International Journal of Business Innovation & Management

  • Relational Capital and Dynamic Capabilities for Economic Resilience in Post-Conflict Enterprises

    Case Report Pdf View 👁️

    This study examines economic resilience among social enterprises operating in post-conflict environments by integrating Contextual Scarcity, Social Capital, Dynamic Capabilities, and Economic Resilience into a structural model. The objective was to explain how adverse environmental conditions, relational resources, and adaptive organizational processes jointly influence organizational continuity and sustainability. Contextual Scarcity was represented by physical resource deficits, market volatility, and territorial insecurity. Social Capital was represented by strategic interinstitutional alliances, collaboration network density, and community trust. Dynamic Capabilities were represented by behavioral flexibility, continuous problem solving, and market-oriented skill alignment. Economic Resilience was represented by business continuity, income stability, and sustained socioenvironmental commitment. The structural results indicate that Contextual Scarcity negatively affects Dynamic Capabilities, whereas Social Capital positively contributes to Dynamic Capabilities and Economic Resilience. Dynamic Capabilities demonstrate the strongest direct relationship with Economic Resilience, indicating that adaptive organizational processes are central to maintaining operations under adverse conditions. The interaction between Social Capital and Contextual Scarcity further indicates a compensatory mechanism through which relational resources weaken the adverse consequences of contextual limitations. The model explains substantial proportions of variance in Dynamic Capabilities and Economic Resilience, supporting an integrated relational and adaptive explanation of organizational resilience. The findings suggest that post-conflict social enterprises can partially compensate for physical, market, and territorial constraints by mobilizing external relationships and transforming them through flexible routines, continuous problem solving, and market-oriented competencies. The study contributes an integrated framework for understanding resilience as a contextual, relational, and organizational process. This framework informs organizational and public policy interventions.

    References

    1. A. Moritz, J. H. Block, and F. Morina, “Entrepreneurship in post-conflict countries: A literature review,” Review of Managerial Science, vol. 18, pp. 3025–3083, 2024, doi: 10.1007/s11846-023-00705-1.
    2. W. Naudé, “Peace, prosperity, and pro-growth entrepreneurship,” UNU-WIDER Working Paper No. 2/2007, Helsinki, Finland, 2007.
    3. J. Defourny and M. Nyssens, “Conceptions of social enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and the United States: Convergences and divergences,” Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 32–53, 2010, doi: 10.1080/19420670903442053.
    4. J. Defourny and M. Nyssens, “Social enterprise in Europe: At the crossroads of market, public policies and third sector,” Policy and Society, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 231–242, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.07.002.
    5. J. B. Barney, “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage,” Journal of Management, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 99–120, 1991, doi: 10.1177/014920639101700108.
    6. J. Nahapiet and S. Ghoshal, “Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 242–266, 1998, doi: 10.5465/AMR.1998.533225.
    7. P. L. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York, NY, USA: Anchor Books, 1966.
    8. R. Bhaskar, A Realist Theory of Science, 2nd ed. Brighton, U.K.: Harvester Press, 1978.
    9. D. J. Teece, G. Pisano, and A. Shuen, “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management,” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 18, no. 7, pp. 509–533, 1997, doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509>3.0.CO;2-Z.
    10. Q. Yang, L. Wei, and Y. Lu, “Building resilience for social enterprises: An fsQCA analysis based on the institutional bricolage perspective,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 210, art. no. 116117, 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2026.116117.
    11.  R. K. Yin, Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications, 2018.
    12. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1979.
    13. D. DeVellis, Scale Development: Theory and Applications, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications, 2017.
    14. D. F. Polit and C. T. Beck, “The content validity index: Are you sure you know what is being reported? Critique and recommendations,” Research in Nursing & Health, vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 489–497, 2006, doi: 10.1002/nur.20147.
    15. J. F. Hair, G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt, A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: SAGE Publications, 2022.
    16.  A. B. Castro, M. R. S. Oliveira, and C. J. R. Pereira, “SMEs navigating COVID-19: The influence of social capital and dynamic capabilities on organizational resilience,” Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 104, pp. 116–135, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.04.009.
    17.  J. Awad, “Enhancing social responsibility and resilience through entrepreneurship and digital environment,” Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 1688–1704, 2024, doi: 10.1002/csr.2655.
    18.  I. Barreto, “Dynamic capabilities: A review of past research and an agenda for the future,” Journal of Management, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 256–280, 2010, doi: 10.1177/0149206309350776.
    19.  S. P. M. Su, M. Y. Huang, and Y. C. H. Lee, “The role of social capital on proactive and reactive resilience of organizations post-disaster,” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, vol. 48, Art. no. 101614, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101614.
    20.  D. J. Teece, “Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of sustainable enterprise performance,” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 28, no. 13, pp. 1319–1350, 2007.
    21.  V. M. García-Valenzuela, C. A. Jacobo-Hernández, and J. G. Flores-López, “Dynamic capabilities and their effect on organizational resilience in small and medium-sized commercial enterprises,” Management & Marketing, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 496–514, 2023, doi: 10.2478/mmcks-2023-0027.
    22.  L. A. Zea-Jiménez and M. P. Pérez-Hernández, “Social media and organizational resilience in ICT SMEs: A dynamic capabilities perspective,” Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, vol. 21, no. 1, 2026, doi: 10.4067/S0718-27242026000100031.
    23.  H. Xue, R. Ding, T. Sun, and C. Ye, “Configurational effects of social capital and dynamic capability on project resilience in megaprojects,” Project Management Journal, vol. 56, no. 5, 2025, doi: 10.1177/87569728251317440.
    24.  B. Haj Mohammadi, V. J. Sadeghi, A. Sukumar, and M. Mmadubuko, “Cybersecurity as a dynamic capability: How micro and small social enterprises build digital resilience,” Information Systems Frontiers, 2026, doi: 10.1007/s10796-026-10718-2.
    25.  M. Ahachmi and A. Lahfidi, “Organizational agility and social capital as drivers of resilience in the touristic SMEs: A dynamic capabilities perspective,” Revue Internationale des Sciences de Gestion, vol. 8, no. 3, 2025.