NGOs as Stakeholders in CSR

6 JCC 50 June 2013 © Greenleaf Publishing 2013

Introduction The Rise of Business–NGO Partnerships

Issue 50 June 2013

Esben Rahbek Gjerdrum Pedersen and Janni Thusgaard Pedersen Copenhagen Business School Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, Denmark

in 2012, copenhagen business school hosted the conference Partnership 2012: NGO+Business. During the three-day event, a wide range of busi- ness leaders, NGO representatives, politicians, academics and students discussed how partnerships can help to alleviate some of the urgent social and environmental challenges facing the world today.1 Keynote speakers included the former Secretary- General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, HRH Crown Princess Mary of Denmark, the founder of Trans- parency International, Peter Eigen, and the Director of UNDP’s global Center for Private Sector in Develop- ment, Simona Marinescu. Overall, the various contributions to the con- ference indicate that business–NGO partnerships hold great promise for solving societal problems, but it was also acknowledged that the planning

1 Interviews with some of the speakers from the conference can be found at the conference website (www.partner ship2012.com) or vimeo.com/partner ship2012/videos (accessed 5 February 2013).

and implementation of these collabo- rative efforts could be a challenging endeavour.

Topics discussed at the confer- ence included partnership drivers, partner identification, implementa- tion processes, governance mecha- nisms, barriers and success factors, and impact measurements, among others. The purpose of this Special Issue of The Journal of Corporate Cit- izenship is to share the experiences from the 2012 conference by publish- ing some of the interesting research papers that were presented at the event. However, before presenting the individual papers, we will briefly introduce the reader to the theory and practice of business–NGO partner- ships. To support the presentation, we will also offer key findings from a small online survey that was carried out among Danish businesses and NGOs prior to the conference. The samples were selected in collabora- tion with conference partners from the business and NGO worlds, the Confederation of Danish Industries (DI) and ISOBRO, the Danish Fund- raising Association.

JCC50_Intro_Pedersen & Pedersen.indd 6 02/09/13 3:30 PM

JCC 50 June 2013 © Greenleaf Publishing 2013 7

introduction

Drivers for business–NGO partnerships

Traditionally, the relationship between businesses and NGOs has been char- acterised by mistrust and conflict (Dahan et al. 2010: 336). Sometimes collaboration between businesses and NGOs is even initiated as a result of an open or anticipated conflict (Roloff 2008). Recently, however, more and more scholars and practitioners have argued that business–NGO partner- ships can generate positive impacts for both business and society. For instance, in the words of Rondinelli and London (2003: 61), ‘Given the complementary resources of these two types of organizations, forming cross-sector collaborations that more effectively use the knowledge and capabilities of both can create new opportunities to achieve both greater corporate profitability and stronger environmental protection’. By join- ing forces, therefore, companies and NGOs can create social, environmen- tal and economic value: for exam- ple, through co-development of new products and services that address societal needs. Partnerships have been promoted by a chorus of com- panies, international agencies and NGOs as the most effective way of achieving sustainable development (Rein and Scott 2009). In addition, international agreements play an important role in endorsing cross- sector collaboration; the UN Global Compact, for instance, encourages business to take action and engage in partnerships that advance broader UN objectives such as the Millen- nium Development Goals (Rein and

Scott 2009; Yaziji and Doh 2009). Underlying the partnership discourse is a disappointment with existing approaches to problem solving (state and market) that have failed to solve the global challenges facing the world today (Pedersen and Huniche 2006; Yaziji and Doh 2009). Moreover, an underlying assumption is that busi- nesses and NGOs need each other and that no single actor can solve all societal problems alone. In the words of former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan: ‘In today’s world, we depend on each other’.

Today, NGOs have grown in number, power and influence and have become institutional actors in line with public- and private-sector actors (Bendell 2000; Doh and Teegen 2002; Yaziji and Doh 2009). The empowerment of NGOs in society, through the sector’s focus on developing strong brand identities and greater sophistication in strate- gies, is one of the main drivers behind the business community’s growing interest in partnering with NGOs (Seitianidi 2010a). As the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has gained footing in both practice and theory, the roles of different sec- tors in addressing social and environ- mental issues have been increasingly debated, spurring interaction between sectors (Seitanidi 2010b). Today, cross- sector partnerships represent innova- tive organisational models that have the potential to offer new solutions to complex social and environmental problems (Austin 2000a) by combin- ing NGO resources within social and environmental services with business entrepreneurial orientation (Seitanidi and Ryan 2007). Partnerships are often brought forward as win–win

JCC50_Intro_Pedersen & Pedersen.indd 7 02/09/13 3:30 PM

esben rahbek gjerdrum pedersen, janni thusgaard pedersen

8 JCC 50 June 2013 © Greenleaf Publishing 2013

solutions for society and business. Companies bring technical, financial and human resources to the part- nerships, and NGOs can contribute market knowledge, local networks and legitimacy (Googins and Roch- lin 2000; Yaziji 2004; Dahan et al. 2010). From the corporate standpoint, stakeholder expectations on corpo- rate social investment are on the rise, and collaborating with NGOs is a straightforward way for companies to fulfil their social obligations (Austin 2000b; Millar et al. 2004). NGOs, on the other hand, are facing increased competition and efficiency require- ments even as traditional funding sources simultaneously shrink (Weer- awardena et al. 2010). Consequently, NGOs have been driven towards part- nerships with the private sector in order to meet demands for improved efficiency and accountability, to cre- ate new funding opportunities and to implement social and environmental improvements (Selskey and Parker 2005; Jamali and Keshishian 2009; Seitanidi and Crane 2009; Bowen et al. 2010).

How different partner motives can create societal and commer- cial synergy can be seen in a part- nership formed between WWF and the Coca-Cola Company (2012). Together the partners seek to drive awareness and action to address water challenges. One of the partner- ship goals is to improve Coca-Cola’s water efficiency and reduce its car- bon emissions from manufacturing operations. WWF’s key competences within water and energy efficiency have allowed Coca-Cola to reduce water consumption by over 2%, while its sales volume has increased by

more than 21%. This reduction in water consumption adds to WWF’s mission of conserving and protect- ing freshwater resources by setting industry standards. Furthermore, WWF has received funds from Coca- Cola earmarked for conserving seven key freshwater basins worldwide, and WWF also utilises the partnership as a platform for leveraging global movement to address water challenges. Ultimately, the partners together seek to generate value for each other by tap- ping into one another’s resources and key competences.

The answers from the survey show that companies and NGOs have different motives for engaging in partnerships. In order to improve the level of detail, we first asked the respondents an open-ended ques- tion on motives for partnerships, followed by a question with fixed alternatives. The results from the lat- ter question are presented in Figure 1, while Table 1 provides examples of some of the answers to the open- ended question. NGOs still see part- nerships mainly as a means to get access to partner resources and develop the partners’ skills and knowledge, whereas companies mainly engage in partnerships in order to raise aware- ness of a societal problem and improve reputation and legitimacy. Having dif- ferent motives for partnerships is, in itself, not a problem as long as the partners are aware of the differences. However, if an NGO or a company believes that its partner shares its priorities, this might cause problems later in the partnership implementa- tion phase.

JCC50_Intro_Pedersen & Pedersen.indd 8 02/09/13 3:30 PM

JCC 50 June 2013 © Greenleaf Publishing 2013 9

introduction

Figure 1 Motives for partnerships

NGOs Businesses

4.42

4.58

5.83

6.78

4.78

6.81

5.97

5.94

6.47

4.64

3.78

4.17

5.22

6.09

6.13

6.39

6.52

6.61

6.78

8.13

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Conforming to pressures for partnerships from stakeholders

Avoiding confrontations and negative reactions from partners

Shaping industry standards and public regulation through joint efforts

Improving image, reputation and legitimacy

Improving efficiency in delivery of services/products/solution

Joint awareness-raising of societal problem

Developing own skills, knowledge and competences

Developing new or improved products/services/solutions

Developing partner skills, knowledge and competences

Getting access to partner resources (financial, technical and human)

Mean

(1=Irrelevant, 10=Very important) N Businesses=36 N NGOs=23

Table 1 Respondents about main drivers for engaging in partnerships

Businesses about drivers NGOs about drivers

‘It is a clear consequence of our approach to leadership and OD. We are a consulting company and work on a systemic relational approach to leadership. This includes basics thoughts about connectedness. Therefore we are responsible for people in the rest of the world—at least we need to do something that makes a difference’

‘Sustainability, as this is a genuine win/win situation. It helps stabilise our production areas and therefore stabilizes our supply chain’

‘The possibility of obtaining goods and services at a reduced price, including services that help the development of the organisation’

‘This is a new and growing trend in international development. It comes with the liberalisation of markets and a new understanding of partnership’

‘The main driver for engaging in corporate partnerships is: the opportunity to create a win–win situation helping the business build a strategic CSR profile that benefits their core business and, at the same time, generates more funds to our programs. Another strong driver is the knowledge exchange between the business and our organisation, which leads to a better understanding of each other and inspires us to new ways of partnering’

Continued

JCC50_Intro_Pedersen & Pedersen.indd 9 02/09/13 3:30 PM

esben rahbek gjerdrum pedersen, janni thusgaard pedersen

10 JCC 50 June 2013 © Greenleaf Publishing 2013

Businesses about drivers NGOs about drivers

‘We have both partnerships where we co-promote a cause together with an NGO, and partnerships where we supply food to their activities (humanitarian), because it’s important for us that our employees see the link between their daily responsibility and ours in helping those that haven’t got good chances in life’

‘Engaging with stakeholders primarily gives us two advantages: 1) We reduce the risk of misunderstandings of products and issues we believe would help reduce the problems for some stakeholders. 2) By engaging with stakeholders we gain valuable knowledge which helps us improve products and target our solutions to suit the needs of the groups they are intended for’

‘It is a key way to change (environmental) behaviour—amongst companies and the customers they engage with’

‘To highlight the specific needs and priorities in relation to target groups and organisations, and to increase funding, actions and visibility’

Partnership types and typologies

Business–NGO partnerships can take a variety of forms, from traditional philanthropic giving to establish- ment of joint venture-type organisa- tional entities. Therefore, attempts have been made to develop typologies to illustrate the continuum of part- nerships between actors from the profit and non-profit sectors (Austin 2000a; Googins and Rochlin 2000; Rondinelli and London 2003). The lit- erature has attempted in various ways to describe and categorise different forms of NGO–business partnerships based on several factors such as inter- action level, scope of activities, strate- gic value and importance to mission (Austin 2000a; Googins and Rochlin 2000). What these typologies have in

common is that they move from low- engagement, arm’s length (e.g. tradi- tional philanthropy or cause-related marketing) to deep-engagement part- nerships (e.g. joint venture-type part- nerships between the company and the NGO). For instance, based on a literature review, Bowen et al. (2010) make a distinction between three types of community engagement strategy: transactional, transitional and transformational. Transactional engagement is a rather one-sided affair in which the company provides resources (donations, information, time, etc.) to the community and the interaction between the parties is limited. In contrast, transformational community engagement strategies are characterised by frequent inter- action, joint management and own- ership, thus requiring much more commitment from both community

Table 1 Continued

JCC50_Intro_Pedersen & Pedersen.indd 10 02/09/13 3:30 PM

JCC 50 June 2013 © Greenleaf Publishing 2013 11

introduction

and company. Transitional engage- ment falls between the two extremes and can be said to represent strate- gies involving two-way dialogue and interaction between the company and the community where the former remains in control of the process (Bowen et al. 2010). Evidence from Denmark suggests that the majority of business–NGO partnerships can be described as transactional, whereas there are still only a few examples of transformational partnerships (Neer- gaard et al. 2009). In many cases, partnerships can still be character- ised as a cheque-writing exercise with little interaction between the parties involved. One explanation may be that companies and NGOs alike have yet to recognise the value-creating poten- tial of business–NGO partnerships. Moreover, organisations acknowl- edging the merits of cross-sector col- laboration may adopt an incremental approach, by which they begin the transactional-type relationships and then move gradually towards transfor- mational partnerships, depending on whether they perceive the processes and results of their first experiments to be successful and their collabora- tors to be trustworthy, competent and reliable (Austin 2000b: 92).

One example of a partnership that has undergone a deliberate reframing is that formed between Danish con- fectionary company, Toms Group, and IBIS, a Danish developmental NGO aiming to prevent child labour in Ghana. When, in 2005, Toms Group experienced critical exposure in the Danish media regarding its suppli- ers’ use of child labour in Ghana, it established a CSR committee with the purpose of dealing with the issue and improving the company’s CSR work.

One of the initiatives that came out of this work was a partnership with IBIS. IBIS has expertise in the edu- cation area in Africa; together with Toms Group, they identified a need for better education of children in cocoa- growing areas of Ghana. IBIS started working with teachers in the cocoa- producing areas in order to motivate parents to send their children to school instead of work. Instead of switching suppliers in the crisis, Toms Group turned the challenges they were facing into opportunities by engaging in the well-being of people in the Ghanaian value chain. Toms Group benefited from IBIS’s legitimacy when commu- nicating how the company dealt with the child labour issue in Ghana and gained access to an otherwise closed supply chain. IBIS, on the other hand, furthered its advocacy and informa- tion work regarding child labour issues and improved the quality of pri- mary school education in Ghana. In 2012, the parties launched a plan for extending the scope of the partnership to include issues of traceability in the cocoa value chain and development of new farming techniques that do not involve child labour (Social Action 2010; IBIS and Toms 2012). Hereaf- ter, the partnership will be moving from a transitional partnership with a core focus on entering a dialogue and working with the cocoa communities regarding education and child labour issues to a transformative partnership in which the partners jointly seek to develop new cocoa production meth- ods, hence transforming the problem domain of child labour.

Based on the existing literature, we asked respondents to describe the characteristics of their partnerships with NGOs/businesses (Finkelstein

JCC50_Intro_Pedersen & Pedersen.indd 11 02/09/13 3:30 PM

esben rahbek gjerdrum pedersen, janni thusgaard pedersen

12 JCC 50 June 2013 © Greenleaf Publishing 2013

1992; Austin 2000a, b). A sample of the results is shown in Figure 2. Overall, companies seem to be more inclined to believe that their partner- ships are of strategic value and are characterised by a ‘collaborative mind- set’, where all parties are involved in, and contribute to, the planning

and implementation. The respond- ing NGOs seem to be more inclined to keep control of the partnerships because they might consider partner- ships to have limited strategic value or because they consider the company contribution to the partnerships to be primarily of a monetary nature.

Figure 2 Partnership characteristics

6.97

7.34

7.29

7.2

7.31

6.63

6.71

6.63

6.22

6.83

6.35

6.35

6.52

6.35

6.04

6.13

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1: The organisational structure of the partnerships primarily benefits us. 10: The organisational

structure benefits all partnering organisations

1: The partnerships are dominated by an us vs. them mind-set (partners serving themselves).

10: The partnerships are dominated by a 'we' mind-set (partners serving the partnership)

1: We solely formulate the purpose of the partnership. 10:The partners jointly formulate the problem

and the solution

1: We primarily bring knowledge and expertise into the partnership. 10: All partners contribute with

knowledge and expertise

1: We could have implemented the partnership activities on our own. 10: The partnerships are

necessary to implement the activities

1: We make the important decisions during the partnership process. 10: There is shared project

management and joint decision-making

1: The partnerships have little strategic value to the partners. 10: The partnerships have significant

strategic value to the partners

1: There is little overlap between the values and mission of the partners. 10: There is a high

degree of overlap between the values and mission of the partners

Mean

N Businesses = 35 N NGOs = 23

NGOs Businesses

JCC50_Intro_Pedersen & Pedersen.indd 12 02/09/13 3:30 PM

JCC 50 June 2013 © Greenleaf Publishing 2013 13

introduction

Partnership implementation: Barriers and success factors

According to Seitanidi and Crane (2009: 413), the formation of NGO– business partnerships is ‘one of the most exciting and challenging ways that organisations have been imple- menting CSR in recent years’. Despite their promise, business–NGO partner- ships can often be burdensome proc- esses that end up disappointing the parties involved. Stories from the field have shown that partnership reality is not as rose-coloured as it comes across in theory. Either the partnerships fail to live up to expectations (Macdonald and Chrisp 2005) or result in unin- tended negative consequences such as NGO mission drift (Ostrower 2005). Evidence indicates that partnerships often lack commitment from top man- agement, or that the interests of the involved parties sometimes collide, making implementation burdensome and causing conflicts (e.g. Westley and Vredenburg 1991; Ählström and Sjöström 2005; Seitanidi and Crane 2009; Vurro et al. 2010). Dahan et al. (2010: 336) argue that trust-building and consistency in partner goals are prerequisites for successful business– NGO partnerships. In line with this, current literature points to the lack of goodwill and trust between NGOs and businesses (Heffernan 2004; Burchell and Cook 2008) and the dif- ficulties companies encounter in locat- ing appropriate social partners among NGOs (Dalberg 2007) as the key bar- riers to partnership establishment. Besides careful partner selection, suc- cessful partnerships require that the partnering organisations are able to overcome differences in mission and

culture, develop shared understand- ings, and encourage a two-way open and honest communication (Millar et al. 2004; Seitanidi et al. 2010). When engaging in cross-sector collaboration, both partners must also hedge against risks from potential scandals (Wymer and Samu 2003) and possible stake- holder disapproval, as partnerships are not automatically considered legiti- mate entities (Bryson et al. 2006). The complex interconnectivity of partner- ship combined with external competi- tive and institutional pressures present major challenges to the partnering organisations (Bryson et al. 2006). Consequently, cross-sector partnering requires a certain amount of adaptabil- ity and flexibility from the participants, and the activity is likely to affect intra- organisational structures and proc- esses. In addition, Austin (2000a, b) highlights issues such as clarity in pur- pose, alignment of mission, strategies and values, value creation for partners, communication between partners, learning and commitment (personal, institutional, resource). Of course, the importance of barriers and success factors depends on the partnership in question. For instance, transactional partnerships are less dependent on the active commitment of the parties involved because of the limited inter- action between the company and the NGO.

The evidence from the survey indi- cates that some of these precondi- tions for successful collaboration are sometimes lacking in real-life busi- ness–NGO partnerships. As seen from the quotations in Table 2, the lack of shared vision and clear goals constitutes a barrier for collaboration. Moreover, simply identifying the right partner can be difficult.

JCC50_Intro_Pedersen & Pedersen.indd 13 02/09/13 3:30 PM

esben rahbek gjerdrum pedersen, janni thusgaard pedersen

14 JCC 50 June 2013 © Greenleaf Publishing 2013

Table 2 Respondents about main barriers for successful business–NGO partnerships

Businesses about barriers NGOs about barriers

‘Conflict of interest and strategic orientation’

‘Lack of common expectations for the partnership’

‘Lack of communication and unclear context and expectations’

‘Limited project management, administrative and financial skills at partner institutions’

‘Organisational challenges, embedding partnerships into the core business’

‘Understanding and recognition of very different positions/roles’

‘Lack of knowledge about NGO culture and mind-set—and vice-versa’

‘…the company does not have the right NGO partnerships—where both partners benefit from the partnerships’

‘1. Lack of understanding of each other’s premise for cooperation. 2. Speed in developing and executing partnerships’

‘Time and resources to activate the partnerships from both sides’

‘To make sure that the partnership gives significant value to both/all partners’

‘“What’s in it for me”: difficult for business partners to see the value. Difficult to understand the special NGO mind-set’

‘Hmm. We don’t have enough resources (employee time) to engage in all the beneficial partnership opportunities we see’

‘Expectations and opportunities for sustainable and long-term partnerships—companies do often have a short-term strategy in this area, and focus only on increasing the PR value…’

‘It is a new area of operation. We are struggling to find our role and to harmonise it with money-making thinking’

‘There are a lot of transaction costs related to such partnerships, and there is sometimes a risk of private companies wanting to greenwash’

‘They don’t understand the third world circumstances, work environment and limited resources of NGOs and, likewise, we probably don’t understand them’

The results of partnerships: How do we know if partnerships work?

The measurement of business–NGO partnerships remains a delicate issue in both theory and practice. The lit- erature on measuring the inputs,

outputs and outcomes of business– NGO partnerships is limited (see e.g. Hansen and Spitzeck 2011) and many partnership advocates seem to rely on evidence from successful case studies. Moreover, often companies and NGOs themselves do not track the results of partnerships, which makes it difficult to conclude whether partnerships in

JCC50_Intro_Pedersen & Pedersen.indd 14 02/09/13 3:30 PM

JCC 50 June 2013 © Greenleaf Publishing 2013 15

introduction

fact create social, environmental and economic value. This is understand- able insofar as the measurement of partnership performance is associ- ated with a number of methodological challenges. For instance, the impacts of a partnership on training and edu- cation can be long term (job creation) and may be influenced by a wide range of factors that have nothing to do with the partnership itself.

In our survey, we tried to ask respondents about the measurement of partnerships. Overall, respond- ents report that partnerships are not measured intensively, and the meas- ures actually used leave much to be

desired. With regard to the latter, we used the work of Ittner and Larcker (2003) as inspiration for formulating four questions regarding the perform- ance measurement quality of busi- ness–NGO partnerships. As seen in Figure 3, companies, in particular, seem to be quite disappointed about the links between the performance measurements used and the success of the partnerships. The results indi- cate that more work is needed to track successfully the performance of busi- ness–NGO partnerships and their ability to create social, environmental and economic value.

Figure 3 Measurement of partnerships

4.32

4.81

3.9

5

4.66

5.17

5.83

5.13

5.87

5.65

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1: The data used for measuring partnership are flawed and fail to capture what they are supposed to capture.

10: The data used for measuring partnership are of high quality and provide an adequate picture of what

is being measured

1: There are no clear, agreed-upon targets for the partnership. 10: All parties have agreed on clearly

defined targets for the partnerships

1: The links between the chosen measures and the success of partnerships are not tested and documented.

10: The links between the chosen measures and the success of partnerships is well documented and

well tested

1: Measures are not linked to the goal/strategy of the partnership. 10: There is a clear link between chosen

measures and partnership strategy/goal

To what extent are the partnership processes and results measured? (1: Not measured at all.

10: Measuredintensively)

Mean

N Businesses = 31–35 N NGOs = 23

NGOs Businesses

Are partnerships enough?

The question remains whether busi- ness–NGO partnerships, and CSR more generally, are adequate tools

for solving the problems for which they are presented as a solution. For instance, the impacts of bottom of the pyramid (BoP) strategies, which often include elements of cross-sector

JCC50_Intro_Pedersen & Pedersen.indd 15 02/09/13 3:30 PM

esben rahbek gjerdrum pedersen, janni thusgaard pedersen

16 JCC 50 June 2013 © Greenleaf Publishing 2013

partnerships, have been debated (Gar- rette and Karnani 2010). More gener- ally, Visser (2010: 34) argues that:

On virtually every measure of social, ecological and ethical perform- ance we have available, whether it be poverty, biodiversity loss or cor- ruption, CSR has completely failed to avert—or even substantially moderate—the negative impacts of economic growth and business activity.

One criticism is that the actions of a single company or NGO rarely generate large-scale societal impacts. Isolated and uncoordinated CSR strategies have been described as equivalent to emptying Titanic with a teaspoon (Visser 2010: 38), and the critique has led to calls for alterna- tive approaches to address social and environmental challenges. For instance, the concept of ‘collective impact’—that is, large, coordinated cross-sector initiatives—has been introduced as an alternative approach to solving societal problems (Kania and Kramer 2011). If these ideas are starting to gain ground, we are likely to see a transformation of dominant partnership approaches in the years to come, moving away from individ- ual business–NGO partnerships to large-scale, multi-stakeholder initia- tives whose complexity matches the problems they are intended to solve. After all, the complexity, boundary- lessness and interconnectedness of today’s social and environmental chal- lenges necessitate concerted actions by multiple organisations from state, market and civil society alike. In the words of Hanleybrown et al. (2012: 1): ‘The complex nature of most social problems belies the idea that any sin- gle program or organization, however

well managed and funded, can sin- glehandedly create lasting large-scale change’.

The Special Issue: List of contributors

The Special Issue on business–NGO partnerships includes contributions that help both academics and practi- tioners to better understand how busi- ness–NGO partnerships are preached and practised. The contributions will look, in particular, at how a number of internal and external factors shape the process and outcomes of business– NGO partnerships. The contributions are as follows:

Jon Duschinsky focuses in the Turning Point on the ‘Shared Value’ concept that is increasingly taking root in business and academia. He argues that companies are unable to articulate what they stand for, which also makes it difficult to formulate shared value propositions that benefit both business and society.

Heidi Herlin and Janni Thusgaard Pedersen examine the role of corpo- rate foundations in relation to the establishment and implementation of cross-sector partnerships. They conclude that corporate foundations can play a key role in facilitating part- nerships through convening, trans- lation, collaboration and mediation. Overall, corporate foundations can be important boundary organisations that build bridges between the profit and non-profit sectors.

Anne Mette Christiansen explores a number of different partnerships in Greenland, ranging from tradi- tional arms-length relationships

JCC50_Intro_Pedersen & Pedersen.indd 16 02/09/13 3:30 PM

JCC 50 June 2013 © Greenleaf Publishing 2013 17

introduction

(donations) to collaboration that requires much more commitment from the involved parties. Owing to the limited resources in small soci- eties such as Greenland, the author highlights the need for a ‘partnership broker’ that can be instrumental in establishing partnerships between businesses and NGOs. The role of the broker is, for instance, to bring expert knowledge into the partnership and establish trust and commitment between the actors involved.

Heike Schirmer uses a multiple- case study approach to examine the formation processes and governance mechanisms in cross-sector partner- ships between social entrepreneurs and corporations in Germany. She identifies two types of partnership formation process (means- and goal- driven), each of which seems to have distinctive governance mechanisms. Based on the available evidence, it is concluded that partnership for- mation processes seem to be inter- linked with partnership governance mechanisms.

Laura Kuijpers and Agnes Meer- shoek analyse a cross-border NGO– business partnership in Kenya. Emphasis is on the success factors for partnerships and the potential legitimacy threats for the NGOs. By combining a case-study approach with a broader stakeholder analysis, the article finds support for previ- ously identified success factors in the partnership literature, whereas legitimacy threats seem to be less of an issue. The authors highlight the importance of context for under- standing the processes and outcomes of partnerships.

References

Ählström, J., and E. Sjöström (2005) ‘CSOs and Business Partnerships: Strategies for Interaction’, Business Strategy and the Environment 14.4: 230-40.

Austin, J.E. (2000a) ‘Strategic Collaboration between Nonprofits and Businesses’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 29.1: 69-97.

Austin, J.E. (2000b) The Collaboration Chal- lenge: How Nonprofits and Businesses Succeed Through Strategic Alliances (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).

Bendell, J. (2000) ‘Civil Regulation: A New Form of Democratic Governance for the Global Economy? in J. Bendell (ed.), Terms of Endearment: Business, NGOs and Sustainable Development (Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf Publishing).

Bowen, F., A. Newenham-Kahindi and I. Her- remans (2010) ‘When Suits Meet Roots: The Antecedents and Consequences of Community Engagement Strategy’, Jour- nal of Business Ethics 95: 297-318.

Bryson, J.M., B.C. Crosby and M.M. Stone (2006) ‘The Design and Implementation of Cross-sector Collaborations: Proposi- tions from the Literature’, Public Admin- istration Review 66 (special issue): 44-55.

Burchell, J., and J. Cook (2008) ‘Stakeholder Dialogue and Organisational Learn- ing: Changing Relationships between Companies and NGOs’, Business Ethics: A European Review 17.1: 35-46.

Dahan, N.M., J.P. Doh, J. Oetzel and M. Yaziji (2010) ‘Corporate–NGO Collabo- ration: Co-Creating New Business Mod- els for Developing Markets’, Long Range Planning 43.2-3: 326-42.

Dalberg (2007) Business Guide to Partner- ing with NGOs and the United Nations (Copenhagen: Dalberg Global Develop- ment Advisors, www.greenleaf-publish ing.com/content/pdfs/bgtpint.pdf, accessed 22 November 2012).

Doh, J.P., and H. Teegen (2002) ‘Non- governmental Organizations as Institu- tional Actors in International Business: Theory and Implications’, International Business Review 11.6: 665-84.

JCC50_Intro_Pedersen & Pedersen.indd 17 02/09/13 3:30 PM

esben rahbek gjerdrum pedersen, janni thusgaard pedersen

18 JCC 50 June 2013 © Greenleaf Publishing 2013

Finkelstein, S. (1992) ‘Power in Top Man- agement Teams: Dimensions, Meas- urement, and Validation’, Academy of Management Journal 35.3: 505-38.

Garrette, B., and A. Karnani (2010) ‘Chal- lenges in Marketing Socially Useful Goods to the Poor’, California Manage- ment Review 52.4: 1-19.

Googins, B., and S. Rochlin (2000) ‘Cre- ating the Partnership Society: Under- standing the Rhetoric and Reality of Cross-sectoral Partnerships’, Business and Society Review 105.1: 127-44.

Hanleybrown, F., J. Kania and M. Kramer (2012) ‘Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work’, Stanford Social Innovation Review 1-8.

Hansen, E.G., and H. Spitzeck (2011) ‘Meas- uring the Impacts of NGO Partnerships: The Corporate and Societal Benefits of Community Involvement’, Corporate Governance 11.4: 415-26.

Heffernan, T. (2004) ‘Trust Formation in Cross-cultural Business-to-Business Rela- tionships’, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 7.2: 114-25.

IBIS and Toms (2012) ‘Partnership 2.0: Co-operation between IBIS and Toms’, presentation at the Partnership 2012: NGO+Business Conference, 10–12 June 2012, Copenhagen, Denmark (part nership2012.com/download/confer ence/Partnership%202012%20-%20 IBIS%20&%20Toms%20-%20Partner ship%202.0.pdf, accessed 22 November 2012).

Ittner, C.D., and D.F. Larcker (2003) ‘Com- ing Up Short on Nonfinancial Perform- ance Measurement’, Harvard Business Review 81.11: 88-95.

Jamali, D., and T. Keshishian (2009) ‘Uneasy Alliances: Lessons Learned from Part- nerships between Businesses and NGOs in the Context of CSR’, Journal of Busi- ness Ethics 84: 277-95.

Kania, J., and M. Kramer (2011) ‘Collec- tive Impact’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2011: 36-41.

Macdonald, S., and T. Chrisp (2005) ‘Acknowledging the Purpose of Part- nership’, Journal of Business Ethics 59: 307-17.

Millar, C.C.J.M., C.J. Choi and S. Chen (2004) ‘Global Strategic Partnerships between MNEs and NGOs: Drivers of Change and Ethical Issues’, Business and Society Review 109.4: 395-414.

Neergaard, P., E.C. Jensen and J.T. Pedersen (2009) Partnerskaber mellem virksomh- eder og frivillige organisationer (Copenha- gen: Danish Commerce and Companies Agency/Danish Government Centre for CSR, www.samfundsansvar.dk/graph ics/publikationer/CSR/Partnerskab srapport.pdf, accessed 5 February 2013).

Ostrower, F. (2005) ‘The Reality Underneath the Buzz of Partnerships: The Poten- tials and Pitfalls of Partnering’, Stan- ford Social Innovation Review, Spring 2 0 0 5 ( w w w. s s i r e v i e w. o r g / i m a g e s / articles/2005SP_feature_ostrower.pdf, accessed 22 November 2012).

Pedersen, E.R., and M. Huniche (2006) ‘Development Finance Institutions and Corporate Citizenship: Experiences from the Industrialization Fund for Develop- ing Countries’ in M. Huniche and E.R. Pedersen (eds.), Corporate Citizenship in Developing Countries : New Partnership Perspectives (Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press): 259-78.

Rein, M., and L. Scott (2009) ‘Working Together: Critical Perspectives on Six Cross-Sector Partnerships in Southern Africa’, Journal of Business Ethics 90.1: 79-89.

Roloff, J. (2008) ‘Learning from Multi- Stakeholder Networks: Issue-Focussed Stakeholder Management’, Journal of Business Ethics 82.1: 233-50.

Rondinelli, D.A., and T. London (2003) ‘How Corporations and Environmental Groups Cooperate: Assessing Cross-Sec- tor Alliances and Collaborations’, Acad- emy of Management Executive 17.1: 61-76.

Seitanidi, M.M. (2010a) ‘The Partnership Society’, in M.M. Seitanidi (ed.), The Politics of Partnerships: A Critical Exami- nation of Nonprofit-Business Partnerships (New York: Springer Science+Business Media): 1-24.

JCC50_Intro_Pedersen & Pedersen.indd 18 02/09/13 3:30 PM

JCC 50 June 2013 © Greenleaf Publishing 2013 19

introduction

Seitanidi, M.M. (2010b) ‘A Framework for the Analysis of Partnerships’, in M.M. Seitanidi (ed.), The Politics of Partner- ships: A Critical Examination of Nonprofit- Business Partnerships (New York: Springer Science+Business Media): 25-51.

Seitanidi, M.M., and A. Crane (2009) ‘Imple- menting CSR through Partnerships: Understanding the Selection, Design and Institutionalisation of Nonprofit– Business Partnerships’, Journal of Busi- ness Ethics 85.2: 413-29.

Seitanidi, M.M., and A. Ryan (2007) ‘A Critical Review of Forms of Corporate Community Involvement: From Philan- thropy to Partnerships’, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 12.3: 247-66.

Seitanidi, M.M., D.N. Koufopoulos and P. Palmer (2010) ‘Partnership Forma- tion for Change: Indicators for Trans- formative Potential in Cross-sector Social Partnerships’, Journal of Business Ethics 94.1: 139-61.

Selskey, J.W., and B. Parker (2005) ‘Cross- sector Partnerships to Address Social Issues: Challenges to Theory and Prac- tice’, Journal of Management 13.6: 849-73.

Social Action (2010) CSI. Corporate Social Innovation: Case Studies (Copenhagen: FORA, www.csrgov.dk/sw51121.asp, accessed 21 November 2012).

Visser, W. (2010) ‘The Age of Responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the New DNA of Business’, Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics 5.3: 7-22.

Vurro, C., T.M. Dacin and F. Perrini (2010) ‘Institutional Antecedents of Partnering for Social Change: How Institutional Logics Shape Cross-sector Social Part- nerships’, Journal of Business Ethics 94 (supplement 1): 39-53.

Weerawardena, J., R.E. McDonald and G.M. Mort (2010) ‘Sustainability of Nonprofit Organizations: An Empirical Inves- tigation’, Journal of World Business 45: 346-56.

Westley, F., and H. Vredenburg (1991) ‘Strate- gic Bridging: The Collaboration between Environmentalists and Business in the Marketing of Green Products’, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27.1: 65-90.

WWF and Coca-Cola (2012) ‘The Coca-Cola Company–WWF Partnership: Water Sustains Us. Conservation Unites Us’, presentation at the Partnership 2012: NGO+Business Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, 10–12 June 2012 (partner ship2012.com/download/conference/ Partnership%202012%20-%20Coca- Cola%20Company%20&%20WWF .pdf, accessed 22 November 2012).

Wymer, W.W. Jr, and S. Samu (2003) ‘Dimen- sions of Business and Nonprofit Collabo- rative Relationships’, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 11.1: 3-22.

Yaziji, M. (2004) ‘Turning Gadflies into Allies’, Harvard Business Review, Febru- ary 2004: 110-15.

Yaziji, M., and J. Doh (2009) NGOs and Cor- porations: Conflict and Collaboration (New York: Cambridge University Press).

q Esben Rahbek Gjerdrum Pedersen is associate professor at the Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility, Copenhagen Business School and does research within the areas of corporate social responsibility (CSR), environmental management and non-

financial performance measurement. The results from his award-winning research have been published in a wide range of international journals. Esben has international work experience from projects within the field of entrepreneurship education, SME development, environmental management/labelling, private sector development and NGO capacity building.

u Porcelaenshaven 18A, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark

! [email protected]

Janni Thusgaard Pedersen is a PhD Research Fellow at Copenhagen Business School and has been an affiliated Visiting Scholar at the Scandinavian Consortium for Organisational Research (SCANCOR) at Stanford University. Her PhD research

investigates corporate social responsibility (CSR) partnerships between businesses and non- governmental organisations (NGOs) in Denmark. She also contributes to research projects on CSR reporting and partnerships and consults on related issues.

u Porcelaenshaven 18A, 2000 Frederiksberg, Denmark ! [email protected]

JCC50_Intro_Pedersen & Pedersen.indd 19 02/09/13 3:30 PM

Copyright of Journal of Corporate Citizenship is the property of Greenleaf Publishing and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.