Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Collide or Collaborate: The Interplay of Competing Logics and Institutional Work in Cross-Sector Social Partnerships

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

Abstract

An increasing body of institutional research has examined organizations’ response to conflicting institutional logics, but few studies have looked into how cross-sector organizational actors experiencing institutional complexity strategize their response mechanisms to create value in the context of corporate social responsibility (CSR). We conduct a comparative case study of nine social partnerships between multinational companies (MNCs) and nonprofits in China. We identify a partnership logic among the value-creating partnerships where partners guided by an either/and mindset take joint ownership of the social or sustainability issue/cause and integrate it into their core set of activities and goals. By contrast, the less successful partnerships guided by an either/or mindset pursue a substitution logic in which the issue and project are kept separate and marginalized from core activities and goals. We contribute to an understanding of the value creation of cross-sector social partnerships by revealing the institutional embeddedness of such partnerships and deriving a process model of collaborative value creation through institutional works in social partnerships.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdelnour, S., Hasselbladh, H., & Kallinikos, J. (2017). Agency and institutions in organization studies. Organization Studies, 38(12), 1775–1792.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almandoz, J. (2012). Arriving at the starting line: The impact of community and financial logics on new banking ventures. Academy of Management Journal, 55(6), 1381–1406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashraf, N., Ahmadsimab, A., & Pinkse, J. (2017). From animosity to affinity: The interplay of competing logics and interdependence in cross-sector partnerships. Journal of Management Studies, 54(6), 793–822.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012a). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses: Part I. Value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5), 726–758.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012b). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses. Part 2: Partnership processes and outcomes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 929–968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, T., Miner, A. S., Dale, T., & Eesley, D. (2003). Improvising firms: bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process. Research Policy, 32, 255–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating something from nothing: resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 329–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battilana, J., & Dorado, S. (2010). Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Academy of management Journal, 53(6), 1419–1440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Battilana, J., Besharov, M., & Mitzinneck, B. (2017). On hybrids and hybrid organizing: A review and roadmap for future research. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 2, 133–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. (2004). Social partnerships: Company/nonprofit collaboration. California Management Review, 47(1), 58–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Besharov, M. L., & Smith, W. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(S1), 44–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. C., & Roberts, R. W. (2010). Toward a more coherent understanding of the organization–society relationship: A theoretical consideration for social and environmental accounting research. Journal of Business Ethics, 97(4), 651–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahan, N. M., Doh, J. P., Oetzel, J., & Yaziji, M. (2010). Corporate-NGO collaboration: co-creating new business models for developing markets. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 326–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlmann, F., & Grosvold, J. (2017). Environmental managers and institutional work: Reconciling tensions of competing institutional logics. Business Ethics Quarterly, 27(2), 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deroy, X., & Clegg, S. (2015). Back in the USSR: Introducing recursive contingency into institutional theory. Organization Studies, 36(1), 73–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Domenico, M., Tracey, P., & Haugh, H. (2009). The dialectic of social exchange: Theorizing corporate—social enterprise collaboration. Organization Studies, 30(8), 887–907.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 34, 81–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gawer, A., & Phillips, N. (2013). Institutional work as logics shift: The case of Intel’s transformation to platform leader. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1035–1071.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. (2016). Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1880–1895.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 27–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E. R., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 317–371.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, R., & Gold, S. (2014). Resources and governance in “base of the pyramid”-partnerships: Assessing collaborations between businesses and non-business actors. Journal of Business Research, 67(7), 1321–1333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofman, P. S., Moon, J., & Wu, B. (2017). Corporate social responsibility under authoritarian capitalism: Dynamics and prospects of state-led and society driven CSR. Business & Society, 56(5), 651–671.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huybrechts, B., & Nicholls, A. (2013). The role of legitimacy in social enterprise-corporate collaboration. Social Enterprise Journal, 9(2), 130–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D., & Keshishian, T. (2009). Uneasy alliances: Lessons learned from partnerships between businesses and NGOs in the context of CSR. Journal of Business Ethics, 84(2), 277–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamali, D., Karam, C., Yin, J., & Soundararajan, V. (2017). CSR logics in developing countries: Translation, adaptation and stalled development. Journal of World Business, 52(3), 343–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jay, J. (2013). Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 137–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khanna, T., & Palepu, K. (1997). Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 41–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karam, C. M., & Jamali, D. (2013). Gendering CSR in the Arab Middle East: An institutional perspective. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(1), 31–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koschmann, M. A., Kuhn, T. R., & Pfarrer, M. D. (2012). A communicative framework of value in cross-sector partnerships. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 332–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraatz, M. S., & Block, E. S. (2008). Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (pp. 243–275). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, T. B., Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (2002). Institutional effects of interorganizational collaboration: The emergence of proto-institutions. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 281–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, T. B., & Phillips, N. (2004). From Moby Dick to Free Willy: Macro-cultural discourse and institutional entrepreneurship in emerging institutional fields. Organization, 11(5), 689–711.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, T. B., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutions and institutional work. In S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. Lawrence, & W. Nord (Eds.), The sage handbook of organization studies (pp. 215–254). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, T. B., Suddaby, R., & Leca, B. (2009). Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1990). A dual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites. Organization Science, 1(3), 248–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y., Zhang, C., & Jing, R. (2016). Coping with multiple institutional logics: Temporal process of institutional work during the Eemergence of the one foundation in China. Management and Organization Review, 12(2), 387–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockett, A., Moon, J., & Visser, W. (2006). Corporate social responsibility in management research: Focus, nature, salience and sources of influence. Journal of Management Studies, 43(1), 115–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, X. R., Wang, D., & Zhang, J. (2017). Whose call to answer: Institutional complexity and firms’ CSR reporting. Academy of Management Journal, 60(1), 321–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, C., & Lounsbury, M. (2007). Vive la résistance: Competing logics and the consolidation of US community banking. Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 799–820.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, C., & Qian, C. (2014). Corporate social responsibility reporting in China: Symbol or substance? Organization Science, 25(1), 127–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquis, C., & Raynard, M. (2015). Institutional strategies in emerging markets. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 291–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martí, I., & Fernández, P. (2013). The institutional work of oppression and resistance: Learning from the Holocaust. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1195–1223.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGaughey, S. L., Kumaraswamy, A., & Liesch, P. W. (2016). Institutions, entrepreneurship and co-evolution in international business. Journal of World Business, 51(6), 871–881.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, M., Perrot, F., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2012). New perspectives on learning and innovation in cross-sector collaborations. Journal of Business Research, 65(12), 1700–1709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholls, A., & Huybrechts, B. (2016). Sustaining inter-organizational relationships across institutional logics and power asymmetries: The case of fair trade. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(4), 699–714.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ocasio, W., & Radoynovska, N. (2016). Strategy and commitments to institutional logics: Organizational heterogeneity in business models and governance. Strategic Organization, 14(4), 287–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1992). The antecedents of deinstitutionalization. Organization Studies, 13(4), 563–588.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2010). When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 455–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pache, A. C., & Santos, F. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parmigiani, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2011). Clearing a path through the forest: A meta-review of interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1108–1136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Pennec, M., & Raufflet, E. (2018). Value creation in inter-organizational collaboration: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics, 148(4), 817–834.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence approach. NY: Harper and Row Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quélin, B. V., Kivleniece, I., & Lazzarini, S. (2017). Public-private collaboration, hybridity and social value: Towards new theoretical perspectives. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raviola, E., & Norbäck, M. (2013). Bringing technology and meaning into institutional work: Making news at an Italian business newspaper. Organization Studies, 34(8), 1171–1194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reay, T., & Hinings, C. R. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization studies, 30(6), 629–652.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rein, M., & Stott, L. (2009). Working together: Critical perspectives on six cross-sector partnerships in Southern Africa. Journal of Business Ethics, 90(1), 79–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rueede, D., & Kreutzer, K. (2015). Legitimation work within a cross-sector social partnership. Journal of Business Ethics, 128, 39–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31(6), 849–873.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2010). Platforms for cross-sector social partnerships: Prospective sensemaking devices for social benefit. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(1), 21–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seitanidi, M. M., & Crane, A. (2009). Implementing CSR through partnerships: Understanding the selection, design and institutionalisation of nonprofit-business partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 413–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seo, M. G., & Creed, W. D. (2002). Institutional contradictions, praxis, and institutional change: A dialectical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 222–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, G., & Bansal, P. (2017). Partners for good: How business and NGOs engage the commercial-social paradox. Organization Studies, 38(3–4), 341–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, D. (2015). Interpreting qualitative data. Sage.

  • Smets, M., Morris, T. I. M., & Greenwood, R. (2012). From practice to field: A multilevel model of practice-driven institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(4), 877–904.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soundararajan, V., Spence, L. J., & Rees, C. (2018). Small business and social irresponsibility in developing countries: Working conditions and “evasion” institutional work. Business and Society, 57(7), 1301–1336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadtler, L., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2016). Coopetition as a paradox: Integrative approaches in a multi-company, cross-sector partnership. Organization Studies, 37(5), 655–685.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative science quarterly, 50(1), 35–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (1999). Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990 1. American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 801–843.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, P. H., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 840, 99–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Townley, B. (2002). The role of competing rationalities in institutional change. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 163–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tracey, P., Phillips, N., & Jarvis, O. (2011). Bridging institutional entrepreneurship and the creation of new organizational forms: A multilevel model. Organization Science, 22(1), 60–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Villani, E., Greco, L., & Phillips, N. (2017). Understanding value creation in public-private partnerships: A comparative case study. Journal of Management Studies, 54(6), 876–905.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Tulder, R., Seitanidi, M. M., Crane, A., & Brammer, S. (2016). Enhancing the impact of cross-sector partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 135(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Tulder, R., & Keen, N. (2018). Capturing collaborative challenges: Designing complexity-sensitive theories of change for cross-sector partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 150, 315–332.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vurro, C., Dacin, M. T., & Perrini, F. (2010). Institutional antecedents of partnering for social change: How institutional logics shape cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(1), 39–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. A. (1989). Understanding social partnerships: An evolutionary model of partnership organizations. Administration and Society, 21(1), 78–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waddock, S. (1991). A typology of social partnership organizations. Administration and Society, 22(4), 480–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, C., Weidner, K., Kroeger, A., & Wallace, J. (2017). Social value creation in inter-organizational collaborations in the not-for-profit sector–give and take from a dyadic perspective. Journal of Management Studies, 54(6), 929–956.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, A., Tjosvold, D., & Yu, Z. Y. (2005). Organizational partnerships in China: Self-interest, goal interdependence, and opportunism. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 782–791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, J., & Zhang, Y. (2012). Institutional dynamics and corporate social responsibility (CSR) in an emerging country context: Evidence from China. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(2), 301–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, J., & Jamali, D. (2016). Strategic corporate social responsibility of multinational companies subsidiaries in emerging markets: Evidence from China. Long Range Planning, 49(5), 541–558.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The first author would like to acknowledge the funding of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71672146, 71972014, 71810107002, 71672196). The authors would also like to thank conference participants in the Academy of Management conference, IACMR conference, Frontiers of Social Responsibility in China conference, and the helpful suggestions from three reviewers and the editor. The authors would like to thank all the interviewees who kindly shared their insight.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Business School, Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, 510275, People’s Republic of China

    Juelin Yin

  2. Olayan School of Business, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

    Dima Jamali

Authors
  1. Juelin Yin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dima Jamali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juelin Yin.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Author A declares that he/she has no conflict of interest. Author B declares that he/she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix

Appendix Interview Guide

  1. 1.

    How are the partnerships initiated?

  2. 2.

    What are the criteria for selecting your nonprofit/business partners? How do you evaluate the “fit” with your partner before you agree to collaborate?

  3. 3.

    What are your goals for entering the partnership with nonprofit/business partners? Do your company and your nonprofit partners share similar goals and values?

  4. 4.

    Have you considered risks before and during the collaboration? What formal and informal risk assessment processes have you undertaken?

  5. 5.

    What resources (e.g., financial, human, physical, technological) have you invested in the partnership? What resources have your partners invested in the partnership?

  6. 6.

    How do you share information with your partner to strengthen their operations and programs?

  7. 7.

    What have you done to monitor the progress of the partnerships? Any formal or informal governance mechanisms to control risks?

  8. 8.

    Have you made adaptations to the collaboration goals, structure, design and operations along with your collaboration process? Why are these changes?

  9. 9.

    Is there any crisis situation that happened in the partnership implementation which had impact on your relationship? Are you able to work through differences?

  10. 10.

    How do you evaluate the value outcomes of the partnerships?

  11. 11.

    Do you feel pulled between trying to meet both your organization’s and the collaboration’s expectations? What have you done to address potential “mission drifts”?

  12. 12.

    What is the yearly budget of your department/organization? What about the budget for the collaboration?

  13. 13.

    What is your most successful partnership with nonprofits and what is the least successful experience? What makes for the differences?

  14. 14.

    Would you mind recommending your colleagues, your nonprofit partners and the other stakeholders of your company who might be interested and willing to participant in our interview? Thank you!

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yin, J., Jamali, D. Collide or Collaborate: The Interplay of Competing Logics and Institutional Work in Cross-Sector Social Partnerships. J Bus Ethics 169, 673–694 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04548-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04548-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation