Transforming Producer Companies into Sustainable Social Enterprise: A Management Innovation Perspective

Background: The transformation of Producer Companies (PCs) into sustainable social enterprises represents a critical pathway for achieving inclusive and equitable rural development. While this intersection of cooperative structure, social mission, and market-based solutions has gained scholarly attention, the research domain is fragmented. A systematic, quantitative synthesis is necessary to map the intellectual structure and evolution of this field.
Methods: This study conducts a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of literature published between 2015 and 2025. Data from 58 documents retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection were analyzed using bibliometric tools. The analysis encompassed performance analysis to assess productivity and impact, and science mapping (including co-occurrence network and thematic map analyses) to elucidate the conceptual and intellectual structure of the field.
Results: The analysis reveals a fluctuating but overall growing publication trend, with a significant peak in 2024. Key findings identify the most influential sources (e.g., Journal of Business Ethics), prolific authors (e.g., Lyulyov O), and leading countries (China and the United Kingdom) in this domain. The conceptual structure is dominated by core themes such as corporate social responsibility, sustainability, innovation, and firm performance, often studied in the context of SMEs. Thematic evolution indicates that while themes like management and impact are well-developed, sustainability and innovation remain foundational and dynamically evolving.
Conclusion: This study provides a data-driven overview of the scholarly landscape, clarifying the interconnections between management innovation, social responsibility, and sustainability in the transformation of Producer Companies. The findings offer a valuable foundation for scholars by identifying key research fronts and collaboration opportunities, and for practitioners by highlighting the integrated strategic levers essential for a successful transition to a sustainable social enterprise model.

Producer Companies; Social Enterprise; Bibliometric Analysis; Sustainability; Management Innovation; Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR); Web of Science.

1. Trebbin, A. (2014). Linking small farmers to modern retail through producer organizations—Experiences with producer companies in India. Food Policy, 45, 35–44. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.12.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Battilana, J., & Lee, M. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing—Insights from the study of social enterprises. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.893615 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2017). Fundamentals for an international typology of social enterprise models. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(6), 2469–2497. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9884-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Xie, X., Huo, J., & Zou, H. (2019). Green process innovation, green product innovation, and corporate financial performance: A content analysis method. Journal of Business Research, 101, 697–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.01.010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Moral-Muñoz, J. A., Herrera-Viedma, E., Santisteban-Espejo, A., & Cobo, M. J. (2020). Software tools for conducting bibliometric analysis in science: An up-to-date review. El Profesional de la Información, 29(1), e290103. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2020.ene.03 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Zhu, J., & Liu, W. (2020). A tale of two databases: The use of Web of Science and Scopus in academic papers. Scientometrics, 123(1), 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03387-8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Lyulyov, O., Pimonenko, T., Kwilinski, A., Dzwigol, H., Dzwigol-Barosz, M., & Pavlyk, V. (2021). The impact of the government policy on the energy efficiency gap: The evidence from Ukraine. Energies, 14(2), 373. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14020373 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Kumar, S., Lim, W. M., Pandey, N., & Westland, J. C. (2022). 30 years of sustainable development and business: A bibliometric analysis. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(1), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2883 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]