Breaking the paradigm: Categorization of Advocacy Nonprofit - Business Interactions

• In Event: Examining Sectoral Boundaries

Abstract

Advocacy nonprofit organizations (NPOs) promote or support “interests of a cause or group” (Merriam Webster, 2023). As such, the mission of these NPOs is to drive progress on selected Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Many SDG issues are largely driven by unsustainable or exploitative production processes and outputs of companies. The interaction of NPOs with business is thus a relevant field of interest. The research questions this paper addresses are: how can NPO-business interactions be comprehensively and conceptually categorized, and secondly: how may these interactions foster progress towards the SDGs?

The business management literature describes predominantly cooperative NPO-business interactions (Austin, 2000; Carroll et al., 2018; Kotler & Lee, 2005). Contentious relations towards business are emphasized in the social movement literature, relating the anti-corporate action of social movements or NPOs to their aim in changing and reforming the institutional environment (den Hond & de Bakker, 2007; King & Pearce, 2010; Levy & Scully, 2007; Soule, 2009). Institutional theory will thus form the lens through which NPO-business interactions shall be assessed.

A case database comprising over 150 instances of NPO-business interactions is the empirical data set. Initially, an inductive multiple case comparison and content analysis (George & Bennett, 2005) was the method chosen to combine the empirical data. The analytic strategy relied on cross-case pattern search (Eisenhardt, 1989). The definition of interaction typologies followed from comparing and grouping individual cases (Yin, 2009, p. 269), and comparing the findings to the literature (Eisenhardt, 1989). As the results proved unsatisfactory, the categorization was reinitiated following the active categorization process (Grodal et al., 2021) to gain an alternative perspective on the interconnectedness of interaction concepts and mechanisms.

The cross-case comparison brings three main additions to the literature. Confrontational NPO tactics fall in two main categories: the public campaigns which may include civil disobedience, and highly institutionalized specialized activism. Furthermore, the collaborations, assessed from an NPO perspective, may be categorized in three distinct groups with various levels of interaction and impact intensity. Finally, the cross-case categorization reveals a third category: ‘watchdog activities’, which provide advocacy NPOs with legitimacy and a license to operate.

With the active categorization method, empirical examples illustrate that NPOs can be instrumental in implementing institutional change in the market field. This paper conceptualizes NPOs as influencing ethical, legal, and professional norms within society. This aptitude enables NPOs to drive institutional change within the business ecosystem. A model is proposed, mapping the broad range of NPO activities within the business field, relating these to their influence on norms and institutional change.

The cross-category categorization informs how NPOs operate in the business ecosphere, whereas the active categorization distils why NPOs engage with business. The proposed model transcends the business sphere and is parsimonious since it focuses on the NPO purpose and conceptual goal. Ultimately, the model illustrates how NPO endeavors can serve as catalysts for driving progress towards the SDGs. This finding has theoretical implications, additionally it provides strategic insights for NPO practitioners.

References

Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic Collaboration Between Nonprofits and Businesses. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1_suppl), 69–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764000291S004
Carroll, A. B., Brown, J. A., & Buchholtz, A. K. (2018). Business & society: Ethics, sustainability, and stakeholder management (Tenth edition). Cengage Learning.
den Hond, F., & de Bakker, F. G. A. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How activist groups influence corporate social change activities. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 901–924. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275682
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Journal of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.
George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
Grodal, S., Anteby, M., & Holm, A. L. (2021). Achieving Rigor in Qualitative Analysis: The Role of Active Categorization in Theory Building. Academy of Management Review, 46(3), 591–612. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0482
King, B. G., & Pearce, N. A. (2010). The Contentiousness of Markets: Politics, Social Movements, and Institutional Change in Markets. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1), 249–267. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102606
Kotler, P., & Lee, N. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: Doing the most good for your company and your cause. Wiley.
Levy, D., & Scully, M. (2007). The Institutional Entrepreneur as Modern Prince: The Strategic Face of Power in Contested Fields. Organization Studies, 28(7), 971–991. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607078109
Merriam Webster. (2023, February 20). Definition of ADVOCATE. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/advocate
Soule, S. A. (2009). Contention and Corporate Social Responsibility (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804359
Yin, R. K. (2009). 8. How to do better case studies: (With illustrations from 20 exemplary case studies). In L. Bickman & D. Rog, The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483348858

Author

• Maike Diepeveen, University of Eastern Finland