differences among ngos in the business

http://bas.sagepub.com/Business & Society

http://bas.sagepub.com/content/53/1/105The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0007650311418195

2014 53: 105 originally published online 7 September 2011Business SocietyAmy O'Connor and Michelle Shumate

NetworkNGO Cooperative−Differences Among NGOs in the Business

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Association for Business and Society

can be found at:Business & SocietyAdditional services and information for

http://bas.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://bas.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://bas.sagepub.com/content/53/1/105.refs.htmlCitations:

at University of Bucharest on May 8, 2014bas.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on May 8, 2014bas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://bas.sagepub.com/

http://bas.sagepub.com/content/53/1/105

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.iabs.net

http://bas.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://bas.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://bas.sagepub.com/content/53/1/105.refs.html



What is This?

- Sep 7, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Dec 20, 2013Version of Record >>

at University of Bucharest on May 8, 2014bas.sagepub.comDownloaded from at University of Bucharest on May 8, 2014bas.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://bas.sagepub.com/content/53/1/105.full.pdf

http://bas.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/09/06/0007650311418195.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



Business & Society2014, Vol 53(1) 105 –133

© The Author(s) 2011Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0007650311418195

bas.sagepub.com

1North Dakota State University, ND, USA2University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, IL, USA

Corresponding Author:Amy O’Connor, North Dakota State University, Department of Communication, #2310, 202 Ehly Hall, PO Box 6050, Fargo, ND 58108-6050, USA.Email: [email protected]

Differences Among NGOs in the Business–NGO Cooperative Network

Amy O’Connor1 and Michelle Shumate2

Abstract

Informed by the symbiotic sustainability model, this theory-building research compares a stratified subsample (N = 66) from 695 nongovernmental orga-nizations (NGOs) that have relationships with U.S. Fortune 500 companies in 11 industries (N = 155). Using network analysis and centering resonance analysis, the research compares the “about us” statements of three groups of NGOs with different indegree centralities. The results of this study suggest that NGOs with multiple corporate partners are distinct from NGOs with single corporate partners. Across all levels of centrality, NGOs in cross-sector cooperative relationships tend to focus on children and be service oriented. In addition, federated NGOs were more likely to occupy a central position in the business–NGO cooperative network and foundations were more likely to have relationships with multiple corporations. Local NGOs were more likely to have only one cross-sector relationship and were, by a significant margin, the largest group. Propositions for future research are offered based on the findings.

Keywords

cross-sector partnerships, symbiotic sustainability model, social network analysis, computerized text analysis, NGOs

Article

at University of Bucharest on May 8, 2014bas.sagepub.comDownloaded from


106 Business & Society 53(1)

As part of the growing corporate social responsibility (CSR) movement, non-governmental organizations1 (NGOs) and corporations, are forming coopera-tive relationships at an unprecedented level (Bendell, 2000; McIntosh, 2007). Recent research indicates that 89% of Americans think that businesses, gov-ernments, and NGOs should collaborate to solve pressing social and environ-mental issues (Cone, 2008).2 NGO–corporate cooperative relationships, therefore, meet the cultural expectations Americans have about the role of business in society, while advancing social issue awareness and enhancing organizational legitimacy. In 2005, Fortune 100 companies gave in excess of US$10.5 billion to NGOs (Corporate Giving Standard, 2006). Cause market-ing provides over US$4 billion of additional support for charitable causes annually (Center for Nonprofit Success, 2009). Partnerships offer brand dis-tinction and increased revenue through value associations for both NGOs and corporations (Cone, 2008; McIntosh, 2007). In addition, NGO–corporate partnerships can help corporations earn public trust (Edelman Trust Barometer, 2010). Research indicates that 85% of Americans report having a more posi-tive image of a product or company that supports a cause about which they care (Cone, 2008).

In keeping with these trends, a growing body of business scholarship has been concerned with the business–NGO interface (Kourla & Laasonen, 2010). However, most of this literature has focused on activist NGOs that challenge or seek to modify corporate action (Den Hond & De Bakker, 2007; Doh & Guay, 2004; Soule, 2009). According to Kourula and Laasonen (2010), only 16% of the research on NGOs in business and management has focused on business–NGO relationships. As noted by Selsky and Parker (2005, p. 858), when scholarship investigates cross-sector socially oriented partnerships, it has tended to have a “strong instrumental orientation that reflects the conventional resource dependence argument in organization stud-ies.” Such research often focuses on the process of cross-sector partnerships (e.g., Le Ber & Branzei, 2010; London, Rondonelli, & O’Neil, 2006) or on successful cases (e.g., Harvey & Schaefer, 2001; Stafford, Polonsky, & Hartman, 2000). Other research suggests that a small portion of charities receive the vast majority of corporate dollars; specifically, of the US$65 bil-lion given to the 400 largest charities in 2005, more than 25% went to only ten NGOs (Kadlec, 2006). This research indicates a long-tailed distribution in philanthropic giving and suggests some NGOs may be preferred partners. Taken together, prior research offers detailed accounts of how particular NGOs and corporations engage each other and generally how philanthropic dollars are distributed.



O’Connor and Shumate 107

In response to this research, Selsky and Parker (2005) identify two gaps in the literature; they challenge researchers to strengthen the conceptual under-pinnings and conduct more macrolevel studies of cross-sector partnerships. To answer this call, the authors offer a macrolevel analysis to uncover the cooperative relationship patterns of NGOs and corporations. Specifically, the purpose of this research is to extend theorizing about the characteristics of NGOs that are more central in the business–NGO cooperative network. Given this, the authors ask, across the collaboration continuum (Austin, 2000), how do NGOs with multiple U.S. Fortune 500 partners describe them-selves in comparison to NGOs with fewer cross-sector partners?

NGOs and the private sector have been increasingly called on to offer a “social safety net” (Andreason, 1996, p. 48), in the face of government ineffi-ciencies and resource constraints (see Bendell, 2000; Teegen, Doh, & Vachani, 2004). As such, the types of NGOs that are most central and least central in the business–NGO cooperative network have important implications for society. For example, a few highly central NGOs in the network may occupy a position of power. Such NGOs, especially if they fund other NGOs, act as a broker between corporations and beneficiaries (see Burt, 1992). Furthermore, the cen-trality of a limited number of NGOs raises important questions about the role of organizational discourse in determining which social issues are supported, which are marginalized, and the social implications of these disparities. In addi-tion, the characteristics of NGOs in more central and less central places within the business–NGO cooperative network may shed light on neglected social issues, especially if the public sector withdraws support from these areas. Finally, as corporations seek to strategically manage their relationships with NGOs, knowledge of which types of NGOs occupy central positions and the likely structural holes within the network is of value. Corporations may seek particular types of NGO relationships to add to their competitive advantage, setting them apart from popular trends (Porter & Kramer, 2006).

To begin this inquiry, the authors describe the theoretical model of cross-sector cooperative relationships on which this research builds. Then, the authors use a combination of network analysis and computerized textual analysis to determine the centrality of NGOs in cross-sector cooperative rela-tionships and examine the “about us” descriptions. The combination of these methods is unique; network analysis allows us to move beyond dyadic descriptions of particular business–NGO relationships to a macronetwork view and computerized textual analysis allows us to inductively identify the characteristics of NGOs with differing numbers of corporate partners. The authors conclude this article with a set of propositions and future directions for business–NGO interface research.




Cross-Sector Socially Oriented Partnerships3

Cross-sector socially oriented partnerships are “formed explicitly to address social issues and causes that actively engage the partners on an ongoing basis” (Selsky & Parker, 2005, p. 850). As noted by Austin (2000), these partnerships vary along a continuum of collaboration, ranging from philan-thropy and information sharing to more strategic and integrated relation-ships. Cooperative business–NGO relationships are increasingly cited as an important element in achieving advantages including the following: solving problems larger than the capabilities of a single organization (Westely & Vrendenberg, 1997), improving economic production (King, 2007; Taylor & Scharlin, 2004), responding to issues that may disrupt the business environ-ment (Esty & Winston, 2006), responding to stakeholder pressure (Bendell, 2000), and creating a triple bottom line (Elkington, 1998). Such research and theorizing offer insights into the reasons why cross-sector relationships are increasingly prevalent and are largely drawn from the resource dependence and societal sector views (Selsky & Parker, 2005). The current research takes a macrolevel approach, departing from these traditions, by grounding itself in a community ecology-based model (Astley, 1985; Hawley & Theodorson, 1982). Such a move allows researchers to move beyond the characteristics and benefits of individual cross-sector cooperative relationships to under-standing the growing network of business–NGO relationships.

The Symbiotic Sustainability Model (SSM)The present research builds on previous work introducing (Shumate & O’Connor, 2010b) and testing (Shumate & O’Connor, 2010a) the SSM. The SSM departs from transaction costs economics (King, 2007), stakeholder theory (Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997), and collaboration-theory (Westley & Vrendenburg, 1997) approaches to business–NGO relationships (see Shumate & O’Connor, 2010b, for a full comparison); the central point of this depar-ture is the assertion that the communication of the existence and character of the cross-sector relationship to stakeholders, rather than the resources exchanged within the relationship, is of primary importance. This communication is understood as part of the institutional positioning flow of communication, instead of the activity coordination flow; the activity coordination flow refers to the ways in which communication is used to develop common goals, dis-tribute responsibilities, and share information within interorganizational rela-tionships. In contrast, the institutional positioning flow describes macrolevel communication where boundary spanners “negotiate terms of recognition of




the organization’s existence and place . . . [including] both identity establish-ment and development and maintenance of a ‘place’ in the interorganiza-tional or larger social system” (McPhee & Zaug, 2000, p. 15).

Previous research on business–NGO relationships suggests that reputa-tional benefits, derived from the institutional positioning of a business’s rela-tionship with a NGO, are primary. Pearce and Doh (2005) note that most empirical research suggests that the primary way CSR improves financial performance is via reputation, making the communication of such initiatives equal to or more important than the efforts themselves. According to the SSM, the communication of cross-sector cooperative relationships allows NGOs and businesses to obtain capital that may otherwise be unavailable. This capital is mobilized by leveraging the functional differences of the cross-sector partners. When organizational attributes are communicated to stakeholders, messages are evaluated within the context of what is already known about the organization (Kuperman, 2003) and based on the source credibility (Hovland & Weiss, 1951) of the organization in a given domain. In contrast, when functionally different organizations publicly align, the credibility and existing schema of what is known about the partnering orga-nization also influences stakeholder perceptions of legitimacy (Suchman, 1995) and authenticity (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). Corporations may ben-efit from the communication of cooperative relationships with NGOs, in part, because of the source credibility of NGOs on social issues. NGOs have greater public trust on the environment, human rights, and health (Wootliff & Deri, 2001; see also Edelman Trust Barometer, 2010). In contrast, NGOs may benefit from the economic capital that may be leveraged by business stakeholders to fund programs, market their organization/social issue, and enhance their organization’s position within the NGO market.

The SSM draws on community ecology (Astley, 1985; Hawley, 1986) in its description of the dynamic system of business–NGO relationships. First, the public alignment of businesses and NGOs brings together two different types of organizations with “different performance measures, competitive dynamics, organization cultures, decision-making styles, personnel compe-tencies, professional languages, incentives and motivational structures, and emotional content” (Austin, 2000, p. 14; see also Dahan, Doh, & Teegen, 2010 for differences). The SSM defines the relationship between corporations and NGOs as symbiotic, or a beneficial relationship between organizations that do not have overlapping resource or identity niches (see Aldrich & Reuf, 2006). Symbiotic relationships are based on interdependencies and occur when organizations in a population branch out from their original functional identity “to fulfill ancillary roles” (Astley, 1985, p. 236). Second, when




organizations are in sustained symbiotic relationships, Hawley (1986) notes they are buffered from dramatic environmental changes (e.g., boycotts, social protest, and fundraising and media coverage drift). Thus, sustained symbiotic relationships between businesses and NGOs have substantial benefits for both parties, though as noted above, the type of benefits may differ.

By focusing on the institutional positioning of the business–NGO relation-ship and the symbiotic nature of these relationships, new research areas are brought into relief (see Figure 1). In particular, a research agenda that examines the interorganizational patterns of business and NGO affiliations have emerged. The SSM derives propositions concerning capital mobilization resulting from NGO–corporate relationships, NGOs and businesses’ choice(s) of partner(s), the number of partners NGOs and businesses are likely to communicate, and

Symbiotic Sustainability

(P6)

RiskyPartnerships(P5)

Portfolio of NGO-corporate partners

#of partnershipscommunicated (P4)

Choice ofpartner (P3)

Stakeholdersmobilize capital

Stakeholdersrestrict capital(P2)

Cease tocommunicateand/ordissolve

Re-affirmalliance

Communicativeconstitution of the

existence andcharacter/valuation of

NGO-corporatepartnership(s) (P1)

Experiencedcosts outweigh potential capital accumulation

Potential capitalaccumulationoutweighsexperienced costs

Negotiatewithstakeholders

Environment

Figure 1. The symbiotic sustainability model.




the potential risks and rewards of such relationships (see Table 1). In Shumate and O’Connor (2010a), the propositions about the number and choice of NGO partners that businesses choose were investigated. In that research, most busi-nesses communicated relationships with five or fewer NGO partners. Furthermore, the research demonstrated that businesses in common industries preferred different NGOs operating in the same social issue industry. In com-bination, Shumate and O’Connor suggest that the NGO partnerships given primacy in corporate communication is strategic and based on the stakehold-ers perceived ability and willingness to mobilize capital.

Table 1. The Propositions of the Symbiotic Sustainability Model (SSM).

Proposition

1 The existence, character, and valuation of NGO-corporate alliances5 is communicatively coconstructed by alliance partners and stakeholders.

2 Cross-sector alliance partners and stakeholders’ communication and coconstruction of the existence, character, and valuation of the alliance mobilizes and/or restricts various forms of capital for NGOs and corporations.

3 Alliance partner choice is influenced by the alliance partner’s perceived ability to mobilize stakeholders and their associated capital, as evidenced by the partner’s already accumulated capital and their current position in the symbiotic network.

3a Organizations are more likely to seek alliance partners in an economic or issue industry if competitors within their industry have sought similar alliances with partners in that industry and have achieved gains.

3b Organizations are less likely to seek alliances with partners that have an existing relationship with another organization in their industry.

3c Organizations are more likely to seek alliance partners who have had a prior cross-sector alliance that led to capital accumulation for another alliance partner outside of their industry.

4 As the number of cross-sector alliance partners increase, the communication of such alliances results in a diminishing return from stakeholders; conversely, the communication of a limited number of alliances increases perceptions of value.

5 NGOs and corporations in alliances risk a loss of legitimacy from their own stakeholders and criticism from the alliance partner’s stakeholders.

6 NGO–corporate alliance partners will be more buffered from and less vulnerable to disturbances in their environments than corporations and NGOs not in enduring cross-sector alliances.

Source: Shumate & O’Connor (2010).




The present research continues this research agenda. Although Shumate and O’Connor (2010a) identify the strategic nature of particular social issues and patterns of economic and social industry alignment, research to date has not investigated the characteristics of NGOs that occupy the most and least central position in the business–NGO cooperative network. The present research takes up this question.

NGO CharacteristicsThe term NGO covers a broad range of organizations (Frumkin, 2002), including fierce advocates for ideological positions, direct service agencies, foundations, and membership organizations. The number of NGOs has sky-rocketed in the previous three decades (Sikkink & Smith, 2002). In 2009, there were over 1.1 million registered 501c3 organizations in the United States (Strom, 2009) and, according to the Yearbook of International Organizations, there are more than 25,000 NGOs with an international scope of operations (Union of International Associations, 2009). With a growing number of NGOs, several typologies have been offered. These typologies can be characterized into three groups: NGO aims, NGO orientation to busi-ness, and strategic fit.

Typologies focusing on aims discriminate among NGOs based on their stated purposes and activities. For example, Yaziji and Doh (2009) describe NGOs as being either self-benefiting or other-benefiting. Self-benefiting NGOs seek to advance the interests of their members and can include mem-bership organizations and labor unions. Other-benefiting NGOs, in contrast, seek to provide a service to groups external to the organization. These two types of NGOs can be further distinguished by their activities, which include advocacy and direct service. Although these two distinctions are useful in understanding the broad spectrum of NGO aims and activities, as noted by Den Hond (2010) in his review of Yaziji and Doh’s (2009) book, there is nothing to link this typology to a prescription about which types of NGOs corporations are more likely to choose as partners.

The orientation to business typologies classifies NGOs based on their ideological relationship with business. Ählström and Sjöström (2005) divide NGOs into four categories: preservers, protestors, modifiers, and scrutiniz-ers. Den Hond and De Bakker (2007) similarly describe NGOs in terms of their tactics based on two dimensions: the level of collective action participa-tion and their radical/reformist ideologies. Elkington (1998, 2004) classifies NGOs as dolphins, sealions, orcas, and sharks. Although dolphins and sealions collaborate with business, orcas and sharks conflict with business




through a variety of tactics. Although Ählström and Sjöström (2005) and Den Hond and De Bakker’s (2007) typologies treat all collaborative NGOs as one type, Elkington further distinguishes among collaborative NGOs, drawing a distinction between dolphins and sealions. Dolphins act discriminately when forging partnerships and identify individual organizations based on their position within their industry. Sealion NGOs, however, are less discriminate and seek partnerships based more on economic industry, with less focus on individual corporate positions within the industry. In one of the most exten-sive business-orientation typologies, Van Tulder and Van Der Zwart (2006) distinguish between 10 types of NGOs, largely based on their level of inde-pendence from business. At one end of the continuum are business-oriented NGOs (BONGOs) that represent the interest of businesses as their sole mis-sion. In the middle of the typology are strategic-oriented NGOs (STRONGOs), which focus on achieving some outcome in collaboration with one or more businesses. At the confrontational end, direct action NGOs (DANGOs) are described as “hard-core action groups” (p. 122), who may even carry out illegal activities against corporate interests. Lucea (2010), in a study of cog-nitive maps of the NGO landscape in Ecuador, found that NGO managers and business leaders classify NGOs differently. Although NGO managers describe six subgroups of NGOs based on scope, funding, and ideology, firm managers classify NGOs into three groups based on their cooperative, con-frontational, or of little relevance to their firms. As such, Lucea’s research suggests that business-oriented typologies may be more accurate renderings of firm manager’s classification schema than NGO managers.

To summarize, orientation to business typologies distinguish NGOs pri-marily by level of cooperation with business. Both Elkington (1998) and Van Tulder and Van Der Zwart (2006) go further than this primary classification, distinguishing between types of NGOs likely to collaborate with businesses. Elkington distinguishes between NGOs likely to form partnerships within businesses that have not had previous cross-sector relationships (i.e., dol-phins) and those that seek partnerships with businesses that already have existing or past cross-sector relationships (i.e., sealions). Van Tulder and Van Der Zwart distinguish between dependent NGOs that are easily co-opted by business interest and interdependent NGOs that focus on problems and solu-tions. Although useful in understanding the various orientations that NGOs may have to businesses, these typologies do not provide insight into either the social issue or other characteristics that might make a small set of NGOs highly desirable partners.

The strategic fit typologies suggest that NGOs can be classified based on a variety of characteristics and resources. For example, London and Roninelli




(2003) suggest that NGOs should be classified based on their attitude toward partnership and expertise. They state that the ideal NGO partner is

Credible as a responsible, legitimate, and knowledgeable organization; understands private enterprise and that corporations need to make prof-its; is experienced in jointly improving a corporation’s economic and environmental performance, gives cost effective and technically sound advice; and recognizes that meaningful changes in large corporations take time. (p. 33)

Similarly, Austin (2000) suggests that NGO partner selection is a matter of strategic fit, asking managers to consider if common goals and common ground can be identified. Porter and Kramer (2006, p. 83) further suggest that strategic fit is related to the social issue that the NGO addresses. They sug-gest that corporations should “identify, prioritize, and address the social issues that matter most or the ones on which it can make the biggest impact.” The strategic fit typologies suggest that NGO partnerships begin with the right match of NGO to corporation; this match is related to the corporation’s individual needs, its distinction among its peers within its industry, and how it might achieve competitive advantage. This line of research has made the strategic management of a portfolio of NGO partnerships a key issue within the CSR literature. However, strategic fit typologies, like the business orien-tation typologies, fail to address why a small group of NGOs seem to be the right strategic choice for many corporations across industries.

The aforementioned typologies offer useful descriptors of NGO–business relationships along a cooperative continuum. The prior research, however, does not offer a macrolevel empirical analysis of the patterns of cross-sector collaborative relationships nor does it explore the relationships beyond a priori classification schemas. The current research, therefore, takes up the question: How do NGOs with multiple U.S. Fortune 500 partners describe themselves in comparison to NGOs with fewer cross-sector partners? This research question distinguishes among NGOs that have cooperative relation-ships with businesses, in the tradition of Elkington (1998) and Van Tulder and Van Der Zwart (2006) and follows Yaziji and Doh (2009) and Porter and Kramer’s (2006) suggestion that NGO aims and social issues are primary distinguishing features of these organizations. As noted by Pearce and Doh (2005, p. 32), a firm’s first step in choosing an NGO partner is to “determine the social causes it will support and why.” Our research uses computerized textual analysis of NGOs’ “about us” statements to characterize NGOs with different numbers of cross-sector relationships, thus potentially expanding




existing a priori typologies. Through textual analysis, the authors can deter-mine which NGO characteristics (e.g., social issue, organizational structure) are given most prominence by the NGOs themselves. In doing so, the authors develop a set of propositions about NGOs most likely to be central in the business–NGO cooperative network.

MethodThis research examines NGO–corporate collaborative relationships reported on a sample of U.S. Fortune 500 corporations’ CSR websites. The authors chose to examine websites because they are a form of strategic communica-tion that is widely disseminated (Esrock & Leichty, 1998) and 55% of Americans report using the Internet to learn about social causes (Cone, 2008). This research derives its sample of NGOs from a previous study (Shumate & O’Connor, 2010a) that examined the numbers and patterns of relationships between NGOs and businesses. Although the NGOs identified are the same, this research uniquely examines these NGOs’ “about us” statements and com-pares central NGOs with more peripheral NGOs. “About us” statements rep-resent NGO-initiated communication that highlights those organizational attributes the NGO has chosen to give primacy. As such, they are an appropri-ate source to answer the research question. The authors used a combination of network analysis and computerized textual analysis to answer the research question posed in this study. The combination of these methods allowed us to examine the cross-sector collaborative relationship ties and the language used to describe the NGOs’ activities and structure.

SampleTo identify the NGOs analyzed in this study, the authors began with a purpo-sive sample of 158 corporate websites from the 2005 U.S. Fortune 500 corpo-ration list. Three organizations experienced a merger reducing the effective sample to 155 corporations. All organizations in the U.S. Fortune 500 list that represent one of 11 economic industries were included in the sample. The authors chose industries, according to Hendry (2006), that were most likely to be confronted with stakeholder pressure. The authors reasoned these firms would be the most likely to include NGO relationships in their public communication. These included firms that had in recent history violated soci-ety norms (e.g., tobacco), that were visible to consumers either through brands or the value chain (e.g., general merchandisers), and firms that operate in industries under scrutiny by activist groups (e.g., mining-crude oil). Using




Fortune’s North American Industry Classification System, the following industries were included in our sample, chemical (n = 14), commercial banks (n = 18), general merchandisers (n = 13), hotels, casinos, and resorts (n = 15), mining-crude oil (n = 9), motor vehicles and parts (n = 17), petroleum refining (n = 9), specialty retailers (n = 24), telecommunication (n = 16), tobacco (n = 2), and utilities, gas, and electric (n = 28). Each website was garnered from the 2005 online version of the U.S. Fortune 500 list. Each website was printed between November 22 and November 29, 2005. The authors examined three locations on corporate websites to identify NGOs listed by the corporation. These locations included the “about us,” “community,” and/or “social respon-sibility” sections. The authors did not examine the websites of subsidiaries, press releases found on the website, or PDF files.

The indegree centrality, or the number of U.S. Fortune 500 organizations from our sample that cited the NGO as part of its CSR efforts, was deter-mined for each NGO in this sample. The authors then divided this initial sample into three groups, Prominent NGOs, or NGOs with four or more ties (n = 22), Known NGOs, or NGOs with either three or two ties (n = 37), and Solitary NGOs with a single relationship with a sampled U.S. Fortune 500 corporation (n = 636). Because of the uneven distribution of NGO indegree centrality, the authors took a stratified random sample of the NGO texts, so that there were 22 texts from each of the three groups. If no website text could be identified, an additional randomly sampled organization was identified as a replacement. In doing so, the authors created three sets of comparably sized texts, so that the size of the text would not impact the word influence or num-ber of unique words for each set of organizations. Of the 695 NGOs, 610 NGOs had websites that included an “about us” statement. The effective sample for this study is 66 NGO texts (see Table 2). Finally, the NGO text files were subjected to centering resonance analysis (Corman & Dooley, 2006; Corman, Kuhn, McPhee, & Dooley, 2002).

MeasuresFor the purpose of this research, two measures were included in the analysis. First, the authors examined the network relationships of each organization in the sample. Second, the authors examined the resonance analysis maps of NGO descriptions derived from the centering resonance analysis. Resonance maps are visual descriptions of the prevalence of noun phrases within a set of texts and the relative distance between noun phrases in the texts. Both reso-nance scores for individual noun phrases and phrase pairs were calculated and a visual map of the relationships among the noun phrases was created.




Table 2. Sample of NGOs From Each of Three Categories.

Prominent NGOs Known NGOs Solitary NGOs

American Cancer Society (9)

America’s Second Harvest (3) American Diabetes Association (1)

American Heart Association (5)

Boy Scouts (3) Best Buys Children’s Foundation (1)

American Red Cross (31) Breast Cancer Research Foundation (2)

Borrow Smart (1)

Big Brothers Big Sisters (6)

California African American Museum (2)

Center for Child and Family Advocacy (1)

Habitat for Humanity (15)

City of Hope (2) Center for Collaborative Research in Education (1)

Boys and Girls Clubs of America (13)

City Year (2) Charity Newsies, Columbus (1)

International Red Cross and Red Crescent Society (4)

Congressional Black Caucus Foundation (2)

Chicago Foundation for Women (1)

Junior Achievement (18) Disasters Emergency Committee (2) DePaul University (1)Juvenile Diabetes

Research Foundation (4)

Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation (2)

Humane Society (1)

March of Dimes (9) Girl Scouts of America( 3) Laughlin Memorial Hospital (1)NAACP (5) Goodwill Industries (2) Lindenwood University (1)National Center for

Missing and Exploited Children (4)

International Reading Association (2) Lower Eastside Girls Club NY (1)

National Minority Supplier Development Council (4)

Meals on Wheels Association (3) Martins Creek Environmental Preserve (1)

Nature Conservancy (4) Museum of Modern Art (3) Murphy Education Program (1)Salvation Army (11) National Arbor Day Foundation (2) Ohio Cancer Research

Associates (1)Toys for Tots (6) National Society for Hispanic

MBAs (3)Partnership for a Drug Free

America (1)UNICEF (4) Reach out and read (2) PNC Arts Center (1)United Negro College

Fund (7)Reading is Fundamental (2) PNC Grow Up Great (1)

United Way (55) St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital (3)

Prospect Park Alliance (1)

Urban League (7) Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Research Foundation (3)

Reading Recovery Council of North America (1)

YMCA (5) United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce Foundation (3)

Valley Hospital- The Center for Child Development (1)

YWCA (6) World War II Memorial (2) World of the Children Inc. (1)

Note: Number in parentheses indicates indegree centrality of the NGO.




Cross-sector cooperative relationships. Each foundation or NGO that was mentioned in the corporate website communication, as identified above, was recorded. Programs that were internal to the company (e.g., work-place diversity or tolerance programs) were not included as they differ from programs, foundations, and NGOs that serve external stakeholders. Intercoder reliability was excellent (Krippendorf’s alpha = .97). There were 813 cooperative relationships with NGOs recorded. Indegree central-ity is defined as the number of ties coming into a given node (see Wasserman & Faust, 1994 for a more detailed description of centrality and other net-work measures). In this study, indegree centrality is a measure of the number of U.S. Fortune 500 corporations in the sample that referenced a par-ticular NGO.

Word influence and resonance. This research uses Centering Resonance Analysis (CRA) to index the words in sets of texts that have the most dis-cursive importance. CRA examines component noun phrases, or the nouns and adjectives that composed the subject or object of a sentence (see Corman & Dooley, 2006; Corman et al., 2002 for a complete description). Compo-nent noun phrases are linked in a semantic network based on the sequential order they occur in the text. This semantic network is valued, and the link values indicate the number of times that words sequentially appear. Two measures are derived from this semantic network: word influence and reso-nance. Following Corman and colleagues (2002, 2006), word influence is operationalized as

I

g i g

N NiT

jk jkj k=− −

<∑ ( ) /

[( )( ) / ]1 2 2

where gjk indicates the number of geodesics, or shortest paths, between

the j and k nouns, and gjk(i) is the number of geodesics that contain word

i, and N indicates the total number of words in the semantic network. For example, in the following text, the word with the highest influence scores is “habitat.”

What is Habitat for Humanity International? Habitat for Humanity International is a nonprofit, ecumenical Christian housing ministry. Habitat for Humanity International seeks to eliminate poverty housing and homelessness from the world, and to make decent shelter a matter of conscience and action. Habitat invites people of all backgrounds, races, and religions to build houses together in partnership with families in need.




“Habitat” appears four times in the text. This means that the word “habi-tat” is more likely to occur on the shortest path between nouns than “world.” As the number of words in a text is the denominator in the equation, the mean word influence scores tend to decrease as text size increases. For readers familiar with social-network analysis, the word influence measure is derived from betweenness centrality, so that word influence is a measure of the degree to which a word ties together other words within the text.

Resonance describes the relationship between two texts. Texts resonate with one another to the extent that they “deploy words in the same way as a given network” (Corman et al., 2002, p. 177). The resonance of words in two texts is calculated as

WRAB = ⋅ ⋅==∑∑ I Ii

AjB

ijAB

j

N B

t

N A

α11

( )( )

where I indicates the influence score of each of the words as indicated above, N(A) and N(B) is the number of unique words in each of the texts respec-tively, and α

ij

AB is an indicator function that equals 1 when the two words are the same and 0 when the words differ. Although the unstandardized measure is included here, the reported values are standardized. Pair influence and pair resonance are similarly calculated, but instead of a single word, the pair of nouns are included and weighted by the frequency in which they co-occur.

Data Analysis

This research uses a combination of network analysis and CRA. First, the indegree centrality of each of the NGOs in the network was calculated. Because of the nature of CRA analysis, discrete sets of NGOs were required. The authors examined the indegree distribution and created two cut-points to create the Prominent, Known, and Solitary NGO categories. The texts needed to be of relatively equal size, so the authors balanced two factors in choosing the cut points: a sizable N in each group, and meaningful descrip-tions to be given for each category. While cut-points are not ideal ways to describe continuous data, utilizing them allowed us to construct texts from three parts of the indegree centrality distribution and systematically compare them. Such comparisons were not possible without the use of cut points. Second, the selected texts were subjected to CRA and the word influence and resonance scores were compared. Based upon an examination of these results, a set of propositions were derived.




Results

The research question guiding this study asks: how do NGOs with multiple U.S. Fortune 500 partners describe themselves in comparison to NGOs with fewer cross-sector partners? To answer this research question, the results of this study compare the “about us” texts of NGOs in three categories. Prominent NGOs have four or more ties, Known NGOs have either two or three ties, and Solitary NGOs have a single tie with a sampled U.S. Fortune 500 company. Table 3 provides a summary of the descriptors used by each category of NGOs.

Prominent NGOsProminent NGOs reported four or more corporate ties. In response to the research question, the words with the highest influence scores were child

Table 3. Comparison of Descriptions of Prominent, Known, and Solitary NGOs.

Prominent Known Solitary

Highest influence

child (.14), community (.10), service (.08), mission (.06), and people (.06).

foundation (.090), program (.086), people (.08), and new (.08)

child (.15), community (.10), service (.08), program (.07), and education (.06)

Word pairs community/service (.04), child/community (.03), community/people (.03), child/service (.02), and child/family (.02).

service/citizen (.03), foundation/people (.02), foundation/mission (.02), and foundation/cancer (0.02)

child/family (.06), child/center (.05), child/community (.03), service/program (.03), child/service (.03).

Low influence

charity (.02) and community/member (.01).

hope (0.02), U.S. (0.02), United States (0.02) life (.02), people/American (0.01), program/cancer (0.01), foundation/Koman (0.01) and foundation/education (0.01)

national (.02) and child/care (.00)

Unique words

headquarters, territory, and affiliate

breast/foundation, social/entrepreneur(ship), citizen/service, exhibition, museum, and concept

certified, knowledge, assessment




Figure 2. Semantic network of prominent NGOs “about us” statements.

(0.14), community (0.10), service (0.08), mission (0.06), and people (0.06). The word pairings with the highest influence score were community/service (0.04), child/community (0.03), community/people (0.03), child/service (0.02), and child/family (0.02). The words and pairings with the lowest influ-ence scores were charity (0.02) and community/member (0.01). Among the unique words with the lowest resonance with the other texts for Prominent NGOs were headquarters, territory, and affiliate. The semantic map of prominent NGO’s “about us” statements is pictured in Figure 2. In the figure, the darker circles indicate more central nouns and the darker lines indicate stronger relationships between words.




Figure 3. Semantic network of Known NGOs “about us” statements.

Known NGOs

Known NGOs had two or three corporate ties and were representative of a diverse set of NGOs. Figure 3 displays the word map of these NGO texts. In response to the research question, the words with the highest influence scores were foundation (0.09), program (0.086), people (0.08), and new (0.08). The word pairings with the highest influence scores were service/citizen (0.03), foundation/people (0.02), foundation/mission (0.02), and foundation/cancer (0.02). The words and pairings with the lowest influence scores were hope (0.02), United States (0.02), life (0.02), people/American (0.01), program/




Figure 4. Semantic network of Solitary NGOs “about us” statements.

cancer (0.01), foundation/Komen (0.01) and foundation/education (0.01). Among the unique words with the lowest resonance with the other texts were breast/foundation, social/entrepreneur(ship), citizen/service, exhibition, museum, and concept.

Solitary NGOsSolitary NGOs had one corporate tie. In response to the research question, the words with the highest influence scores were child (0.15), community (0.10), service (0.08), program (0.07), and education (0.06). The word pair-ings with the highest influence scores were child/family (0.06), child/center (0.05), child/community (0.03), service/program (0.03), and child/service




(0.03). The words and pairings with the lowest influence scores were national (0.02) and child/care (< 0.00). Among the unique words for the solitary NGOs were certified, knowledge, and assessment, based on their low reso-nance with the other texts. Figure 4 depicts the word map of this set of NGOs’ “about us” texts.

Discussion and PropositionsThe purpose of this research is to extend theorizing about the characteristics of NGOs based on centrality in the business–NGO cooperative network. The results of this study suggest that NGOs with multiple cross-sector relationships are textually distinct from NGOs with a single cross-sector relationship. The characteristics of each of the three groups will be discussed in turn.

Prominent NGOsThe NGOs with four or more business ties (for whole network N = 22, 3%), which the authors termed Prominent NGOs, were among the most recogniz-able names in the NGO sector and had distinct “about us” statements in comparison to the other categories. Prominent NGOs were more likely to highlight their organizational structure, using the words “headquarters,” “ter-ritory,” and “affiliate.” NGOs in this category utilized a federated structure (Yaziji & Doh, 2009), in which a central headquarters governed local affili-ates in various territories. Such a structure may make these NGOs appealing to corporations. NGOs with federated structures have two levels of benefits for corporate partners. At the national or international level, federated NGOs have a clearly recognizable brand. Indeed some NGOs have brand equity on par with their corporate partners (Cone, 2009).4 Such NGO brands, because of their significant social and cultural capital, are better able to enhance the reputation of their corporate partners. In addition, corporations are able to leverage their relationship in the various local communities where they have operations through the NGOs’ federated structure. O’Connor and Shumate’s (2011) examination of U.S. Fortune 500 CSR statements suggests that cor-porations seek to support the “communities in which they live and work.” NGOs with a federated structure allow corporations to support their local community and align themselves with an NGO with a national or interna-tional brand reputation.

Proposition 1: NGOs with federated structures will occupy the most central position in the NGO–corporate cooperative network.




Known NGOs

Known NGOs (for whole network N = 37, 5%) uniquely describe their orga-nizations as foundation based. Not only did “foundation” have a high influ-ence score, but it was frequently paired with other words in the description (e.g., foundation/people, foundation/mission). Foundations are other-benefiting NGOs (Yaziji & Doh, 2009), but their action is typically to evaluate and fund organizations that engage in direct service or advocacy. Such organizations have potential benefits as NGO partners for corporations wishing to minimize the risk of social issue involvement. Foundations provide an arms-length relationship with advocacy or direct-service groups, operating through the mediating foundation. The benefits of such efforts can be attributed to cor-porate engagement, whereas the potential responsibility for negative actions of NGOs can be attributed to the foundation.

Proposition 2: NGO foundations will be more likely to have multiple corporate partners than NGOs characterized by direct service or advocacy activities.

Solitary NGOsSolitary NGOs were the largest category (for whole network N = 636, 91%), representing the bulk of the indegree centrality distribution. Unlike Prominent or Known NGOs, Solitary NGOs were less likely to describe their activities as national. Indeed, an examination of these organizations reveals that 12 of the 22 NGOs sampled in this category had community-specific operations (e.g., Lower Eastside Girls Club of NY, Lindenwood University, and Prospect Park Alliance). Although NGOs with local operations may play an important role in a corporation’s community relations, the same local NGO is unlikely to be chosen as a partner by more than one U.S. Fortune 500 corporation.

Proposition 3: NGOs with a local scope of operations are more likely to have one large corporate partner than national or international NGOs.

Cooperative NGOsAlthough several factors distinguish Prominent, Known, and Solitary NGOs, there are some striking commonalities in their statements. One of the most




obvious is the role of the word “child” in the “about us” statements. “Child” is the word with the highest influence for Prominent and Solitary NGOs and is found in the word map of the Known NGOs as well. Although a diverse number of social issues could be identified and could be categorized accord-ing to the aims of NGOs across categories in a variety of ways, the common aim that is most central across types of NGOs with business relationships is benefiting children. Thus,

Proposition 4: NGOs that have as one of their aims to improve the lives of children are more likely to be included in the business–NGO cooperative network than NGOs that do not include benefiting chil-dren in their aims.

A second interesting commonality in the “about us” statements across cat-egories was the prominence of “service.” As noted by Yaziji and Doh (2009), NGO activities can be classified as either advocacy or service. Service NGOs tend to address direct needs, whereas advocacy NGOs attempt policy or insti-tutional change to eliminate the conditions that cause such needs. From the results of this research, corporations are more likely to engage service NGOs than advocacy NGOs.

Proposition 5: Service NGOs are more likely to be included in the business–NGO cooperative network than advocacy NGOs.

Limitations and Future DirectionsThis study offered a macrolevel analysis to explore the patterns of centrality among cross-sector cooperative relationships. Admittedly, such a focus resulted in several limitations which in turn highlight areas of future inquiry. First, within each category, there are NGOs that can best be described as outliers. Although these NGOs had the specified number of corporate rela-tionships, their description and characteristics did not conform to that of the other NGOs in their category. The Prominent NGO category included the NAACP. Given the advocacy activities of this organization, its inclusion in the Prominent category seems to counter Proposition 5, that advocacy NGOs are less likely to be included in the network. The Solitary NGO category included the American Diabetes Association. Considering its nationwide operations, network affiliates, research agenda, and national reputation as a leader in its issue industry, the American Diabetes Association has charac-teristics that are consistent with those in the Prominent NGO category. The




organization’s inclusion in the solitary NGO category is less clear and would benefit from further investigation.

Second, the results of this study demonstrate differences among NGOs and the level of indegree centrality reported. However, the methods chosen for this study do not provide insight into why NGOs have the number of cor-porate partners reported. Additional research is needed to determine if NGOs fall into categories by choice or natural selection. Such research may provide explanations for the NGO outliers identified in this study. In addition, research that compares NGOs void of cross-sector relationships would add to our understanding of the types of NGOs unwilling or unable to engage in cooperation with businesses.

Third, this research introduces the use of CRA as a way to distinguish among the millions of NGOs that might engage in cross-sector cooperative relationships. One advantage of using computerized-textual analysis for this task is that CRA can analyze vast corpuses of text with relative ease. Drawing the key words from the results and propositions, future research should include the word influence scores for the identified noun phrases in quantita-tive analyses that include NGO size and age to predict the NGOs most likely to be in cross-sector relationships.

Fourth, to examine the macrolevel business–NGO cooperative network, the authors sacrifice depth for breadth. Although patterns of collaboration are described, the characteristics of each of the 813 relations within the network are not known. Future research should examine the characteristics of rela-tionships that highly central NGOs have with businesses, and where those relationships would fall on the collaboration continuum (Austin, 2000).

Finally, as noted by Lucea (2010) there may be a significant difference in what an organization attempts to project as its image and how that image is perceived by others. By restricting the analysis to the “about us” texts of NGOs, the authors neglected other possibly relevant texts, including news articles and blogs critiquing the NGOs. Future research that is inclusive of both perception data and other data sources would be beneficial.

ConclusionThis study investigated the characteristics and descriptions of NGOs with varying numbers of collaborative relationships with U.S. Fortune 500 corporations in 11 economic industries. The distribution of the network rela-tionships suggests that a very small number of NGOs play a central role in the NGO–corporate relationship network. The activities of Prominent NGOs and their impact on social issues should be of interest to business leaders and




policy makers, especially as the third sector’s role increases (Teegen, Doh, & Vachani, 2004).

Although prior research has suggested typologies of NGOs that engage in relationships with corporations, these inquiries have yet to examine the char-acteristics of NGOs with different numbers of cross-sector cooperative rela-tionships. In response to this gap, our research demonstrates that NGOs in cooperative relationships tend to focus on children and tend to be service rather than advocacy oriented. In addition, our research suggests that feder-ated NGOs were more likely to occupy a central position in the cross-sector cooperative network. Furthermore, foundations were more likely to have relationships with multiple corporations than either direct service or advo-cacy NGOs. Local NGOs were more likely to have only one cross-sector cooperative relationship and were, by a significant margin, the largest group.

This research makes two contributions to the current research on the business–NGO cooperative interface. First, this research explores a broad network of business–NGO relationships, moving beyond the dyadic level. As such, this research takes up Selsky and Parker’s (2005) call for more macro-level empirical research on cross-sector partnerships. Second, this research expands theorizing about the characteristics of NGOs most likely to be part-nered in some way with corporations. Extending the cross-sector partner choice proposition of the SSM, the authors offer five testable propositions drawn from the characteristics emphasized in NGOs’ “about us” texts.

As public interest in cross-sector collaborative relationships (Cone, 2008) and the number of NGOs continues to grow to fill the gap left by government (Yaziji & Doh, 2009), the choice of with which NGO to develop a coopera-tive relationship is likely to become increasingly salient to managers. Moving beyond the cooperation/adversarial divide will be necessary to decipher which NGO relationship is likely to leverage the most capital for business. The patterns of cross-sector cooperative relationships that exist and emerge will influence the ability of NGOs and corporations to maintain operations, enhance competitive position, and develop new solutions to business and social issues.

Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-tion of this article.




Notes

1. Teegen, Doh, and Vachani (2004, p. 466) define NGOs as “private, not-for-profit organizations that aim to serve particular societal interests by focusing on advo-cacy and/or operational efforts on social, political and economic goals, including equity, education, health, environmental protection, and human rights.”

2. The 2008 Cone Cause Evolution Study presents the findings of an online survey conducted August 14-15, 2008 by Opinion Research Corporation among a demo-graphically representative U.S. sample of 1,071 adults, comprising of 500 men and 571 women 18 years of age and older. The margin of error associated with a sample this size is +/– 3%.

3. Although Kourla and Laasonen (2010) distinguish between cross-sector partner-ships and cooperative business–NGO relationships, we use the terms interchange-ably in this research to denote any cooperative relationship between businesses and NGOs.

4. The 2009 Cone Nonprofit Power Brand 100 study presents the findings of research that compiled a list of the largest nonprofits in the U.S.-based, although scope of work can be international, on private support and income-based rankings. The data was subjected to additional filters including tax status, issue industry, location, and geographic reach. Brand power was determined using a nationally representative sample of 1,000 adults to measure consumer perception in combination with audit of public communication, volunteer support base, efficiency, growth, and public support.

5. The term alliances was used the SSM to denote business-NGO relationships. The term was used to describe these relationships as cooperative arrangement that did not necessarily indicate equality, as suggested by partnership. We have used an even broader descriptor of these arrangements in this article, as alliance may indi-cate a stronger relationship than is indicated by some businesses (see Austin, 2000, for more on the continuum of relationships)

References

Ählström, J., & Sjöström, E. (2005). CSOs and business partnerships: Strategies for interaction. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14, 230-240.

Aldrich, H., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations evolving (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Andreasen, A. R. (1996). Profits for nonprofits: Find a corporate partner. Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 47-59.

Astley, W. G. (1985). The two ecologies: Population and community perspectives on organizational evolution. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 224-241.




Austin, J. E. (2000). The collaboration challenge: How nonprofits and businesses succeed through strategic alliances. San Francisco, CA: 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 (pp. 239-254). Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Center for Nonprofit Success. (2009). Cause marketing: Building profitable relation-ships with corporate partners. Retrieved from http://www.cfnps.org/ShowSeminaraspx?eid=56&rsid=84001&Smid=937

Cone. (2008). Corporate responsibility report. Boston, MA.Cone. (2009). The Cone nonprofit power brand 100. Boston, MA.Corman, S. R., & Dooley, K. J. (2006). Crawdad text analysis system 2.0. Chandler,

AZ: Crawdad Technologies, LLC.Corman, S. R., Kuhn, T., McPhee, R. D., & Dooley, K. J. (2002). Studying complex

discursive systems: Centering resonance analysis communication. Human Com-munication Research, 28, 157-206.

Corporate Giving Standard. (2006). Retrieved from www.corporatephilanthropy.org/images/resources/resources_gin_2006.png

Dahan, N. M., Doh, J., & Teegen, H. (2010). Role of nongovernmental organizations in the business-government-society interface: Special issue overview and intro-ductory essay. Business & Society, 49, 20-34.

Den Hond, F. (2010). Review essay: Reflections on relationships between NGOs and corporations. Business & Society, 49, 173-178.

Den Hond, F., & De Bakker, F. G. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32, 901-924.

Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2004). Globalization and corporate social responsibility: How non-governmental organizations influence labor and environmental codes of conduct. Management International Review, 44(2), 7-29.

Edelman Trust Barometer. (2010). Annual Global Opinion Leaders Study. Retrieved from www.edelman.co.uk/trustbarometer

Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century busi-ness. Stony Creek, CT: New Society.

Elkington, J. (2004). Enter the triple bottom line. In A. Henriques & J. Richardson (Eds.), The triple bottom line: Does it all add up? (pp. 1-16). Sterling, VA: Earth-scan.

Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (1998). Social responsibility and corporate webpages: Self-presentation or agenda setting? Public Relations Review, 24, 305-319.


http://www.cfnps.org/ShowSeminaraspx?eid=56&rsid=84001&Smid=937

www.corporatephilanthropy.org/images/resources/resources_gin_2006.png



Esty, D. C., & Winston, A. S. (2006). Green to gold: How smart companies use envi-ronmental strategy to innovate, create values and build competitive advantage. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Frumkin, P. (2005). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer. Boston, MA: Harvard University Press.

Harvey, B., & Schaefer, A. (2001). Managing relationships with environmental stake-holders: A study of U.K. water and electricity utilities. Journal of Business Ethics, 30, 243-260.

Hawley, A. H. (1986). Human ecology: A theoretical essay. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Hawley, A. H., & Theodorson, G. A. (1982). Ecology and human ecology (revised ed.). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Hendry, J. R. (2006) Taking aim at business: What factors lead environmental non-governmental organizations to target particular firms? Business & Society, 45, 47-86.

Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communi-cation effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650.

Kadlec, D. (2006, October 29). How to give to the little guys. Time, 97.King, A. (2007). Cooperation between corporations and environmental groups: A

transaction cost perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32, 889-900.Kourula, A., & Laasonen, S. (2010). Nongovernmental organizations in business and

society, management, and international business research: Review and implica-tions from 1998 to 2007. Business & Society, 49, 35-67.

Kuperman, J. C. (2003). Using cognitive schema theory in the development of public relations strategy: Exploring the case of firms and financial analysts following acquisition announcements. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5(2), 117-150.

Le Ber, M. J., & Branzei, O. (2010). (Re)forming strategic cross-sector partnerships: Relational processes of social innovation. Business & Society, 49, 140-172.

London, T., & Rondinelli, D. (2003, Winter). Partnerships for learning. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 28-35.

London, T., Rondinelli, D., & O’Neil, H. (2006). Strange bedfellows: Alliances between corporations and nonprofits. In O. Shenkar & J. J. Reur (Eds.), Hand-book of strategic alliances (pp. 353-366). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Lucea, R. (2010). How we see them versus how they see themselves: A cognitive perspective of firm-NGO relationships. Business & Society, 49, 88-115.

McIntosh, M. (2007). Progressing from corporate social responsibility to brand integ-rity. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social responsibility (pp. 45-56). New York: Oxford University Press.

McPhee, R. D., & Zaug, P. (2000). The communicative constitution of organizations: A framework for explanation. Electronic Journal of Communication, 10(1), 1-17.




Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-886.

O’Connor, A., & Shumate, M. (2011). An economic industry and institutional level of analysis of corporate social responsibility communication. Management Com-munication Quarterly, 25, 154-182.

Pearce, J. A., & Doh, J. P. (2005). The high impact of collaborative social initiatives. Sloan Management Review, 46(2), 30-39.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & society: The link between com-petitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84, 78-92.

Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31, 849-873.

Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influ-ences on mass media content. New York, NY: Longman.

Shumate, M. & O’Connor, A. (2010a). Corporate reporting of cross-sector alliances: The portfolio of NGO partners communicated on corporate websites. Communi-cation Monographs, 77, 238-261.

Shumate, M. & O’Connor, A. (2010b). The symbiotic sustainability model: Concep-tualizing NGO-corporate alliance communication. Journal of Communication, 60, 577-609.

Sikkink, K., & Smith, J. (2002). Infrastructures for change: Transnational organiza-tions, 1953-93. In S. Khagram & J. V. Riker (Eds.), Restructuring world politics: Transnational social movements, networks, and norms (pp. 24-44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Soule, S. A. (2009). Contention and corporate social responsibility. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Stafford, E. R., Polonsky, M. J., & Hartman, C. I. (2000) Environmental NGO-business collaboration and strategic bridging: A case of analysis of the Greenpeace-Foron Alliance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 9, 122-135.

Strom, S. (2009, December 5). Charities rise, costing U.S. billions in tax breaks. New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/us/06charity.html? _r=2&ref=todayspaper

Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20, 571-610.

Taylor, J. G., & Scharlin, P. J. (2004). Smart alliance: How a global corporation and environmental activists transformed a tarnished brand. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/us/06charity.html?_r=2&ref=todayspaper



Teegen, H., Doh, J., & Vachani, S. (2004). The importance of nongovernmental orga-nizations (NGOs) in global governance and value creation: An international busi-ness research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 6, 463-483.

Union of International Associations. (2009). Yearbook of international organizations on-line: Guide to global civil society networks. Brussels, Belgium: Union of Inter-national Associations. Retrieved from: http://uia.be/ybvolall

Van Tulder, R., & Van Der Zwart, A. (2006). International business-society manage-ment: Linking corporate responsibility and globalization. New York, NY: Routledge.

Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applica-tions (Vol. 8). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Westley, F., & Vredenburg, H. (1997). Interorganizational collaboration and the pres-ervation of global biodiversity. Organization Science, 8, 381-403.

Wootliff, J., & Deri, C. (2001). NGOs: The new super brands. Corporate Reputation Review, 4, 157-164.

Yaziji, M., & Doh, J. (2009). NGOs and corporations: Conflict and collaboration. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Author Biographies

Amy O’Connor (PhD, Purdue University) is associate professor in the Department of Communication at North Dakota State University. Her research examines how corpora-tions and society communicatively coconstruct understanding and acceptance of the corporate form in society. Her work is published and forthcoming in Journal of Communication, Management Communication Quarterly, and Public Relations Review.

Michelle Shumate (PhD, University of Southern California) is associate professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her research focuses on the dynamics of interorganizational networks designed to impact large social issues in a variety of contexts. Her work is published and forth-coming in Journal of Computer Mediated Communication.

differences among ngos in the business

Documents