Fig. 6
Four-line graphs for male S Es, S E F 1, S E F2 from 2016 to 2020. 1. A graph of tangible fixed assets versus years plots 3 lines with a rising trend for S E F 2, and others remain horizontal. 2. A graph of intangible fixed assets versus plots 3 lines with a rising trend for S E, while others have a declining trend. 3. A graph of total assets versus years plots 3 lines that gradually increases. 4. A graph of equity versus years plots 3 lines with a rising trend for male S E, and others remain horizontal.

Financial position. Source: Authors

Full size image

Although with low profit margins, it is well known how SEs are able to face crises without weighing on public finances, always striving to satisfy the needs of their members, workers, and the community; in this regard, Fig. 7 shows the trends in employment factors: employees, labor costs per employee, and employee performance.

Fig. 7
Three-line graphs for male S E, S E F 1, and S E F 2 from 2016 to 2020. 1. A graph of staff headcount versus years plots three lines with an increasing trend. 2. A graph of employee performance versus year plots 3 lines with a decreasing trend. 3. A graph of labor costs per employee versus years plots 3 lines with varying trends.

Employee performance. Source: Authors

Full size image

With regard to the first factor analyzed, it is possible to note that on average all the male SEs recorded a growth of 20% in employees in 2020, despite being in full pandemic with the blocking of activities; the same result was achieved by SE F2, with a slight growth of 7%; the performance of SE F1 was different, which probably, presenting greater difficulties, reduced the number of its employees by 18%.

On the other hand, the results referred to the cost of labor per employee were different, probably due to the adoption of different competitive strategies. In detail, SE F1 showed a growth of 17%, unlike other SEs, and cut labor costs by 17%, as did SE F2.

The results reveal the different strategies adopted by the SEs examined. SE F1 chose to reduce the number of employees but to increase the cost of labor per employee (+17%). Thus, most likely, this strategy led to the heavy operating losses recorded in 2020 (286,000€). Figure 7 summarizes the direct comparisons between the observed variables.

Finally, the last element of analysis was the performance of employees, which remained constant on average for SEs, as well as for SE F2, while SE F1, in contrast to the trend, recorded a reduction of 14%. In any case, it does not seem possible to detect significant differences between the two female SEs and the male SEs, except for earning and equity.

The performance indicators show generally better results for SE F1 than for SE F2 and the average of the male SEs, but since the sample is too small, no definitive conclusions can be drawn. Figures 8 and 9 summarize these results.

Fig. 8
A positive negative horizontal stacked bar chart of performance indicators has 3 parameters. The S E F 1 parameter indicates higher values under total assets, equity, and net earnings, the male S E average values have higher numbers under labor cost per employee, and turnover and S E F 2 has a higher value at tangible assets but has a huge negative value under labor cost per employee.

Male and female SEs: comparative analysis. Source: Authors

Full size image
Fig. 9
Five-line graphs represent turnover, return on sales, equity, debt or E B I T D A, and bank debt or turnover, all in percentage, versus years has 3 plotted lines each. Under turnover, and return on sales, the S E F 1, and male S E lines represents steep drops in 2020. The trend of all the graphs is fluctuating.

Performance indicators. Source: Authors

Full size image

5 Conclusions, Value, and Future Step of the Research

The COVID-19 pandemic has generated a real breaking point for the world economy, hitting most of the industrial sectors and posing new challenges to business. The catering sector is undoubtedly one of the most affected, following the closures imposed by the measures of governments around the world to contain the spread of the virus. Italy has adopted measures aimed at closing all non-essential activities during the year 2020, including the catering sector, which has been strongly affected by these closures.

In the light of what has been highlighted, based on a qualitative methodology on multiple case studies, this contribution aimed to analyze the ability of SEs to be anti-cyclical and resilient during times of crisis, focusing the analysis on those runs by women during the spread of the pandemic triggered by COVID-19.

In response to RQ1 and RQ2, we have first proceeded to identify the sample of SEs to be analyzed. In particular, we collected the data relating to profit and non-profit enterprises belonging to the catering sector (ATECO CODE 56101—“Catering services with dining area”).

The statistically most significant sample was that of small and medium-sized enterprises. The final sample analyzed comprises 51 profit-oriented companies and 20 SEs. We then examined the main resilience indicators identified by relevant literature.

Next, we narrowed down the sample to focus attention on the comparison between the performances achieved by SEs with a purely female leadership versus those run by men. From the final sample, we extracted only two exclusively female-run SEs, which we denoted “SE F1” and “SE F2.” The economic and social performance of the SEs were analyzed, comparing the average results of the male ones with the exact results of the two SEs with entirely female leadership.

Our analysis allowed us to respond to RQ1 (Were SEs’ anti-cyclical nature and resilience confirmed during the COVID-19 pandemic?).

The findings show that SEs have proven to be resilient and adaptive (Börekçi et al. 2021). The positive results see them as the main protagonists while the negative ones occur both in non-profit and profit-oriented enterprises, albeit to a lesser extent in the latter.

The results also highlighted that SEs are a necessary resource for economic recovery, as entities capable of managing the crisis internally, without resorting to aid from outside (the State in particular).

In 2020, SEs recorded a significant increase in value added, while profit enterprises recorded a reduction equally considerable. All other economic indicators (turnover, production value, earning) are negative, but the SEs react better than the profit ones (Lengnick-Hall et al. 2011; Vogus and Sutcliff 2007; Weick and Sutcliffe 2007).

Furthermore, our analysis shows that SEs are able to reduce the employment and social effects of the crisis more than any other profit or a non-profit company. Particularly, the reduction in the number of employees is more contained in the SEs than that recorded in the profit enterprises, confirming the attention of the SEs for maintaining employment even in the face of an increase in the cost per employee and the reduction in income.

Conversely, the analysis of the equity situation shows a significant reduction, as opposed to what happens in profit-oriented companies. This last aspect highlights a certain fragility of the SEs in the observation period; in particular, the merit of having maintained the growth of added value and having contributed to alleviating the employment and social effects of the crisis must be acknowledged, making use of social safety nets as little as possible. This result is consistent with what appears in the relevant literature (Hynes 2009; Battilana et al. 2012; Weaver 2020; Borzaga and Tallarini 2021).

Regarding the RQ2 (If SEs were anti-cyclical and resilient during the pandemic crisis, did those with strong female leadership perform better/worse than male ones?), the results are less definitively.

An interesting finding is that female SEs seem more sensitive to the employment issue. In the face of unexpected shocks, such as those caused by the pandemic, they preferred to reduce margins by minimizing the impact on employment by containing layoffs or increasing wages.

It was impossible to identify other elements that significantly distinguish the performances achieved by the two female SEs in the sample and the remaining male-led SEs. Thus, it will be necessary to deepen the analysis through in-depth interviews that allow researchers to investigate the company’s systemic complexity and the dynamism of its management.

This research contributes to the resilience studies focusing on the role played by the SEs and supporting recent literature that argues that social entrepreneurship is a critical tool for addressing issues both created and exacerbated by the COVID-19. Additionally, this paper extends research on gender studies applied to non-profit management by increasing the analyses focusing on women’s leadership and the impacts they achieve in terms of economic and social performance, including employment. This conclusion strengthens the literature that diversity can play a central role in improving organizational resilience if it is well managed (Duchek et al. 2020).

We are aware that this research is not without limitations. The main ones are attributable to a limited extension of the analysis sample (sector and dimension), but above all, the choice to analyze only the SEs that women exclusively manage aimed at answering RQ2.

The usefulness of this choice was that it allowed us to conduct a pilot survey and deepen in future research steps the analysis of a larger sample of SEs, operating in various sectors, of different sizes, with leadership mainly but not exclusively female. Thus, our results strive for new lines of research and may push scholars to analyze in depth the differences in male and female management in social enterprises.