Since social enterprises differ from both traditional for-profit and non-profit organizations with regard to their pursuit of dual mission: social mission and commercial mission, the question of “why some social enterprises are more likely to incorporate these competing missions than others” has attracted the attention of scholars in past several years (Dacin, Dacin, Matear. 2010; Doherty, Haugh, & Lyon, 2014). Nonetheless, the research addressing the conditions under which social enterprises are likely to achieve dual missions is relatively young and, as such, is still establishing its basic tenets. With the recognition of that understanding the variations in social enterprises’ dual mission achievement requires consideration of the organizational or individual factors that can impact on the centrality, the degree of which multiple logics are relevant for organizational functioning (Besharov & Smith, 2014, 375), this research attempts to specify some of conditions under which social enterprises’ centrality of competing logics rises and falls.

I proposed that social enterprises with the investor stakeholder group (or shareholder group) rich in ethical investors (H1), customer stakeholder group rich in impure altruistic buyers (H2), and employee stakeholder group rich in cross-sector workers (H3) will enhance their centrality of competing logics to a greater extent than those with each stakeholder groups lacking in ethical investors, impure altruistic buyers, and cross-sector workers.