Content uploaded by Mathieu Bouchard
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mathieu Bouchard on Mar 24, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Mathieu Bouchard
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mathieu Bouchard on Dec 18, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019853378
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly
2019, Vol. 48(6) 1186 –1209
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0899764019853378
journals.sagepub.com/home/nvs
Article
Domesticating the Beast:
A “Resource Profile”
Framework of Power
Relations in Nonprofit–
Business Collaboration
Mathieu Bouchard1 and Emmanuel Raufflet1
Abstract
Researchers have addressed the implications of power imbalance for nonprofits
engaging in collaborations with businesses. Yet as nonprofit–business
collaboration intensifies, nonprofit managers’ perceptions of power asymmetry
in these relationships remain scantly studied. We argue that investigating these
perceptions can sharpen the understanding of determinants and processes of
power relations from a nonprofit perspective. To do so, we studied nonprofit–
business collaboration in a network of international cooperation nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs). Based on our findings, we designed a nonprofit-centric
“resource profile” framework of power relations in cross-sector collaborations.
This framework provides an empirically grounded tool to inform nonprofit
managers’ decision making as they engage in collaborations with businesses. Based
on this framework, we elaborate a set of theoretical propositions to integrate
existing knowledge and guide further nonprofit-centric research on power
dynamics in cross-sector collaboration.
Keywords
cross-sector collaboration, nonprofit organizations, resource profile, power imbalance
1HEC Montréal, Quebec, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Mathieu Bouchard, Department of Management, HEC Montréal, 3000 Chemin de la Côte-Ste-Catherine,
Montréal, Quebec, Canada H3T 2A7.
Email: mathieubcd@gmail.com
853378NVSXXX10.1177/0899764019853378Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector QuarterlyBouchard and Raufet
research-article2019
Bouchard and Raufflet 1187
Introduction
Early writers on the topic have emphasized the potential of cross-sector collaboration
to efficiently address complex societal issues by bridging diverging interests and pool-
ing complementary resources (Gray, 1989; Waddock, 1989). However, recent studies
have noted that power imbalance in collaborations can lead to undesired outcomes for
nonprofits engaging resourceful businesses (Harris, 2012; Selsky & Parker, 2010).
Focusing on outcomes, some scholars warn that nonprofit dependencies arising from
collaborating with resourceful businesses may lead to their co-optation and mission
drift—losing sights of their commitments to beneficiaries as they align their opera-
tions with the interests of their private collaborators (Baur & Schmitz, 2012; Herlin,
2015; Schiller & Almog-Bar, 2013). However, while the outcomes of power imbal-
ance for nonprofits have been explored, research is scarce on determinants and pro-
cesses of asymmetrical power relations from a nonprofit perspective.
As the cross-sector collaboration trend accelerates and nonprofits’ access to
resources becomes increasingly dependent on engaging the private sector (Kindornay,
Tissot, & Sheiban, 2014), nonprofit managers and researchers need sharper under-
standing of the determinants and processes of power imbalance. This processual
understanding can inform decision making and contribute to better outcomes for non-
profits, their local partners, and intended beneficiaries. To address this need, we pro-
pose an analytical construct we call resource profile. We embed this construct into a
broader conceptual framework of nonprofits’ collaborative relationships considered in
their resource environment.
The resource profile construct integrates four key components of resources mobi-
lized by nonprofits in collaborations with businesses: funding, learning, networking,
and branding. Our framework provides nonprofit managers with an effective analyti-
cal tool to inform decision making as they engage in collaborations with businesses.
We make important contributions to the nonprofit literature on cross-sector collabora-
tion by (a) structuring a nonprofit-centric understanding of the determinants and pro-
cesses of power imbalance in nonprofit–business collaboration, and (b) presenting a
set of theoretical propositions to guide future research.
Our arguments are based on a study of collaborations with businesses in a sample
of 18 international volunteer cooperation nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). We
developed the resource profile framework by interpreting insights gained from this
empirical study using a resource dependency lens. Applying the resource profile con-
struct, we mapped our sample of NGOs into three clusters, ranging from weaker to
stronger resource profiles. We called them Explorers, Intermediates, and the Seasoned,
respectively. We conducted a cross-cluster analysis to explain how nonprofit manag-
ers’ differentiated perceptions of power relations linked to their expectations and chal-
lenges related to collaborations with businesses.
The article proceeds as follows. First, we review the literature on nonprofit–busi-
ness collaboration from a nonprofit perspective, formulate research questions, sum-
marize the resource dependency view of power relations, and introduce our resource
profile construct. Second, we describe our data sample and explain the data collection
1188 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 48(6)
methods and coding strategy. Third, we describe the core characteristics of the three
resource profile clusters and perform the cross-cluster analysis, based on which we
elaborate an integrative framework of power relations and formulate a set of proposi-
tions to guide future research. Finally, we summarize our contributions and point to
promising opportunities for future research.
Power Relations From a Nonprofit Perspective
Cross-sector collaboration is being relentlessly promoted by funding agencies and
seen by development experts as key to addressing global societal issues (Sachs, 2014).
This trend takes place in a context of drying public funds for nonprofits as govern-
ments disengage from societal issues and shift the burden on the private sector (Austin,
2000; Yaziji & Doh, 2009). In this context, nonprofit scholars have called for the
development of an “NPO-centric view of power relations” (Schiller & Almog-Bar,
2013, p. 959) and for further research on the “imbalance of resource transferred (and
related imbalances of power) in such relationships” (Harris, 2012, p. 896). In this sec-
tion, we identify four key resource components discussed in nonprofit studies of inter-
organizational collaboration.
The importance of funding resources—secured monetary streams to plan and exe-
cute operations and programs—to enable nonprofits’ survival and the pursuit of their
missions is often presented as self-evident in the nonprofit literature. Nonprofit
researchers typically conceive funding as an exogenous prescription: Resource–
environment pressures incentivize nonprofit managers to collaborate with businesses
to satisfy donors’ expectations and diversify their resource streams away from govern-
mental monies (MacIndoe & Sullivan, 2014). Nonprofits’ reliance on sponsors for
funding is typically identified as a major dependency.
Some studies discuss the risk of nonprofits’ increased dependency on private-sector
funding streams fostering their co-optation and mission drift away from beneficiaries’
interests (Baur & Schmitz, 2012; Schiller & Almog-Bar, 2013). Researchers insist that
to fend off co-optation, nonprofits must learn to rigorously vet potential business col-
laborators and proactively manage asymmetrical power relations in collaboration with
businesses (Al-Tabbaa, Leach, & March, 2013; Baur & Schmitz, 2012; Herlin, 2015).
Prior socialization of nonprofit actors, joint decision making, and proactive manage-
ment of power relations (Almog-Bar & Schmid, 2018) are found to enable the gradual
development of the interorganizational trust needed for nonprofits to build their cross-
sector collaboration capacities (Sanzo, Álvarez, Rey, & García, 2015). Together, these
findings show that collaborating with businesses requires nonprofits to mobilize sig-
nificant learning resources—organizational capacities to select, vet, govern, and eval-
uate collaborations. Similarly, Austin’s (2000) broadly accepted “collaboration
continuum” implies that collaborators “are engaged in continual learning about the
partnering process” (p. 85). In short, nonprofit research highlights the covariance of
learning and networking: The ability to collaborate requires gaining capacities over
time by collaborating.
Bouchard and Raufflet 1189
Some studies observe that within a population of nonprofits, the ability to mobilize
networking resources—collaborative ties within and across sectors—is asymmetri-
cally distributed. Foster and Meinhard (2002) argue that because of their “limited
resource base,” it is difficult for smaller voluntary organizations to grow collaborative
ties because they “have less to share and thus are not attractive alliance partners” (p.
559). Correspondingly, researchers have found that nonprofits are more likely to col-
laborate with each other when they have broader and deeper resources (Guo & Acar,
2005), when they have similar organizational attributes and legitimacy statuses, and
when they are headquartered in the same regions (Atouba & Shumate, 2015). Austin’s
(2000) model highlights that extending collaborative ties initially requires network
management organizational capacities. These studies suggest that, while nonprofits
with broader resources enjoy abundant access to interorganizational collaboration,
smaller nonprofits struggle to find interested counterparties to extend their networking
resources.
Focusing on the public image of nonprofits, Herlin (2015) argues that given the
frequency of power asymmetries favoring businesses, collaborations may become
riskier to nonprofits’ legitimacy when they reach the integrative stage. Although non-
profits may bring distinct and valuable resources to cross-sector collaborative net-
works (Chapman & Varda, 2017), nonprofits’ branding resources—their public image
and reputation—appear especially attractive for businesses interested in burnishing
their corporate social responsibility credentials. Collaborating with some types of
business, as for instance with luxury brands (Boenigk & Schuchardt, 2015), is found
to bolster public attitudes toward nonprofits and incentivize support from private
donors. However, Baur and Schmitz (2012) warn that nonprofits engaging with busi-
nesses on that basis of reputational motives may compromise their independence and
be vulnerable to co-optation, putting their legitimacy at risk. These studies portrait
branding in cross-sector collaboration as both a valuable and a fairly vulnerable
resource for nonprofits.
In the nonprofit literature on collaboration, resource dependency is the most com-
mon theoretical lens adopted to conceptualize power relations. Most studies assume
that power asymmetries usually favor businesses and point to the risks of collaboration
for nonprofits related to dependencies on businesses. However, Elbers and Schulpen
(2011) point in a direction that is often overlooked. They show that when large NGOs
from developed countries collaborate with local partners in developing countries,
power asymmetries tend to favor the aid agencies at the expense of their local partners.
In some cases, aid agencies exclude local partners from decision making and collab-
orative governance. This highlights that nonprofits are not always on the weaker end
of collaborations—Some nonprofits are indeed quite resourceful and influential.
In our investigation of the determinants and processes of power imbalance in non-
profit–business collaborations, we make two initial assumptions: (a) Resource profiles
influence nonprofit managers’ perceptions of power relations, and (b) managers’ per-
ceptions of power relations link to their expectations and challenges in collaborations.
These two assumptions, illustrated in Figure 1, are well supported in the nonprofit
literature and align with the core tenets of resource dependence theory.
1190 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 48(6)
Based on these assumptions, we formulate these sequential research questions:
Research Question 1 (RQ1): How do nonprofit resources affect their managers’
perceptions of power relations in collaborations with businesses?
Research Question 2 (RQ2): How do nonprofit managers’ perceptions of power
relations link to their expectations and challenges in collaborations with
businesses?
Before moving to the research methods and findings, we briefly summarize the
resource dependency conception of power relations and introduce the key components
of our resource profile construct.
The Resource Profile Construct
We developed the resource profile construct through iterations between literature and
empirical data, a process neither fully inductive nor deductive and best described as
“abductive” (Suddaby, 2006). An initially broad review of the nonprofit–business col-
laboration literature informed our interview data coding. In turn, data coding gener-
ated themes and subthemes, from which we narrowed down our literature review to
focus on the core resource components emerging as most relevant to our informants’
reported experiences. Thus, the sequential presentation of the literature review, meth-
ods, and data analysis, standard in academic articles, does not reflect the iterative
interplay of our theory-building process but is nonetheless adopted for reader
friendliness.
To address our research questions, we developed the resource profile construct by
combining insights from resource dependence theory with themes and subthemes
emerging from the experiences reported by our informants. Resource dependence
theory highlights that organizations adapt to their shifting task environments by
accessing “monetary or physical resources, information, or social legitimacy” (Pfeffer
& Salancik, 1978, p. 43) through their exchanges with other organizations. Resource
dependency, a well-established perspective in social theory, takes root in an earlier
perspective known as social exchange theory. Homans (1958), a leading social
exchange theorist, explained social behavior in terms of exchange between individuals
Figure 1. Causality assumptions underpinning the research questions.
Bouchard and Raufflet 1191
or groups—both material (i.e., goods and services) and symbolic (e.g., status and
authority)—and linked the reproduction of social relationships to the mutual percep-
tion of reciprocity in social exchange. Importantly, in Homans’s social–psychological
conception of exchange, power is not absolute but contingent on interrelated actors’
perceptions. Drawing on Homans’s work, Emerson (1962) focused on power imbal-
ances resulting from asymmetrical interdependency to argue that the “power of actor
A over actor B is the amount of resistance on the part of B which can be potentially
overcome by A” (p. 32). Building on this view of power as asymmetrical interdepen-
dency, Blau (1964) argues that an actor gains power over counterparties by providing
benefits on which they depend in exchange for their compliance, with benefit discon-
tinuation as an implied threat to dissuade noncompliance.
Resource dependence theory is relevant to the analysis of power relations in non-
profit–business collaborations because (a) nonprofits engage in collaborations to
mobilize scarce resources to mitigate environmental uncertainty and (b) these collabo-
rations are often characterized by asymmetrical interdependencies potentially leading
to co-optative dynamics (Baur & Schmitz, 2012; Herlin, 2015). Based on the resources
mobilized by nonprofits in our sample, we elaborate the resource profile construct to
operationalize our study of power relations. We define resource profile as the array of
resources mobilized by a nonprofit organization in collaborating with businesses. Our
resource profile construct, summarized in Table 1, is composed of four key compo-
nents: funding, learning, networking, and branding.
Method
We initially conducted the study for the International Forum for Volunteering in
Development, a global network of international volunteer cooperation organizations
(IVCOs), and presented a practice-oriented version of the study at the network’s 2014
annual conference.
Data Collection
Among the 20 organizations that responded to our web survey, 14 were NGOs (either
headquartered in a single country or “federated,” that is, with branches registered in
several countries), three were networks or associations of NGOs with some supervi-
sory function (“umbrella” organizations), and three were governmental agencies
involved in international volunteer cooperation with field operations (including one
umbrella). Umbrellas responded to the survey by reporting on the activities of the
NGOs under their purview. We determined that two of the three governmental agen-
cies initially surveyed were unrepresentative of the population we were studying and
excluded them from our final data set.
In the 18 organizations included in our final sample, 15 were involved in volunteer-
sending and capacity-building work, 13 in democracy and governance, 12 in small enter-
prises and the informal sector, 12 in agriculture, and 11 in the environment. Nine of the
18 had or supported advocacy initiatives. Seven had a 2013 annual budget of US$20
1192 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 48(6)
million or more, while 11 had annual budgets scattered throughout the US$0–US$20
million range.
Web Survey
The web survey described in Table 2 comprised 44 multiple-choice questions and one
open-ended comments section. It served as a first exploratory step to uncover key
issues related to collaboration with businesses identified in our initial literature review.
The survey showed that the sample contained a wide range of resource profiles, geog-
raphies, and programs, which we identified as an analytical opportunity to explore
further.
Qualitative Interviews
Based on insights emerging from survey data, we conducted 17 semi-structured quali-
tative interviews to investigate NGO managers’ expectations and challenges experi-
enced in collaborating with businesses. We excluded two transcripts (the same two as
in the surveys) from the analysis for the reasons given above. Our interview guide was
Table 1. Components of Nonprofit Resource Profile.
Resource Description Studies
Funding Funding resources include a nonprofit’s grants
and donations secured from sponsors in
support of operations and programming.
Nonprofits rely on these expected monetary
streams to plan and execute activities in
pursuit of their missions.
Austin (2000)
Yaziji and Doh (2009)
Learning Learning resources refer to a nonprofit’s
knowhow gathered through collaborative
experience. This knowhow conditions the
capacities to find, vet, govern, and evaluate
collaborations.
Austin (2000)
Baur and Schmitz (2012)
Al-Tabbaa, Leach, and
March (2013)
Sanzo, Álvarez, Rey, and
García (2015)
Almog-Bar and Schmid
(2018)
Networking Networking resources represent a nonprofit’s
ongoing collaborative ties within and across
sectors. Networking provides access to
collaborators’ resources and allows to form
coalitions.
Foster and Meinhard (2002)
Guo and Acar (2005)
Elbers and Schulpen (2011)
Atouba and Shumate (2015)
Branding Branding resources refer to a nonprofit’s public
image, reputation, and credibility. Several
informants referred to this resource as
“branding” and “brand awareness.”
Baur and Schmitz (2012)
Herlin (2015)
Boenigk and Schuchardt
(2015)
Bouchard and Raufflet 1193
composed of 10 open questions, with sub-questions used for optional follow-ups.
Interviews lasted from 30 to 70 min. Of the 15 interviews retained in our final sample,
seven informants were top executives, six were program managers or equivalent, one
was policy officer, and one was public relations manager. We consider our informants
broadly representative of a global population of volunteer cooperation nonprofit man-
agers. The interview guide included three dimensions: (a) the institutional, financial,
and international development-specific context in which nonprofits operate; (b) non-
profit managers’ level and nature of experience in collaborations with businesses; and
(c) their expectations and challenges in these collaborations. Interviews were con-
ducted through Skype or in-person, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim.
From our initial readings of transcripts, perceptions of power imbalance and con-
cerns with mission drift related to resource dependency emerged as major issues for
nonprofit managers. We then conducted a narrower literature review focused on
resource dependency and power relations. The “material” and “symbolic” nature of
exchanges referred to in the resource dependency literature appeared insufficiently
specific to operationalize our data analysis. Thus, we elaborated the resource profile
construct to specify the terms of our resource-based analysis of managers’ perceptions
of power relations. We coded the interview transcripts with NVivo by identifying ana-
lytical themes and subthemes (Miles & Huberman, 1994). We established the follow-
ing thematic structure: resource profile (subthemes: funding, learning, networking,
branding), power, expectations, challenges, organizational description, and govern-
mental relations. We also labeled all organizations by resource profile cluster
(Explorers, Intermediates, Seasoned), type of organization (federated nonprofit, non-
federated nonprofit, governmental agency), and core focus (field operations, umbrella/
network).
This coding strategy facilitated our identification of relationships between themes/
subthemes that were either common across resource profile clusters (e.g., power/learn-
ing) or cluster-specific (e.g., expectations/funding/Explorers). Adopting organiza-
tional population ecology as our primary analytical level, we generated coding matrices
with resource profile clusters in rows and themes/subthemes in columns for managers’
Table 2. Structure of Web Survey.
Survey section Content description
Organizational description Contains nine descriptive questions on size, governance,
resources, and activities.
Collaboration determinants,
processes, and outcomes
Contains 35 questions on NGO managers’ experience in
collaborating with private and public organizations using
4-point Likert-type scales and selection lists.
Open-ended comment box Allowed respondents to freely formulate written feedback
and identify and discuss issues overlooked by our survey
questions.
Note. NGO = nongovernmental organization.
1194 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 48(6)
(a) perceptions of power relations, (b) expectations related to collaborations, and (c)
challenges experienced in collaborations. This structured a robust comparative analy-
sis of subthemes within and across clusters. Quotes presented below were edited to
preserve informants’ confidentiality. Both a strength and a limitation of our data are its
focus on a global population of nonprofit managers with a broad range of resource
profiles across countries but facing common macro-trends and meso-issues.
Analysis and Findings
We present our findings in two sections. First, we analytically describe the resource
profile clusters. Second, we perform a cross-cluster analysis of resource profiles and
elaborate a set of theoretical propositions to specify our contributions and guide future
research.
Analytical Description of Clusters
We call the three distinct resource profile clusters emerging from our empirical analy-
sis: Explorers, Intermediates, and the Seasoned. First, for each cluster, we use survey
data to describe the general characteristics of organizations included. Then, we use
interview data to qualitatively describe the four components of resource profiles in
each cluster. We support our cluster descriptions with tables featuring representative
informants’ quotes.
Cluster 1: Explorers. This cluster is composed of eight organizations: five non-feder-
ated NGOs and three nonprofit umbrellas. The five NGOs are headquartered in devel-
oping countries. The three umbrellas are headquartered in developed countries; each
umbrella oversees several small NGOs. All organizations had 2013 budgets under
US$2 million. Explorers had engaged in 0 to 4 collaborations with businesses in the
5-year period prior to the study. Table 3 contains representative quotes for each com-
ponent of Explorers’ resource profiles.
Explorers deal with stretched and often temporary human resources. Their funding
sources are scarce and precarious. As the majority are headquartered in developing coun-
tries, their access to core funding from their home governments is limited or inexistent.
Their geographical location limits opportunities to find businesses interested in collabo-
rating with them. “Large international companies operating here are all headquartered in
New York or London, where they have their corporate social responsibility (CSR) bud-
get,” said one informant. Because of Explorers’ weak branding resources, businesses
seeking reputational benefits are often uninterested in collaborating with Explorers.
The scarcity of opportunities available to Explorers for collaborating with busi-
nesses makes it difficult to gather learning resources. Their few past or ongoing col-
laborations with businesses, if any, are at a philanthropic or early transactional level
(Austin, 2000). Some receive technical assistance or monetary contributions from
businesses to support short-term initiatives. Given the rare governmental funds avail-
able to them, tapping into private-sector resources is key to Explorers’ survival and
Bouchard and Raufflet 1195
organizational development. Yet, their managers tended to be quite concerned that
collaborating with large companies may force them to drift away from their commit-
ments to beneficiaries. They tended to view collaborations with small and medium-
sized enterprises (SMEs) as a wiser and safer initial step to initiate the learning
process.
However, some Explorers highlighted that their small size could also be an asset as
it makes them more agile and closer to local communities, in comparison with larger
NGOs that can be entrenched into established procedures and institutional interests.
They presented this as an overlooked strength which they needed to find how to brand
to attract businesses’ interest in collaborating with them. An Explorer’s manager men-
tioned focusing on collaborations with foreign companies doing business in their
home (developing) country, in which this NGO had a strong, grounded understanding
of the local culture and presence in community networks. They hoped to build on these
local ties as a springboard to engage with businesses and expand their activities abroad.
Cluster 2: Intermediates. This cluster is composed of five organizations: two non-feder-
ated NGOs, two federated NGOs, and one governmental umbrella agency. All are
Table 3. Explorers Cluster: Informants’ Quotes.
Resources Illustrative quotes
Funding “Our local government cannot provide the funding, so we have to develop the
linking with international organizations for funding and for the experience in
projects they have already developed, to learn from them, and also for the
fundraising.”
“It’s difficult to stick with your principles if you don’t have money and have to
decide whether to accept contributions or to close the office.”
Learning “Because of a lack of knowledge, human resources, and finances, we have
problems in making the step further. We’re at the step of gathering
information. Maybe now it’s the time to start planning, and it’s a long-term
process.”
“How to convince small- or mid-sized companies in our country to choose
international development or global education as the best tool for their
employees’ capacity-building? That’s my question.”
Networking “NGOs have collaborated with the government for a long time. The new
developments truly relate to engaging with the private sector.”
“Private companies sometimes provide experts for short-term affectations . . .
Sometimes experts provide time voluntarily and sometimes we have to pay.”
Branding “We’re working in the public’s interest, we’re the voice of the society. The
risk is that businesses may have hidden agendas.”
“We want to preserve the identity of our organization and our values,
although we need to adapt to the world we live in. We can adapt, but we
cannot compromise on our core value and mission; we need to remain true
to ourselves.”
Note. NGOs = nongovernmental organizations.
1196 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 48(6)
headquartered in developed countries. Their 2013 budgets ranged from US$2 to
US$49 million. Intermediates had engaged in three to more than 10 collaborations
with businesses in the 5-year period prior to the study. Table 4 contains two representa-
tive quotes for each component of Intermediates’ resource profiles.
Compared with Explorers, Intermediates are more advanced in gathering learning
resources related to collaboration with businesses. All were founded several decades
ago and receive significant core funding from their home governments. Their estab-
lished networks among nonprofits and with public- and private-sector entities are sig-
nificantly more extensive. Their branding resources are stronger: They tend to be a
known brand to private companies, public agencies, and the public at large. Some are
part of an international federation, which allows them to leverage their confederates’
learning resources and networks across countries.
Table 4. Intermediates Cluster: Informants’ Quotes.
Resources Illustrative quotes
Funding “We’re at the early stages of discussing some new partnerships. In one
case, we’re looking to link together a major international company with
professional associations, where we will form a partnership and then bid for
government money together.”
“Partners receive funding from us to help implement their project; 40% of
projects currently supported by us are cross-sectoral projects, up from 30%
in the past.”
Learning “In these collaborations we’ve done in recent years . . . we get to understand
how private business works . . . We’ve changed some things in our
approach with companies, and we’ve become quicker and nimbler.”
“We’ve been active for 50 years . . . The very nature of our organization is
cross-sectoral: we’re a governmental agency providing support to public–
private–NGO partnerships, so all our work is cross-sectoral.”
Networking “We exchange quite a lot of emails, but above that, we have regular face-to-
face meetings with our partners . . . At the end of the day, a relationship is
between two people. You need a champion at the partner organization to
whom you always reach out and a champion in your organization too.”
“Being part of the federation, there are learning workshops or webinars that
give us access to this information from our affiliates in other countries. It
gives us access to these networks to see how they did it, what are the best
practices, and so on.”
Branding “We do a lot of [Internet] research on potential partners prior to engaging.
Reputation; whether they signed up for environmental standards. We don’t
engage with extractive companies; our risk profile is very conservative.’”
“We do both service-delivery and advocacy work . . . For example, you may
have a company with a strong expertise in water supply and sanitization
but that also designs or manufactures weapons. Our federation has
done advocacy campaigns against weapons, so we can’t partner with that
company.”
Note. NGO = nongovernmental organization.
Bouchard and Raufflet 1197
These organizations have been cultivating symbiotic relationships with their home gov-
ernments, collaborating with public-sector agencies and engaging with multilateral funders
for a long time. However, collaborating with businesses remains a recent organizational
development for them. It is a trend that has been accelerating and in which they seek to
expand their engagement in terms of number, depth, and time horizon of collaborations.
They are actively learning how to select and vet collaborators (due diligence), co-manage
and co-govern, engage stakeholders, and evaluate the outcomes of collaborations.
Intermediates are exploring diverse modes of collaboration such as corporate vol-
unteering programs and co-bidding (i.e., jointly submitting a funding proposal with a
business). Most of them are opposed or reluctant to engaging with extractive compa-
nies, seeing it as too risky to their reputation and difficult to manage given the typi-
cally large size of some of these firms and consortia. They proceed step by step and
cautiously along Austin’s (2000) collaboration continuum, engaging in philanthropic,
transactional, and early integrative collaborations. Intermediates’ managers tend to see
collaborating with SMEs as closer to their “comfort zone” and many remain hesitant
to collaborate with multinational corporations.
Cluster 3: Seasoned. This cluster is composed of five organizations: three federated
NGOs and two non-federated NGOs. All are headquartered in developed countries.
Their 2013 annual budgets ranged from US$20 million to more than US$50 million.
They had been involved in more than 10 to several hundreds of collaborations with
businesses in the 5-year period prior to the study. Table 5 contains two representative
quotes for each component of the Seasoned’s resource profiles.
The Seasoned mobilize impressive arrays of resources. All are headquartered in
developed countries, all have been operating for several decades, and several of them
are part of an international federation. They are engaged in large numbers of collabora-
tions with businesses across various countries and industries. Their networks encom-
pass close collaborative relationships with governmental agencies in both developed
and developing countries as well as with various types of nonprofits, including profes-
sional and industry associations both at home and abroad.
The Seasoned engage in a broad array of ongoing philanthropic, transactional, and
integrative collaborations (Austin, 2000). Some of these collaborations span long-term
horizons and include multiple collaborators across sectors. They deploy wide-ranging
and systematized learning resources, enabling them to rigorously vet collaboration can-
didates and implement structured co-governance and monitoring mechanisms both at
the headquarters and in field operations. For decades, the Seasoned have benefited from
significant core funding and very close relationships with their home governments.
The Seasoned’s collaborations with businesses sometimes include joint bids for gov-
ernmental or multilateral agency funding. In such arrangements, an NGO and a busi-
ness engage in collaboration before the inception of a project to respond together to
requests for proposals from funding agencies. In some cases, the business collaborator
even manages the collaborative project’s joint budget. Such collaborations imply deep
reciprocal commitment and mutual strategic adaptation. Several informants highlighted
that much of the success of nonprofit–business collaboration depends on developing an
1198 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 48(6)
understanding of cultural differences across sectors and on cultivating strong and fre-
quent relational ties with collaborators, which they describe as a resource-intensive
process unfolding over a long-term horizon.
Contrary to the other two clusters, the Seasoned display much greater confidence in
their branding resources. They leverage their global reputations to collaborate with
large and highly resourceful corporations with very little fear of being co-opted. As
part of their branding resources, their track record as an experienced and reliable
cross-sector collaborator gives them access to multiple opportunities to collaborate
and further expand their already extensive networking resources.
A Resource Profile Framework of Power Relations
In this section, we present cross-cluster analysis of resource profiles. To address our
research questions, we elaborate an integrative framework based on which we develop
theoretical propositions to explicate how nonprofit resource profiles affect managers’
Table 5. Seasoned Cluster: Informants’ Quotes.
Resources Illustrative quotes
Funding “Another approach that is becoming more common is when a corporation
receives the funds for the bid, so they are the lead . . . So, in our case for
example, the corporation asked us to join a bid for a donor, and their
proposal was accepted, and then they are the lead and we are more like a
sub-contractor.”
“We were founded five decades ago, and we’ve had home government funding
for just as long, including core funding . . .”
Learning “We’ve done a lot more partnerships in recent years—more than 200
private partners: all the major banks in our country, major private-sector
organizations, law firms. We’ve set up a pilot project this year to try to use
corporate volunteering.”
“[Collaborating with businesses] gives us access to new markets and exposes
us to different ways of doing things. We feel in many ways that it contributes
to more effective development.”
Networking “We work in about 34 countries, and in each of those we have government
partners in terms of program implementation. We have over 700 private-sector
partners on a global scale in a huge variety of industries, including professional
services, agribusinesses, livelihoods, oil and extractive, education, and health.”
“In many of the countries we work in, of course we first need to have a good
relationship with the host country, but we also work in various sectors in
projects that involve often local authorities, or even provincial and national
authorities.”
Branding “We have a track record as a civil society organization that is good to partner
with on a global perspective, and it helps to generate other partnerships.”
“A major risk of partnerships is diluting our brand and reputation. We have
entire teams dedicated to our image and reputation. And the answer is to
have a very thorough due diligence process.”
Bouchard and Raufflet 1199
perceptions of power relations, and in turn, how these perceptions link to their expec-
tations and challenges related to collaborations with businesses.
Figure 2 illustrates our integrative framework. The dotted box around the framework
represents the resource environment within which nonprofits and businesses interact.
The unidirectional, dotted arrow pointing downward represents resource–environment
pressures on nonprofits. The bidirectional full arrows represent collaborations among
nonprofits on the left, and nonprofit–business collaborations on the right.
First, we compare across clusters the influence of nonprofit resource profiles on
managers’ perceptions of power relations in collaborations with businesses. Table 6
offers a matrix of representative informants’ quotes to support the analysis.
Managers in all three clusters perceive collaborating with SMEs as closer to their
“comfort zone.” However, attitudes toward collaborating with large corporations vary
greatly across clusters. While co-optation is a major concern for Explorers due to their
general lack of resources, the Seasoned express strong confidence in their capability to
manage power relations with large corporations given their wide-ranging resource
profiles. Over the years, the Seasoned and to a lesser degree Intermediates have devel-
oped an array of tools, processes, structures, and cultural understandings enabling
them to effectively select and vet collaborators, proactively manage and evaluate col-
laborations, and institutionalize co-governance.
Explorers perceive collaborations with SMEs as a safer initial step to gather col-
laborative learning resources. Explorers are mostly reluctant to collaborate with large
corporations in the short term as they seek to protect their independence and guard
against mission drift. While Intermediates tend to stay away from extractive compa-
nies, the Seasoned actively engage in these collaborations and manage power relations
by diversifying alliances, forming coalitions, and mediating between extractive com-
panies, local authorities, foreign and local businesses, and local communities.
Figure 2. Resource profile framework of power relations.
1200 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 48(6)
With weak learning resources and overstretched staffing, Explorers’ managers tend
to perceive their organizations as simultaneously vulnerable to the whims of their
private-sector counterparts and dependent on resources from them to survive and
Table 6. Nonprofit Managers’ Perceptions of Power Relations in Collaboration.
Explorers Intermediates Seasoned
Funding “NGOs are in the position
of seeking funds for their
work. The funders can be
of different sectors, and
they behave in the sense
that they have demands.”
“In projects we’ve
managed with private
companies, we’ve
implemented co-
direction structures,
steering committees
. . . In some projects,
the business was
managing the budget,
while in others, we
were managing it.”
“Donors are saying,
‘We want to see
public–private
partnerships, we
want to see the
NGO broker a
private sector
partner into our
grant agreement.’”
Learning “We could be more
interested to start with
medium-size companies
as a learning process and
not involve too many
resources at first on each
side; start slowly and take
time to learn with each
other.”
“We’ve found that
we’re successfully
forging a partnership
only when we . . .
connect at the board
level, at the CEO
level, and then at the
next level, and then
that allows people
below to actually do
the work.”
“We have a formal and
very thorough due
diligence process.
We developed it by
working in relation
with the mining
sector . . . It gives us
a background check
on the track record
of a company.”
Networking “If the partner drops the
project, then it’s not
nice because you have a
client—you work with
a local partner in the
developing country. You
need a partner that is
reliable and will follow
up.”
“When you choose
your partners right
and both sides
are looking to
achieve benefits and
outcomes, then both
partners have an
incentive to act right
and maintain the
relationship.”
“If there’s a big mining
company that has
a lot of power in
the region, it gives
us more leverage
when we diversify
our partners and
work along the value
chain.”
Branding “Even though they claim
that it’s about CSR,
[businesses] may actually
be interested in extending
their client base, so the
NGO may be exploited
for other purposes.”
“We do research
on the record of
companies before we
call them to propose
a partnership to, say,
bid on contracts with
a private company.”
“I guess our brand
and reputation
protects us against
power abuses from
partners.”
Note. CSR = corporate social responsibility; NGOs = nongovernmental organizations.
Bouchard and Raufflet 1201
pursue their missions. Comparatively, Intermediates and the Seasoned possess broader
and deeper learning resources related to collaboration (due diligence, co-governance,
stakeholder engagement, outcome evaluation), wider cross-sector networks (includ-
ing, for some, membership in an international federation), and higher brand recogni-
tion both at home and internationally.
We observed major differences across clusters in the length, depth, and complexity
of collaborations undertaken with businesses. Using Austin’s (2000) typology, while
Explorers’ collaborations do not tend to go beyond the philanthropic and early trans-
actional stages, the Seasoned manage broad portfolios of philanthropic, transactional,
and integrative collaborations with small, medium, and large businesses. “We’ve been
working with some of our corporate volunteering multinational partners for over 10
years, but . . . now it’s more about real partnerships involving co-designing and co-
managing projects, although we’re not there with all partners,” says a Seasoned’s man-
ager. Comparatively, an Intermediate’s manager notes, “We haven’t yet implemented
specific corporate volunteering programs; it’s more in the form of internships . . .
We’re open to that but it’s a beast we have yet to domesticate.”
Our cross-cluster analysis of managers’ perceptions suggests significant covariance
between learning and networking resources. Collaborative capacities enable the expan-
sion of collaborative network ties. Concurrently, a nonprofit’s broad and expanding pool
of collaborative networking feeds opportunities to further expand collaborative
capacities.
Proposition 1: Stronger learning resources will enable the Seasoned to engage in
(a) a higher number of (b) more strategic collaborations with businesses. In turn,
sustained expansion in cross-sector networking resources will provide the Seasoned
with abundant opportunities to gather additional learning resources.
Meanwhile, what appears to work as a virtuous circle for the Seasoned—and to
some extent for Intermediates—seems like vicious circle for Explorers. With weak
established capacities to collaborate with businesses, Explorers experience difficulties
to engage in collaborations of even low strategic significance with businesses.
Concurrently, restricted access to collaborations with businesses may severely limit
their opportunities to build collaborative capacities.
Proposition 2: Weaker learning resources will constrain Explorers to engage in (a)
a smaller number of (b) less strategic collaborations with businesses. In turn, slug-
gish expansion of cross-sector networking resources will provide Explorers with
scant opportunities to gather additional learning resources.
Next, we analyze nonprofit managers’ expectations in collaboration with busi-
nesses across resource profile clusters. Table 7 presents a matrix of illustrative quotes
in support of this analysis.
Nonprofit managers across resource profile clusters experience an increasingly
competitive resource environment characterized by heightened competition among
1202 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 48(6)
NGOs over shrinking governmental funding dedicated to international development.
They experience growing pressures from governmental and multilateral sponsors to
collaborate with businesses. Formal collaboration agreements between NGOs and
businesses are increasingly becoming mandatory in requests for proposal posted by
international development funding agencies.
In this resource environment, nonprofits in all clusters feel pressured to collaborate
with businesses to meet funding agencies’ expectations and requirements. Nonprofits
Table 7. Nonprofit Managers’ Expectations in Collaboration.
Explorers Intermediates Seasoned
Funding “Collaborating with
private companies
could help us
diversify funding and
get to a more even
power relationship
with the government,
which is now our
sole funder.”
“There’s a long-standing
desire on our part to
diversify our sources
of support away from
being so reliant on
government funding.”
“We want to increase
partnerships with
private companies to
get access to funding
and resources. Some of
our major institutional
donors want us to
engage the private
sector.”
Learning “We wish to know in
advance the expected
results on both sides,
where can we come
together, who can
conform to what and
to which extent.”
“People in our
organization who
have been involved in
collaborations have
learned a more business-
like way of planning,
doing, and measuring . .
. It makes us less insular,
less inward-looking,
more likely to take a
lesson onboard.”
“It is important to
determine very early
on what type of
partnership you want
to have and how it’s
going to influence what
you want to achieve in
host countries.”
Networking “Smaller companies
may be more
interested in working
with a small NGO
like ours.”
“There’s a resource
mobilization imperative.
But we’re also interested
in building coalitions
and partnerships as part
of the intrinsic way we
work. That way, we’re
building a broader
stakeholder platform and
a richer offering.”
“Very often, we work to
strengthen producers
and contribute to
rearrange the value
chain and help local
producers sell in bigger
numbers, find new
markets, and export.”
Branding “Involvement in
partnerships makes
our organization look
more accessible to the
communities at large.”
Note. NGO = nongovernmental organization.
Bouchard and Raufflet 1203
across clusters also see collaboration with businesses as necessary to diversify their
funding resources away from governmental dependency. These funding environment
pressures motivate nonprofits to strengthen their cross-sector networking resources.
While some Seasoned managers noted that collaborating with businesses enhanced
their branding, Explorers and Intermediates did not mention this as an expectation.
Funding pressures appear as a major incentive driving nonprofit managers’ motivation
to expand their collaborations with businesses.
Proposition 3: Higher competition for public funding will incentivize nonprofits of
all clusters to pursue (a) a greater number of (b) more strategic collaborations with
businesses.
This proposition combines with earlier propositions to the effect that, although
higher competition for public funding may incentivize all nonprofits to pursue greater
collaboration with businesses, different levels of learning resources will enable large
nonprofits to effectively expand their cross-sector networking resources while con-
straining small nonprofits from doing so. Next, we compare the major challenges
experienced by nonprofit managers in collaborating with businesses. Table 8 presents
illustrative quotes to support this analysis.
Nonprofit managers across resource profile clusters experience increasing competi-
tion for governmental funding and growing pressure from public-sector funders to
collaborate with businesses may have the adverse effect of eroding collaborative ties
among nonprofits, as observed by this Intermediate’s manager:
In the last few years, there has been a slowdown in collaborations with other NGOs . . .
Our government has created an environment where NGOs are in competition with one
another, which has brought us to turn inwards and protect our secret recipes.
Informants across clusters reported similar experiences confirming this trend.
Lesser collaboration among nonprofits may, in turn, increase nonprofits’ dependency
on collaborations with businesses.
Proposition 4: Higher competition for public funding will tend to (a) weaken non-
profits’ intra-sector networking resources and (b) increase their dependency on
cross-sector networking resources derived from collaborating with businesses.
With difficult access to public funding, Explorers’ ability to survive and develop
their activities largely depends on accessing alternative sources of funding from the
private sector. Meanwhile, the weakness of learning resources makes it difficult for
Explorers to engage in collaboration with businesses without concerns of co-optation
and mission drift. Although Intermediates and the Seasoned possess stronger capaci-
ties to find, vet, govern, and evaluate collaborations with businesses, informants in
these resource profile clusters also frequently highlight the importance of actively
managing the operational and reputational risks associated with asymmetrical power
1204 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 48(6)
relations. However, while Explorers’ managers perceive their organization as being
vulnerable to the influence of resourceful business counterparts, observations from
several informants suggest that managers of resourceful nonprofits should keep in
mind the opposite risk as well. That is, highly resourceful nonprofits may generate
significant dependencies on the part of SME collaborators and risk exercising
Table 8. Nonprofit Managers’ Challenges in Collaboration.
Explorers Intermediates Seasoned
Funding “We see that
alternatives are
needed. We need
money to run our
programs and to
go further with
the mission of our
organization.”
“We’ve noticed that
whenever there’s a
downturn in business,
it’s the CSR budget
that goes first. Other
interests are more
durable in nature.”
“I think the caveat is
that dependency factor
. . . It can be hard to
stay committed to a
nonprofit mission if
you are continuously
driving for income from
corporations.”
Learning “We have weak
capacities to do
this, and we don’t
have knowledge
of [collaboration]
now in our
organization.”
“It’s not easier to adapt
to a different culture
than to a different
sector, but you are
actually more aware of
[the difference], so you
take it into account.”
“[These are] complex
relationships because
everybody has their own
specific interests. So it’s
very important to have a
common understanding
of who’s doing what and
why. And all that takes
time.”
Networking “The big international
companies
operating in our
country are all
headquartered in
New York and
London, where
they have their CSR
budget.”
“We’re reluctant to
accept [corporate
volunteer placements]
as short as 2–3 weeks;
we’ve tried that in the
past, and it has not
proven to be beneficial
and efficient.”
“The process of finding
corporate partners
should be aligned with the
development outcomes
we want to achieve in a
specific area, not driven
by the partner. The
starting point is addressing
a community-felt need.”
Branding “There has been
skepticism in civil
society about
businesses and vice
versa, which tends to
hinder communication.
It’s important that
each party learn to
respect the other’s
role in society and in
communities.”
“There’s a risk that for the
partner, the project is not
a priority anymore, and
the project just collapses.
It risks diluting our brand
and reputation.”
Note. CSR = corporate social responsibility.
Bouchard and Raufflet 1205
dominant influence on these collaborations, especially when they occur in resource-
poor environments.
Proposition 5: Nonprofits with (a) stronger resource profiles and (b) operating in
poorer resource environments will tend to generate greater dependency on the part
of their SME collaborators.
In summary, our comparative analysis of nonprofit resource profile clusters in
terms of their managers’ perceptions of power relations and expectations and chal-
lenges in collaborations with businesses suggests several lines of inquiry. Based on
this analysis, we invite nonprofit researchers to test and complement our theoretical
propositions to advance nonprofit-centric understandings of power relations in col-
laborations with businesses.
Discussion and Conclusion
Our exploration of nonprofit managers’ perceptions of power relations in collabora-
tions with businesses revealed the need for greater integration in the nonprofit-centric
understandings of power relations. To address this gap, we elaborated the nonprofit
resource profile analytical construct which integrates funding, learning, networking,
and branding resources. We then embedded this construct into a broader framework
that connects these resource components to each other and considers them within non-
profits’ broader resource environment.
With this framework, we make several contributions to research and practice. The
first contribution is practical. We offer an empirically grounded analytical tool for
nonprofit managers to evaluate power relations with business based on organizational
resources at their disposal. This tool embeds the resource profile analysis into the
broader dynamics of the cross-sector population ecology in which nonprofits operate.
The framework can usefully inform nonprofit managers’ decision making in ongoing
and prospective collaborations with businesses.
The second contribution is conceptual. We assemble research efforts on power rela-
tions in nonprofit collaborations with businesses into an integrative construct specify-
ing the main components of nonprofit resources. We then place this construct within a
broader framework bridging the meso (organizational resource mobilization) and
macro (cross-sector resource environment) levels of analysis. The third contribution
concerns future research on nonprofits. We guide future research by offering a set of
theoretical propositions on power relations in nonprofit–business collaboration. We
invite nonprofit researchers to test and complement our propositions to advance exist-
ing knowledge in this field.
Earlier studies have highlighted the key importance of nonprofits’ learning
resources—their capacities to find, vet, govern, and evaluate collaborations—to enable
the scaling up of their engagement in collaborations with businesses (Austin, 2000).
Nonprofits’ learning resources have been described as critical to the effective manage-
ment of risks related to their branding resources—their public image, reputation, and
1206 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 48(6)
credibility—in collaborations with businesses (Al-Tabbaa et al., 2013; Baur &
Schmitz, 2012; Herlin, 2015). Our findings support these observations and highlight
that nonprofits’ degree of learning resources significantly conditions their ability to
expand their cross-sector networking resources.
Also in line with earlier studies (Austin, 2000; Yaziji & Doh, 2009), many of our
informants noted that pressures from the funding environment, including the decline
of governmental funds for development and growing support of sponsors for cross-
sector collaboration, incentivized them to intensify their engagement with businesses.
Our findings suggest that these resource–environment pressures tend to increase the
competition among nonprofits for collaborations with businesses (cross-sector net-
working) and erode collaborative ties among nonprofits (intra-sector networking).
This erosion of intra-sector networking resources may in turn increase nonprofits’
resource dependency on collaborating with businesses.
Nonprofit studies tend to assume that power asymmetries in collaborations typi-
cally favor businesses at nonprofits’ expense. Consequently, several studies highlight
the risk that collaborations with businesses result in nonprofits’ co-optation and mis-
sion drift (Baur & Schmitz, 2012; Herlin, 2015; Schiller & Almog-Bar, 2013). Elbers
and Schulpen (2011), however, point in a different direction. They show that some
resourceful nonprofits wield controlling influence over collaborations by excluding or
limiting the participation of their local partners in strategic decision-making processes.
Our findings suggest that this infrequent line of inquiry deserves further research.
Indeed, some multinational nonprofits based in developed countries mobilize exten-
sive resource profiles and have a vastly greater influence capacities than their multiple
microenterprise and SME collaborators in developing countries. Given the major ethi-
cal implications of such power dynamics, we argue that resourceful nonprofits may
consider implementing measures to prevent their exercise of controlling influence and
preserve the independence of their smaller local business and nonprofit collaborators.
Based on this discussion, we suggest three important opportunities for future
research. The first opportunity concerns the trajectories of nonprofit resource profiles
in collaborations with businesses. Future research could investigate whether Explorers
are stuck in this cluster given the constraints posed by their resource limitations or if
critical paths exist to enable their shift to more advanced resource profile clusters.
Such research should investigate the conditions and processes enabling nonprofits to
shift from one cluster to the next.
The second research opportunity focuses on nonprofits’ different types of business
collaborators. By assuming that power asymmetries disadvantage nonprofits in collabo-
rations with businesses, nonprofit-centric research on cross-sector collaboration (Baur &
Schmitz, 2012; Harris, 2012; Schiller & Almog-Bar, 2013) has tended to overlook the
diversity of nonprofits’ business collaborators. Accordingly, future research could exam-
ine power relations in nonprofits’ collaborations with businesses of different sizes—
including microenterprises and SMEs—located in both developed and developing
countries. Such research may well challenge the dominant view of power asymmetries
in nonprofit–business collaboration by highlighting the vulnerability to co-optation by
resourceful nonprofits of small enterprises operating in resource-poor environments.
Bouchard and Raufflet 1207
As for the third research opportunity, although our study has focused on nonprofit–
business collaboration, we believe that our resource profile framework can inform the
practice and research related to collaboration among nonprofits. Indeed, collaboration
among nonprofits is an important endogenous variable in our resource–environment
model of analysis (as illustrated in Figure 2). We argue that many of our arguments and
propositions related to nonprofit–business collaboration are also relevant to the analy-
sis of collaboration among nonprofits, although they may apply differently. Thus, we
invite researchers of collaboration among nonprofits to adapt our resource profile
framework and extend its implications to that distinct although intimately related
domain of empirical research.
Finally, while our study considers power as derived from resource dependency,
research on interorganizational collaboration highlights that power is a complex
and multidimensional notion. For instance, Hardy and Phillips’s (1998) study of
cross-sector collaboration in the U.K. refugee system indicated that collaborations
are shaped by covert conflict dynamics. They also noted that power in interorgani-
zational collaboration is derived not only from resource dependency but also from
control over decision-making processes, as well as from the discursive legitimacy
that enables actors seen as credible to define the issues in collaborative domains.
Resource dependency being the primary lens of power analysis in existing non-
profit-centric studies of cross-sector collaboration, we argue that research on other
“faces” and “sites” of power (Fleming & Spicer, 2014) is needed to complement
and diversify the understandings of power dynamics in this emerging body of
studies.
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank Michel Chaurette, Christina Jenkins, Ann Langley, and Julia Sánchez for their
important contributions to the study, as well as Editor Chao Guo and the anonymous reviewers
for their insightful guidance which has greatly improved this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
ORCID iD
Mathieu Bouchard https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3094-0207
References
Almog-Bar, M., & Schmid, H. (2018). Cross-sector partnerships in human services: Insights
and organizational dilemmas. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47, 119S-138S.
1208 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 48(6)
Al-Tabbaa, O., Leach, D., & March, J. (2013). Collaboration between nonprofit and business
sectors: A framework to guide strategy development for nonprofit organizations. Voluntas,
25, 657-678.
Atouba, Y. C., & Shumate, M. (2015). International nonprofit collaboration: Examining the role
of homophily. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44, 587-608.
Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and businesses. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 69-67.
Baur, D., & Schmitz, H. P. (2012). Corporations and NGOs: When accountability leads to co-
optation. Journal of Business Ethics, 106, 9-21.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Boenigk, S., & Schuchardt, V. (2015). Nonprofit collaboration with luxury brands: Positive and
negative effects for cause-related marketing. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
44, 708-733.
Chapman, C. L., & Varda, D. M. (2017). Nonprofit resource contribution and mission alignment
in interorganizational, cross-sector public health networks. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 46, 1052-1072.
Elbers, W., & Schulpen, L. (2011). Decision making in partnerships for development: Explaining
the influence of local partners. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 795-812.
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power–dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27, 31-
41.
Fleming, P., & Spicer, A. (2014). Power in management and organization science. Academy of
Management Annals, 8, 237-298.
Foster, M. K., & Meinhard, A. G. (2002). A regression model explaining predisposition to col-
laborate. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 549-564.
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Guo, C., & Acar, M. (2005). Understanding collaboration among nonprofit organizations:
Combining resource dependency, institutional, and network perspectives. Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34, 340-361.
Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1998). Strategies of engagement: Lessons from the critical examina-
tion of collaboration and conflict in an interorganizational domain. Organization Science,
9, 217-230.
Harris, M. E. (2012). Nonprofits and business: Toward a subfield of nonprofit studies. Nonprofit
and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 892-902.
Herlin, H. (2015). Better safe than sorry: Nonprofit organizational legitimacy and cross-sector
partnerships. Business & Society, 54, 822-858.
Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 597-
606.
Kindornay, S., Tissot, S., & Sheiban, N. (2014). The value of cross-sector development
partnerships. North-South Institute. Retrieved from http://www.nsi-ins.ca/wp-content/
uploads/2014/01/The-Value-of-Cross-Sector-Development-Partnerships.pdf
MacIndoe, H., & Sullivan, F. (2014). Nonprofit responses to financial uncertainty: How
does financial vulnerability shape nonprofit collaboration? Journal of Management and
Sustainability, 4, 1-15.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook.
Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York, NY: Harper
& Row.
Bouchard and Raufflet 1209
Sachs, J. (2014). The path to sustainable development (Video conference). The Earth Institute
at Columbia University. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eX8D19htho
Sanzo, M. J., Álvarez, L. I., Rey, M., & García, N. (2015). Business–nonprofit partnerships: Do
their effects extend beyond the charitable donor–recipient model? Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 44, 379-400.
Schiller, R. S., & Almog-Bar, M. (2013). Revisiting collaborations between nonprofits and
businesses: An NPO-centric view and typology. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
42, 942-962.
Selsky, J., & Parker, B. (2010). Platforms for cross-sector social partnerships: Prospective sen-
semaking devices for social benefit. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 21-37.
Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management
Journal, 49, 633-642.
Waddock, S. A. (1989). Understanding social partnerships: An evolutionary model of partner-
ship organizations. Administration & Society, 21, 78-100.
Yaziji, M., & Doh, J. (2009). NGOs and corporations: Conflict and collaboration. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Author Biographies
Mathieu Bouchard is PhD candidate at the Department of Management of HEC Montréal. His
research interests focus on collaboration and conflict across sectors and communities. His doc-
toral thesis studies clientele movements in professionalized fields.
Emmanuel Raufflet is professor at the Department of Management of HEC Montréal, where
he leads the Specialized Graduate Diploma in Sustainable Development. His research interests
focus on organizations and the natural environment as well as the social dimensions of natural
resource management.
