Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Together and Apart: Exploring Structure of the Corporate–NPO Relationship

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Financially significant relationships between corporations and non-profit organizations (NPOs) have increased in recent years. NPOs offer access to interests and ideologies that are lacking within most for-profit organizations. These partnerships form a unique bridge between for-profit and non-profit goals and offer significant potential to produce innovative ways of “doing business by doing good.” Exploration of the structural implications of these relationships, however, has been limited. The potential for ideological imbalance in these relationships, particularly for the NPO, has been poorly described. We explore the structure of Corporate–NPO relationships from the NPO's perspective under high pressure conditions such as large relational investments or negative pressure from stakeholders. Using data collected from 20 NPOs in Australia, we identified the use by NPOs of both formal and informal governance mechanisms within their partnerships. These mechanisms acted to align and defend important goals of the NPO. They allowed the NPO and their corporate partners to be simultaneously “together and apart.” Our study offers important insight toward the study of cross-sector relationships and the role of governance mechanisms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abzug, R., and N. J. Webb: 1999, ‘Relationships between nonprofit and for-profit organizations: a stakeholder perspective’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 28(4), 416-431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreasen, A. R. 1996, ‘Profits for Nonprofits: Find a Corporate Partner’, Harvard Business Review 74(6), 47-59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J.: 2000, The collaboration challenge (Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco).

    Google Scholar 

  • Barden, J. Q., and W. Mitchell: 2007, ‘Disentangling the influences of leaders’ relational embeddedness on interorganizational exchange’, Academy of Management Journal 50(6), 1440-1461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, M. and A. King: 2009, ‘Good Fences Make Good Neighbors: A Longitudinal Analysis of an Industry Self-Regulatory Institution’, Academy of Management Journal (forthcoming).

  • Basil, D., M. Runte, M. Easwaramoorthy and C. Barr: 2009, ‘Company Support for Employee Volunteering: A National Survey of Companies in Canada’, Journal of Business Ethics 85(2), 387–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, I., Cunningham, P. and Drumwright, M. 2004. ‘Social Alliances: Company/Nonprofit Collaboration, California Management Review, 47(1), 58-90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, I., P. Cunningham, and M. Drumwright (2006) ‘Identity, Identification and Relationship through Social Alliances’, Academy of Marketing Science 34: 128-137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, I., P. Cunningham, and M. E. Drumwright: 2007, ‘Mainstreaming Corporate Social Responsibility: developing markets for virtue ‘, California Management Review 49(4), 132-157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casadesus-Masanell, R. and J. Mitchell: 2007, ‘World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF)’, Harvard Case Study (Harvard Business School Publishing), p. 27.

  • Chambliss, D. and Schutt, R. 2003. Making sense of the social world: methods of investigation, Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R.H. 1960. ‘The problem of social cost’, Journal of Law and Economics 3, 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosier, R., & Rose, G. 1977. Cognitive conflict and goal conflict effects on task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19, 378–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cousins, P., Handfield, R., Lawson, B. and Petersen, K. 2006, ‘Creating supply chain relational capital: The impact of formal and informal socialization processes’, Journal of Operations Management, 24(6), 851-863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dacin, M. T., C. Oliver, and J.-P. Roy: 2007, ‘The legitimacy of strategic alliances: an institutional perspective’, Strategic Management Journal 20, 169-187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • David, R. and Han, S.: 2004, ‘A systematic assessment of the empirical support for transaction cost economics’, Strategic Management Journal, 25, 39-58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse, D. and Carter, S. 2005, ‘An Examination of Differences between Organizational Legitimacy and Organizational Reputation’, Journal of Management Studies, 42(2), 329-360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N., and Y. Lincoln: 2000, The Handbook of Qualitative Research, (2nd ed.).Sage Publications, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dimaggio, P and Powell, W. 1983, ‘The iron cage revisited - institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147-160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolnicar, S. and Lazarevski, K. 2009, ‘Marketing in non-profit organizations: an international perspective’, International Marketing Review, 26(3), 275-291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. 1997, ‘Effective interfirm collaboration: how firms minimize transaction costs and maximize transaction value’, Strategic Management Journal 18(7), 535-556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., P. Kale, and H. Singh 2001, ‘How to make strategic alliances work’, Sloan Management Review 42(4), 37-43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., and K. Nobeoka 2000, ‘Creating and Managing a High-Performance Knowledge-Sharing Network: the Toyota case ‘, Strategic Management Journal 21(3), 345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falck, O., and S. Heblich 2007, ‘Corporate Social Responsibility: doing well by doing good’, Business Horizons 50, 247-254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. and Strauss, A. 1967, The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. 1985, ‘Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness’, The American Journal of Sociology 91(3), 481-510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heide, J. B., and K. H. Wathne 2006, ‘Friends, business-people and relationship roles: a conceptual framework and research agenda. ‘Journal of Marketing 70(July), 90-103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, P. M. 1997, ‘Review: Sociology Without Social Structure: Neoinstitutional Theory Meets Brave New World’, The American Journal of Sociology 102(6), 1702-1723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. J. 1999, ‘Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the US chemical industry’, Academy of Management Journal 42(4), 351-371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A.: 2009, ‘Shades of Green’, Stanford Social Innovation Review Spring Issue, 40–49.

  • Hume, C., and H. Margee (2008) ‘the strategic role of knowledge management in nonprofit organizations’, International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing 13: 129-140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, P., and K. Clay 2000, ‘The choice-within-constraints new institutionalism and implications for sociology’, Annual Review of Sociology 26, 525-546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ireland, R. D., M. A. Hitt, and D. Vaidyanath 2002, ‘Alliance management as a source of competitive advantage’, Journal of Management 28(3), 413-436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kale, P., J. Dyer, and H. Singh 2001, ‘Value Creation and Success in Strategic Alliances: Alliancing Skills and the Role of Alliance Structure and Systems’, European Management Journal 19(5), 463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kale, P., and H. Singh 2007, ‘Building firm capabilities through learning: the role of the alliance learning process in alliance capability and firm-level alliance success’, Strategic Management Journal 28(10), 981-1000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koljatic, M. and Silva, M. 2008, ‘Uncertainty reduction mechanisms in cross-sector alliances in Latin America’, Journal of Business Research, 61(1), 648-650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laidler-Kylander, N., J. A. Quelch, and B. L. Simonin 2007, ‘Building and valuing global brands in the nonprofit sector’, Nonprofit Management & Leadership 17(3), 253-277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambe, C. J., R. Spekman, and S. Hunt 2002, ‘Alliance Competence, Resources and Alliance Success: conceptualization, measurement, and initial test’, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 30(2), 141-158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, T., Hardy, C. and Phillips, N. 2002, ‘Institutional Effects of Interorganizational Collaboration: The Emergence of Proto-Institutions’, Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 281-290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lister S (2003) ‘NGO legitimacy: technical issue or social construct?’, Critique of Anthropology 23(2): 175-192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loza, J. 2004, ‘Business-community partnerships: the case for community organization capacity building’, Journal of Business Ethics, 53(3), 297-311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, M.: 2001, Third Sector: The Contribution of Nonprofit Cooperative Enterprises in Australia (Allen & Unwin, NSW).

  • Marshall C, Rossman G. B (1999) Designing Qualitative Research, (3rd ed.), Sage Publications, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez, C. (2003) Social alliances for fundraising: how Spanish nonprofits are hedging the risks, Journal of Business Ethics, 47(3), 209-222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., and A. M. Huberman 1984, Qualitative Data Analysis.Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milne, G. R., E. S. Iyer, and S. Gooding-Williams 1996, ‘Environmental organization alliance relationships within and across nonprofit, business, and government sectors’, Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 15(2), 203-215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, P. 2005, ‘Structural vs Relational Embeddedness: social capital and managerial performance’, Strategic Management Journal 26(4), 1129-1151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R., and S. Hunt 1994, ‘The Commitment-trust Theory of Relationship Marketing’, Journal of Marketing 58(3), 20-38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, D. C. 1990, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak, L. I., and J. H. Washburn 2000, ‘Marketing Alliances Between NPOs and Businesses: Changing the Public’s Attitudes and Intentions Towards the Cause’, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 7(4), 33-44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peloza, J. and Hassay, D. 2008, ‘Make versus buy philanthropy: managing firm-cause relationships for strategic and social benefit’, Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 19(2), 69-90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plewa, C., and P. Quester 2007, ‘Key Drivers of University-Industry Relationships: the role of organizational compatibility and personal experience’, Journal of Services Marketing 21(5), 370-382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polonsky, M. J., R. Garma, and N. Chia 2004, Managing Strategic versus Tactical Green Collaborations: A Nonprofit Perspective, ‘ANZMAC. (Wellington, New Zealand: ANZMAC).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rondinelli, D. A., and T. London 2003, ‘How corporations and environmental groups cooperate: Assessing cross-sector alliances and collaborations’, Academy of Management Executive 17(1), 61-76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runté, M., Basil, D. and Deshpande, S. (2009) Cause-related marketing from the nonprofit’s perspective: classifying goals and experienced outcomes’, Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 21(3), 255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M. and H. K. Anheier: 1996, ‘The International Classification of Nonprofit Organizations: ICNPO-REVISION 1, 1996’, Working Papers of the John Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project (The John Hopkins University Institute of Policy Studies, Baltimore).

  • Samu, S., and W. W. Wymer Jr 2001, ‘Nonprofit-Business Alliance Model: Formation and Outcomes’, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 9(1/2), 45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. 1995, Institutions and Organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seitanidi, M. M. and A. Crane: 2008, ‘Implementing CSR Through Partnerships: Understanding the Selection, Design and Institutionalization of Nonprofit-Business Partnerships’, Journal of Business Ethics 85(2), 413–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seitanidi, M. M., and A. Ryan 2007, ‘A critical review of forms of corporate community involvement: from philanthropy to partnerships’, International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing 12(3), 247-266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selksy, J. W., and B. Parker 2005, ‘Cross-Sector Partnerships to Address Social Issues: Challenges to Theory and Practice’, Journal of Management 31(6), 849-873.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siebel, W. and Anheier, H. 1990, Sociological and political science approaches to the third sector. In Anheier and Siebel (Eds), The Third Sector: Comparative Study of Non-profit Organizations, New York: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simonin, B. L. 1997, ‘The importance of collaborative know-how: An empirical test of the learning organization’, Academy of Management Journal 40(5), 1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S., and E. Olson (2000) ‘Strategy Type and Performance: the influence of sales force management’, Strategic Management Journal 21: 813-829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spall, P.: 2000, ‘Neoinstitutional Theory in Nonprofit Organizations: The Power Vacuum’, Australasian Political Studies Association Conference (ANU, Canberra).

  • Strauss, A. L., and J. Corbin 1998, Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications, Newbury Park CT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wacker, J. 1998, ‘A definition of theory: research guidelines for different theory-building research methods in operations management, Journal of Operations Management, 16 (4), 361-385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade-Benzoni, K. A., A. J. Hoffman, L. L. Thompson, D. A. Moore, J. J. Gillespie, and M. H. Bazerman 2002, ‘Barriers to resolution in ideologically based negotiations: the role of values and institutions’, Academy of Management Review 27(1), 41-57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. 1985, The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. Free Press, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J. 1991, ‘Corporate social performance revisited’, Academy of Management Review 16(4), 691-718.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wymer, W. and S. Samu: 2003, ‘Dimensions of Business and Nonprofit Collaborative Relationships’, Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing 11(1), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wymer, W., and Samu, S. 2009, ‘The influence of cause marketing associations on product and cause brand value’, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 14(1), 1-20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R (2003) ‘Case Study Research Design and Methods’, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Monash University, Caulfield Campus, Melbourne, Australia

    Dayna Simpson

  2. Department of Marketing, Monash University, Caulfield Campus, Melbourne, Australia

    Kathryn Lefroy & Yelena Tsarenko

Authors
  1. Dayna Simpson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kathryn Lefroy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yelena Tsarenko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dayna Simpson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Simpson, D., Lefroy, K. & Tsarenko, Y. Together and Apart: Exploring Structure of the Corporate–NPO Relationship. J Bus Ethics 101, 297–311 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0723-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0723-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation