201209700 master’s thesis · 2017-02-28 · 201209700 master’s thesis table of content 1.0...

201209700 Master’s thesis


ABSTRACT

Traditionally, partnerships were typically established as within-sector alliances. However, as a

response to the emergence of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), forming partnerships

across sectors has become increasingly popular. Cross-sector partnerships are initiated when

two, or more, partners from different sectors join forces with the aim of addressing a particular

social or environmental issue. In line with the popularity of cross-sector partnerships, much

research has already explored this subject. Yet, this research primarily investigates the

implementation stage of cross-sector partnerships, and only limited research has been

conducted on the initiation stage, which involves the identification and selection of

collaboration partners.

Consequently, this study sets out to identify and compare the motivational drivers and

methods of approach of the participants in international cross-sector partnerships between

non-profit organisations and corporations in the process of attracting and selecting

collaboration partners. The data is collected from 14 semi-structured interviews with nine non-

profit organisations and five corporations. Subsequently, thematic analysis is employed as the

methodological tool to identify and analyse striking semantic patterns emerging from the data.

The results of this study shed light on the motivational drivers of non-profit organisations and

corporations, and offer a range of practices for attracting and selecting cross-sector partners.

The non-profit organisations share a very pragmatic approach to identifying and attracting

partners, and consider branding as a useful mechanism. Conversely, the corporations show

only limited concern with attracting partners as they already receive a lot of attention and

partnership offers. Both non-profit organisations and corporations consider transparency and

openness as vital elements in a cross-sector partnership, and the non-profit organisations

encourage corporations to be more honest about their motivation and agenda.

The most obvious finding to emerge from this study is that the corporations prioritise value

above money in a cross-sector partnership, and regard it as an issue that many non-profit

organisations do not do the same. The corporations refer to shared value as the key

mechanism of a cross-sector partnership, and encourage non-profit organisations to move

focus from money to value and to show more gratitude. Furthermore, the corporations also

request greater effort and a higher level of professionalism from the non-profit organisations.


A possible explanation for this might be rooted in the assumption that non-profit organisations

typically face more risks than corporations when entering into cross-sector collaboration as the

outcome is directly linked to their organisational goal. Thus, this may cause the non-profit

organisations to be less invested in cross-sector collaborations of transactional character and

more interested in philanthropic cross-sector partnerships, which entail one-way resource

exchange and limited interaction with the cross-sector partner.

427 words


TABLE OF CONTENT

1.0 INTRODUCTION 2

1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT 3 1.2 METHODOLOGY 4 1.3 CONTRIBUTION 5 1.4 STRUCTURE 5

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 8

2.1 THE EMERGENCE OF CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY 8 2.2 MOTIVATION 9 2.2.1 INTRINSIC VERSUS EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION 9 2.3 CROSS-SECTOR PARTNERSHIPS 10 2.3.1 DEFINING A CROSS-SECTOR PARTNERSHIP 11 2.3.2 VALUE CREATION IN A CROSS-SECTOR PARTNERSHIP 15 2.3.3 MOTIVATION FOR ENTERING A CROSS-SECTOR PARTNERSHIP 17 2.3.4 SUCCESS FACTORS 19 2.3.5 ALLIANCE BARRIERS 21 2.3.6 CULTURAL DIFFERENCES 23 2.3.7 IDENTIFYING AND SELECTING A CROSS-SECTOR PARTNER 23

3.0 METHODOLOGY 27

3.1 THE DESIGN OF THIS RESEARCH STUDY 27 3.1.1 SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONISM 28 3.1.2 INTERPRETIVISM 30 3.1.3. QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWING 31 3.1.4 THE SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW 33 3.2 THE DATA COLLECTION PROCESS 36 3.2.1. REQUESTING AN INTERVIEW 36 3.2.2 THE FINAL INFORMANTS 38 3.3 THREE TYPES OF INTERVIEW 40 3.3.1 INTERVIEWS WITH C1-C5 41 3.3.2 INTERVIEWS WITH NP1-NP8 41 3.3.2 INTERVIEW WITH NP9 42 3.3.1 ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS 42 3.4 INTERVIEW STRUCTURE 43 3.4.1 BRIEFING 44 3.4.2 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTERVIEW 44 3.4.3 DEBRIEFING 45 3.5 INTERVIEW GUIDES 45 3.5.1 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 46 3.6 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS, ANONYMITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY 46 3.6.1 INFORMED CONSENT FROM PARTICIPANTS 47 3.6.2 AUDIO RECORDING 49 3.6.3 INTERVIEWING ACQUAINTANCES 49 3.7 TRANSCRIBING 50 3.8 THEMATIC ANALYSIS 51 3.8.1 LIMITATIONS OF THEMATIC ANALYSIS 51


4.0 THEMATIC ANALYSIS 54

4.1 THEMATIC ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM INTERVIEWS WITH NON-PROFIT ORGANISATIONS (NP1-NP9) 58 4.1.1 CATEGORY: IDENTIFYING AND ATTRACTING A PARTNER 58 4.1.2 CATEGORY: SELECTING A PARTNER 63 4.2 THEMATIC ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM INTERVIEWS WITH CORPORATIONS (C1-C5) 75 4.2.1 CATEGORY: IDENTIFYING AND ATTRACTING A PARTNER 75 4.2.2 CATEGORY: SELECTING A PARTNER 78

5.0 DISCUSSION 89

5.1. APPROACHES TO IDENTIFYING AND ATTRACTING A PARTNER 89 5.2 THE MOTIVATION FOR A CROSS-SECTOR PARTNERSHIP 90 5.3 THE ATTRACTIVE PARTNER 93 5.3.1 TRANSPARENCY IN MOTIVATION AND EXPECTATIONS 94 5.3.2 THE NOTION OF SHARED VALUE 96 5.3.3 CULTURAL DIFFERENCES 97 5.4 IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS 98 5.5 LIMITATIONS 99

6.0 CONCLUSION 102

6.1 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 104

REFERENCES 106


LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Denominations of informants (1) 4

Table 2: Partnership typology and value creation 16

Table 3: The design of this research study 28

Table 4: The seven stages of the semi-structured interview 35

Table 5: Denominations of informants (2) 38

Table 6: Interviews with C1-C5 41

Table 7: Interviews with NP1-NP8 41

Table 8: Interview with NP9 42

Table 9: Briefing 44

Table 10: Debriefing 45

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: The structure of this study 6

Figure 2: Four arenas of cross-sector partnerships 11

Figure 3: The partnership lifecycle 14

Figure 4: Overview of methodology section 27

Figure 5: The data collection process 36

Figure 6: Establishing contact with NP9 39

Figure 7: Establishing contact with C5 39

Figure 8: Obtaining informed consent from informants 47

Figure 9: The phases of the thematic analyses 55

Figure 10: Thematic map: NP1-NP9 57

Figure 11: Identifying and attracting a partner NP1-NP9 58

Figure 12: Selecting a partner NP1-NP9 63

Figure 13: Thematic map: C1-C5 74

Figure 14: Identifying and attracting a partner C1-C5 75

Figure 15: Selecting a partner C1-C5 79


1.0

INTRODUCTION


Page|2

1.0 INTRODUCTION In line with the emergence of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), interest in forming

partnerships across sectors has also increased (Bator and Stohl 2011:399; Centre for

International Development Issues 2004:15). One way to define a cross-sector partnership is as

the “(…) commitments between or among public, private, and/or non-profit institutions in which

individuals from partner organizations commit various resources and agree to work

cooperatively toward common development goals” (The North-South Institute 2014:iv). A

cross-sector partnership facilitates the creation of shared social, environmental and economic

value (Bator and Stohl 2011:401; Pedersen and Pedersen 2013:7-8). By combining the

competencies and resources from two, or more, sectors, new and innovative solutions to

complex social and environmental problems are presented (Pedersen and Pedersen 2013:7).

One of the main arguments supporting the efficiency of this type of partnership is that “(…) no

single actor can solve all societal problems alone” (Pedersen and Pedersen 2013:7).

As the fields of interest are different within each sector comes the assumption that the

motivational drivers for collaboration differ as well (Bator and Stohl 2011:407; Centre for

International Development Issues 2004:50). In relation to this, Pedersen and Pedersen

(2013:8) state that “having different motives for partnerships is, in itself, not a problem as long

as the partners are aware of the differences”. Literature suggests that non-profit organisations

typically enter into cross-sector collaboration as a means to get access to the partner’s

resources, whereas corporations engage with the purpose of improving their corporate

reputation (Bator and Stohl 2011:407; Pedersen and Pedersen 2013:8: Selsky and Parker

2005:855).

Due to the increased popularity of forming cross-sector partnerships, much research has been

conducted on this subject until now. However, this research primarily focuses on the

implementation phase, and does not explore the initiation, which accounts for the earliest

stage of a cross-sector partnership (The Partnership Resource Centre 2012). The initiation

phase involves the most important decision-making processes, identification of motivational

drivers and design of the partnership. This is where partners are identified, and it is also the

phase that carries the biggest “tension between strategic intent and strategic reality” (The

Partnership Resource Centre 2012:1). Thus, this phase is decisive to the establishment of a


Page|3

viable cross-sector partnership. Apart from this, Byiers et al. (2015:41) posit that “(…) the

literature says very little about how partners find and select each other, especially how firms

select the right NGO1 as a partner. This is therefore an interesting area for future research”.

Hence, there is room for further research of the motivational drivers and methods of approach

that come into play in the initiation phase. As mentioned above, literature maintains that cross-

sector participants always enter into collaboration with different motivation. In line with this,

Pedersen and Pedersen (2013:8) emphasise the importance to create mutual awareness of

the different motivational drivers and agendas. However, as the research by Pedersen and

Pedersen (2008) primarily investigates the implementation stage of cross-sector partnerships,

exploring this issue in the initiation stage is an obvious area of research. That is; whether or

not cross-sector participants reveal their motivation to each other in the initiation phase, and

what kind of implications their approaches might have on the potential cross-sector

collaboration.

Thus, a knowledge gap remains on the initiation phase of cross-sector partnerships with

respect to the approaches to identify and attract partners and the issue of transparency in

motivational drivers. This observation leads to the following problem statement.

1.1 Problem statement

This study identifies and compares the motivational drivers of the participants in

international cross-sector partnerships between non-profit organisations and corporations

in the process of attracting and selecting collaboration partners. By means of various

interviews, potential similarities or disparities between the participants’ motivational drivers

and methods of approach during the initiation phase will be identified. Ultimately, the

results will reflect a range of practices for attracting and selecting cross-sector partners

from the perspective of non-profit organisations as well as of corporations.

1Abbreviationofnon-governmentalorganisation


Page|4

1.2 Methodology 14 semi-structured interviews are conducted to identify the approaches to attract and select

cross-sector partners and the underlying motivational drivers. This study sets out to explore

this issue from the perspective of both non-profit organisations and corporations.

Consequently, nine of the interviews are conducted with non-profit organisations, and five

interviews are conducted with corporations. The nine non-profit organisations are different in

size, and operate within very different fields of activities including emergency aid, human

rights, political change, agriculture, climate change, disease prevention, animal welfare and

prevention of poverty and crisis. The corporations are involved with fields of activities including

consumer goods, transport and energy, construction materials, home interior and

confectionery. Simultaneously, the corporations also differ in size and scope. In this public

version of the study, the informants are anonymised, wherefore their names are not

mentioned, and no further description of their activities is provided. The denominations of the

informants are presented in table 1.

Table 1: Denominations of informants

Non-profit organisations

Corporations

NP1 C1

NP2 C2

NP3 C3

NP4 C4

NP5 C5

NP6

NP7

NP8

NP9

Source: Own making

In this study, 13 telephone interviews and one (C5) physical interview are conducted. The

interviews with corporations are expected to last 30 minutes. As to the non-profit


Page|5

organisations, eight of the interviews (NP1-NP8) are expected to last 15 minutes, whereas the

interview with NP9 is anticipated to last 30 minutes. The reason for this is that NP9 accounts

for the primary data source, whereas the remaining eight (NP1-NP8) act as secondary sources

in order to develop a full picture of the issue explored from the perspective of non-profit

organisations.

Thematic analysis is employed as the methodological tool to analyse the collected data. This

approach identifies and analyses semantic patterns emerging from the data, i.e. themes

(Braun and Clarke 2006). Two thematic analyses are produced in this study: (1) Thematic

analysis of the data collected from the interviews with non-profit organisations and (2) thematic

analysis of the data collected from the interviews with corporations.

1.3 Contribution The results of this study will contribute to completing the research gap on the approaches to

attracting and selecting cross-sector partners in the initiation phase as well as it will bring

insights on the underlying motivational drivers. Ideally, the findings will provide non-profit

organisations and corporations with a better understanding of each others’ motivation,

approaches and preferences when initiating cross-sector collaborations. Though, the results

might also reveal potential discrepancies between the motives and methods of approach

between the groups of non-profit organisations and corporations, respectively.

1.4 Structure This study comprises six overall sections: (1) Introduction, (2) literature review, (3)

methodology, (4) analysis, (5) discussion and (6) conclusion. The literature review assesses a

selection of existing literature on this topic in terms of its findings, relevance and limitations

with the purpose of establishing the foundation for this study. Section 3 covers the

methodological framework including the overall design of the research study, the data

collection procedure, the data analysis approach and the potential limitations linked with these.

In section 4, the findings of the two thematic analyses are presented. Subsequently, section 5

discusses the key findings, their implications and limitations. Finally, a conclusion and

recommendations for future research are produced in section 6.


Page|6

Figure 1: The structure of this study

Source: Own making

6:Conclusion

Summarisingthepurpose,methods andkeyfindings Recommendationsforfutureresearch

5:Discussion

Keyfindings Implications LImitations

4:Thematic analysis

Analysis ofdatacollectedfromnon-profitorganisations Analysisofdatacollectedfromcorporations

3:Methodology

Research design Datacollectionprocess Interviewstructure Ethical considerations Data analysistool

2:Literaturereview

Corporate SocialResponsibility(CSR) Motivation Cross-sectorpartnerships

1:Introduction

Problem statement Overview ofmethodology Contribution


Page|7

2.0

LITERATURE REVIEW


Page|8

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW This study takes its point of departure in existing literature on cross-sector partnerships, more

specifically in literature on the motivation for initiating cross-sector partnerships and the

frameworks for selecting a collaborative partner from another sector. To begin with, this

section will account for the overall theoretical concepts under the headings of The emergence

of corporate social responsibility (section 2.1) and Motivation (section 2.2).

2.1 The emergence of corporate social responsibility Corporate social responsibility (CSR) “is meant to link the market economy to sustainable

development” (Hamann and Acutt 2003:256), and has evolved through three generations

(Bator and Stohl 2011:400). During the first generation, corporate CSR activities primarily

focused on

negative responsibilities such as not to cheat, commit fraud, exploit etc. i.e. what not to do.

With this generation, corporations engage with CSR as a means to increase profits (Bauer and

Schmitz 2011:16). The second generation emphasised “internal organizational dynamics”

(Bator and Stohl 2011:400) e.g. issues such as health care and working conditions within a

corporation. The third, and more contemporary, generation of CSR aims at “moving

responsibility beyond corporations’ border into the community at large” (Bator and Stohl

2011:401). CSR activities within this generation address specific issues in order to “protect

and create a sustainable and just world” (Bator and Stohl 2011:401).

Research by Hamann and Acutt (2003:258) reveals that “a more critical use of the term

implies that business may be making only partial, superficial or image-related changes to give

the impression that it is accommodating social interests”. As such, research findings suggest

that some corporations engage with CSR as a means to respond to the increased pressure

within the private sector regarding sustainability and social obligations. Consequently, CSR

activities are performed as a public relations strategy rather than driven by an actual interest in

corporate social responsibilities. Hamann and Acutt (2003:258) refer to this phenomenon as

CSR as accommodation.


Page|9

2.2 Motivation Lexically, feeling motivated implies the action “to be moved to do something” (Ryan and Deci

2000:54), and a motivated person is “someone who is energized or activated towards an end”

(Ryan and Deci 2000:54). Literature illuminates the assumption that individuals not only hold

different levels of motivation; they also hold different types of motivation. This is often referred

to as the notions of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and is further explored in the following

section.

2.2.1 Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation The work of Gass and Seiter (2014:295) and Ryan and Deci (2000:55) discovers that the

impulse and intention to perform a specific act is provoked by either an intrinsic or extrinsic

motivation. Intrinsic motivation goes by definitions as “(…) a drive that comes from within”

(Gass and Seiter 2014:295), and “doing something because it is inherently interesting or

enjoyable” (Ryan and Deci 2000:55). This form of motivation is characterised by curiosity,

spontaneity and psychological needs and interests as triggers of action. Intrinsic motivation

takes a very pervasive form, and also goes by the name of the natural motivational tendency

(Ryan and Deci 2000:56). Conversely, “extrinsic motivation is instilled by some outside

factor” (Gass and Seiter 2014:295), and refers to “doing something because it leads to a

separable outcome” (Ryan and Deci 2000:55). If a corporation performs its CSR activities as a

response to increased societal pressure, the corporation is complying to external factors and

thus is extrinsically motivated.

The classical distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation posits that the outcome and

quality of performance differs according to each type. Traditionally, intrinsic motivation has

been represented as the type of motivation producing the highest level of learning and

creativity assuming that it always has its source in an inner desire. Conversely, extrinsic

motivation has often been linked with more impoverished results and limited learning (Ryan

and Deci 2000:55).

In response to this, Ryan and Deci (2000) maintain that the distinction between intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation is not always as black-white as suggested by traditional literature. With

reference to intrinsic motivation, Ryan and Deci (2000:58) note that “(…) interpersonal events

and structures (e.g., rewards, communications, feedback) that conduce toward feelings of

competence during action can enhance intrinsic motivation for that action because they allow


Page|10

satisfaction of the basic psychological need for competence”. Thus, this indicates that intrinsic

motivation also can be triggered by external factors e.g. rewards or feedback. Simultaneously,

Ryan and Deci (2000:55) point to the existence of various types of extrinsic motivation:

Contrary to the classical definition, Ryan and Deci (2000:55) argue that it is possible for

extrinsic motivation to foster learning similar to the outcomes of intrinsic motivation. To

illustrate, a student is extrinsically motivated when required to perform a school task. However,

the student might realise that performing this task will lead to a better grade, and accepts to do

it for his or her own benefit. Thus, the student performs an extrinsically motivated action, but

realises the value of the action and adopts it with volition. This also means that we cannot

always rely on intrinsic motivation as the only way to foster learning and creativity. Linking this

to Hamann and Acutt’s (2003) notion of CSR as accommodation (section 2.1), it could be

argued that whenever a corporation is extrinsically motivated to perform CSR activities, it does

not necessarily mean that the CSR activities are carried out with ill intentions or that they result

in poor quality. However, only limited literature touches upon this particular issue. Thus, this is

considered an obvious area for future research (Ryan and Deci 2000).

2.3 Cross-sector partnerships Traditionally, partnerships were primarily established as within-sector alliances also referred to

as business to business partnerships (Wymer and Samu 2003:3). Nevertheless, in line with

the rapid development and popularity of third generation CSR, (section 2.1.), has come the

increased interest in collaborating across sectors with the purpose of addressing social and

environmental issues (Pedersen and Pedersen 2013:7; Bator and Stohl 2011:399-400). The

terminology for such partnerships differs within the literature, and includes designations such

as social partnerships, intersectoral partnerships, social alliances, issues management

alliances, strategic partnerships and cross-sector partnerships (Selsky and Parker 2005). In

this study, the denomination cross-sector partnerships is applied. The concept of cross-sector

partnerships emerged during the early 1990’s (Tennyson et al. 2008:17), and can be defined

as the “(…) commitments between or among public, private, and/or non-profit institutions in

which individuals from partner organizations commit various resources and agree to work

cooperatively toward common development goals” (The North-South Institute 2014:iv). When

two, or more, partners from different sectors piece together their core competences, new and

innovative solutions to complex social and environmental problems are developed (Pedersen

and Pedersen 2013:7).


Page|11

Cross-sector partnerships have the potential to provide a number of societal benefits.

Research by

Byiers et al. (2015:22) suggests the capability “to increase both quantity and quality of jobs in

developing countries” as a benefit if the initiative is executed in such area. Additionally,

“improving production practices among developing countries’ producers” e.g. by means of

support and adoption of global standards and certifications, also constitutes a societal benefit

(Byiers et al. 2015:23). Regarding the latter, a certification of sustainability, such as The Fair

Trade certification, provides minor local farmers and producers with better chances of

overcoming poverty and competition on the market (Byiers et al. 2015:23).

2.3.1 Defining a cross-sector partnership Tennyson et al. (2008:20) provide a long list of engagement options for a cross-sector

partnership. Amongst these are: Sponsorships, product development, project support,

employee engagement and the notion of issue driven partnerships. In addition to this, Selsky

and Parker (2005:854) identify four arenas of cross-sector partnerships:

Figure 2: Four arenas of cross-sector partnerships

Source: Selsky and Parker (2005:854)

Arena 1 represents cross-sector partnerships where the business sector and the non-profit

sector join forces to address a social issue or a particular cause e.g. transportation of

emergency aid or development of products to a specific industry (Selsky and Parker

2005:854). In arena 2, the business sector and government collaborate on issues within

Arena1Business-non-profit

partnerships

Arena2Business-government

partnerships

Arena3Government-non-profitpartnerships

Arena 4Trisectorpartnerships


Page|12

infrastructure development and public services such as water end electricity. Arena 3 accounts

for collaborations between government and non-profit organisations focusing on improving

issues related to human rights, environmental justice, working conditions etc. (Brinkerhoff

2002:20). Finally, arena 4 represents trisector partnerships i.e. collaboration involving all three

sectors addressing a large-scale issue of mutual relevance to the parties e.g. environmental

concerns, economic and community development and health (Selsky and Parker 2005:854).

As there is only limited research on the approaches to identifying and selecting a partner

within business-non-profit partnerships (Byiers et al. 2015:42)., this study takes its point of

departure in arena 1.

2.3.1.1 A partnership typology With The Collaboration Continuum, Austin (2000:70) sets forth an overall categorisation of

partnership types pivot on three principal partnership evolution stages: (1) The philanthropic

stage, (2) the transactional stage, and (3) the integrative stage. The nature of cross-sector

partnerships is dynamic, and, consequently, a partnership may move from one stage to

another in response to the partnership evolvement (Austin 2000:71).

(1) The philanthropic stage is signified by a charitable cause, a donor and a recipient (Austin

2000:71). The purpose of this type of partnership is to extract resources, and “graciously issue

thank bot not bother the donor thereafter” (Austin 2000:71). Thus, interaction and

communication is minimal, and the resource exchange likewise. An example of such

partnership could be a corporation donating money to a non-profit organisation to support its

emergency aid operations in a war zone. Hence, the corporation is the donor, and the non-

profit organisation is the recipient constituting a one-way exchange relationship (Austin

2000:73). Aspects such as expectations and investment are typically low prioritised, and

participants rarely take time to define and outline such aspects to each other prior to the

collaboration (Austin 2000:73). As partnerships evolve, philanthropic partnerships may enter

into (2) the transactional stage. Yet, a partnership may also emerge as a transactional

partnership without having been philanthropic in character before that, and as such, the stages

do not necessarily account for an evolution. In a transactional partnership, the resource

exchange is targeted towards specific activities e.g. sponsorships or cause-related marketing

(Austin 2000:71). The overall belief shaping such partnership is that the collaboration ought to

aim at making a positive difference in society (Austin 2000:74). This is a mutually beneficial

partnership, as the benefit flow goes in both directions (Austin 2000:74), which is also referred


Page|13

to as reciprocal exchange (Austin 2000:75). Contrasting with philanthropic partnerships,

interaction is much higher and frequent in transactional partnerships, and the participants’

mission and values often overlap. The participants seek for specific value transactions,

wherefore this partnership type is often referred to as the commercial stage (Austin 2000:74).

(3) The integrative stage implies a collaboration similar to a fusion of the participants’ mission,

activities and people, thus representing an alliance and a maximum level of collaboration

(Austin 2000:71). With this partnership type, the participants’ cultures merge into a united

entity, which Austin (2000:75) further refers to as a mutual mission relationship. To illustrate

this type of partnership, Austin (200:75) exemplifies this with a specific cross-sector

partnership between Timberland and the non-profit organisation City Year, where the human

resource president of Timberland spent two days helping City Year with the development of

pay plans and labour policies without getting paid for it. Despite investing a lot of time and

money, she regarded this to be part of her job and a natural part of the collaboration. Thus,

this represents the mutual mission relationship, which is a characteristic feature of an

integrative partnership (Austin 2000:75).

Austin (2000) clearly expresses that none of the stages in The Collaboration Continuum are

better than others as each partnership relies on particular missions and strategies as well as

the specific amount of effort and resources set aside for the project (Austin 2000:72).

However, it is worth noting that Austin’s research (2000) dates back approximately 17 years,

and that some might argue that it is outdated. Nonetheless, the work of Austin (2000) provides

a decent and timeless framework to defining cross-sector partnerships on the comprehensive

level. Additionally, when exploring more recent literature on this subject, it is observed that

Byiers et al. (2015) employ similar notions to Austin (2000). In particular, Byiers et al. (2015)

also refer to the notion of philanthropic partnerships while applying the wider concept of

strategic partnerships to cover Austin’s (2000) two separate notions of transactional and

integrative partnerships (Byiers et al. 2015:18). Similar to Austin (2000), strategic partnerships

are regarded as highly time-consuming, and characterised by constant knowledge and

resource exchange in the pursue of a mutual mission (Byiers et al. 2015:18). Thus, this

concludes that The Collaboration Continuum (2000) is regarded a classical framework within

collaboration theory, and that it is still applied today.


Page|14

2.3.1.2 The partnership lifecycle In 2012, The Partnership Resource Centre (2012:2) developed the report “Cross-sector

partnership formation: What to consider before you start?” presenting four stages of the

partnership lifecycle: (1) Initiation/exploration, (2) Building, (3) Implementation, and (4)

Institutionalization/extinction ( figure 3). If an organisation or corporation identifies “an urgent

problem which they feel they cannot or should approach on their own” (The Partnership

Resource Centre 2012:2), they may want to initiate a cross-sector partnership. In such case,

they enter the first stage of “The partnership lifecycle” (1) Initiation/exploration, seeking (The

Partnership Resource Centre 2012:2). In this stage, the problem is defined and the search for

partners begins. In accordance with the problem statement, this study takes its point of

departure in this specific stage of cross-sector partnership development.

Figure 3: The partnership lifecycle Source: The Partnership Resource Centre 2012 The initiation stage is believed to involve the most important decision-making processes in a

cross-sector partnership. At this stage, motivational drivers are identified and partners are

selected. In spite of this, research on cross sector partnerships primarily focuses on the

implementation while ignoring the actual initiation stage of a collaboration (The Partnership

Resource Centre 2012). As mentioned, this study takes its point of departure in this particular

1.Initiation/explorati

on

2.Building

3.Implementation

4.Institutionalisation

/extinction


Page|15

stage of cross-sector partnerships. Consequently, the findings of this study will provide new

insights on this area that only limited research has touched upon so far.

2.3.2 Value creation in a cross-sector partnership Corporations and non-profit organisations carry different individual values (Elbers

2004:50), and establishing a partnership with fundamental different values can be

challenging. Austin (2000) presents The Collaboration Value Construct (CVC) as a tool to define how

values within a cross-sector partnership are defined, created, balanced and renewed during

the different stages of The Collaboration Continuum (section 2.3.1.1) by means of four

dimensions: (1) Value definition, (2) value creation, (3) value balance and (4) value renewal.

(Austin 2000:71).

The first three dimensions are elaborated in sections 2.3.2.1 – 2.3.2.3. Value renewal does not

refer to the initiation stage, and is thus not further assessed.

Again, it must be kept in mind that Austin’s (2000) work dates back approximately 17 years,

which emphasises the relevance of conducting further research on its applicability today.

Hopefully, the findings of this study will shed light on the different values in cross-sector

partnerships, and thereby assess the current applicability of Austin’s (2000) research.

2.3.2.1 Value definition Austin (2000:76) suggests that value definition (1) should be executed prior to an alliance as a

way to set forth the expectations and possible benefits of the collaboration. This entails the

outlining of each participant’s values and motivational drivers and co-developing the initiative

(Austin 2000:76). In line with this, as participants are expected to collaborate on the grounds of

a “joint concern about addressing a particular social problem” (Austin 2000:77), value

definition also implies the definition of a new and shared values different from the individual

values (Austin 2000:77-78).

2.3.2.2 Value creation Value creation (2) entails an on-going reflection on how the value is created, and what can be

done to strengthen this process (Austin 2000:78). Following Austin’s (2000) Collaboration


Page|16

Continuum (section 2.3.1.1), each partnership type represents a specific form of value

creation, as illustrated in table 2:

Table 2: Partnership typology and value creation

Partnership type

Value creation

Explanation

Philanthropic partnership

Generic resource transfer

Traditional exchange of

resources e.g. when a

corporation donates money to a

non-profit organisation, and the

non-profit organisation returns

with the feeling of doing

something good.

Transactional partnership

Core competencies exchange

Using the competencies of each

party to generate joint benefits

and shared value.

Integrative partnership

Joint value creation

When products and services

emerge from the combination of

each participants’ competencies

and resources. The value

generated cannot be generated

by one party alone.

Source: Austin (2000:78-79) 2.3.2.3. Value balance Austin (2000:79) posits that a balanced value exchange equals a stronger partnership. Value

balance occurs when “benefits flow in both directions and are deemed by the partners to be

acceptably commensurate in value” and “(..) each partner is actively seeking to find ways to

advance the other’s business” (Austin 2000:80).


Page|17

2.3.3 Motivation for entering into a cross-sector partnership Research by Austin (2000:77) and Pedersen and Pedersen (2013:8) suggests that participants

in a cross-sector partnership enter into collaboration with different motives, as they benefit

differently from the alliance. Often, corporations regard a cross-sector partnership as “a

straightforward way for companies to fulfil their social obligations”, whereas non-profit

organisations interpret it as an access to resources, skills and technical expertise of the

partner (Austin 2000:76; Bator and Stohl 2011:408; Pedersen and Pedersen 2013:8).

Bator and Stohl (2011:412) draw attention to the notion of structural holes as motivation for

entering into cross-sector collaboration. In response to the shift from asymmetrical

relationships in the early CSR generations to the more symmetrical and interactive relations in

third generation CSR collaborations, we now see increased interdependency. Non-profit

organisations have access to information and networks that corporations cannot access on

their own e.g. local populations and grassroots organisations. These resources, that only non-

profit organisations have access to, are defined as structural holes i.e. “(…) separate, non-

redundant sources of information within a macro-network that are not linked and thus, may

create a gap in an actor’s (individual or group or organization) informational resource network”

(Bator and Stohl 2011:412). Bator and Stohl (2011:412) explain that “the appearance of a

structural hole does not mean that two actors do not know each other: rather a hole is created

when people in one group are not connected to the activities of the other, and each group

operates and circulates within different information flows”. Hence, the non-profit organisation

links the corporation with new resources/new information/new networks e.g. a local

community. The work by Bator and Stohl (2011) is, however, somewhat one-way oriented, as

the notion of structural holes regards non-profit organisations as contributors to corporations

and not vice versa. Hence, literature lacks insight on whether corporations are also in position

to complete structural holes or not. That is, the possibility that corporations also provide non-

profit organisations with access to resources that the non-profit organisations would not be

able to find on their own. If this is the case, this could account for a force of attraction relevant

to the non-profit organisations’ selection of cross-sector partner.

2.3.3.1 The corporate motivation From the corporate standpoint, there has been a rise in stakeholder demands regarding

sustainability and the corporate involvement in societal issues (Pedersen and Pedersen


Page|18

2013:8; Tennyson et al. 2008:16; Vachani et al. 2009:446). Consequently, collaborating with

the public sector in order to provide solutions to societal problems is often regarded as a way

to improve the corporate reputation and CSR profile (Baur and Schmitz 2011:9; Branco and

Rodrígues 2007:9; Byiers et. al. 2015:2; Pedersen and Pedersen 2013:8; Peloza and

Falkenberg 2009:97), as it is commonly assumed that non-profit organisations are connected

with great trust (Byiers et al. 2015:2). Bator and Stohl (2011:409) refer to this as buying the

reputation. Additional corporate motivational drivers are “stabilisation in production area and

supply chain”, “gaining knowledge to improve products and target solutions” (Pedersen and

Pedersen 2013:9-10), and brand differentiation (Elbers 2004:45). Apart from that, literature

also highlights it as a motivational driver that a cross-sector partnership benefits the employer

brand (Selsky and Parker 2005:855): For instance, it might enhance the employer motivation

that the working place is involved with cross-sector collaboration for two reasons: First, it might

motivate the employees that the entire corporations has a mutual goal and, thus, a shared

value. Secondly, it is also possible that it motivates the employee to represent a corporation

that is engaged with social purposes and alike. Either way, the increased employer motivation

also entails an increased work effort, which is valuable to the corporation. Furthermore,

involvement in cross-sector partnerships might also attract new and potential employees as

they now associate the corporation with credibility and responsibility to society (Selsky and

Parker 2005:855).

2.3.3.2 The non-profit motivation From the view of the public sector, improved efficiency, funding opportunities and the

implementation of social and environmental solutions are typical drivers for collaborating with

the private sector (Byiers et. al. 2015:4; Pedersen and Pedersen 2013:8) as many non-profit

organisations find themselves “unable to achieve the mission working alone” (Tennyson et al.

2008:16). Moreover, cross-sector partnerships are a growing trend, indicating that non-profit

organisations engage with business to keep up with development and maintain a strong brand

position within the sector (Pedersen and Pedersen 2013:9).

2.3.3.3 Cross-sector cooperating with different motives As mentioned, research suggests that cross-sector participants enter into collaboration with

different motivational drivers. Yet, Pedersen and Pedersen (2013:8) argue that “having

different motives for partnerships is, in itself, not a problem as long as the partners are aware


Page|19

of the differences”. As such, they draw attention to the fact that entering partnerships with

different motives does not limit the success of the collaboration. What matters, however, is an

awareness of the different motives and expectations (Pedersen and Pedersen 2013:8).

Additionally, Elbers (2004:48) expresses the similar view that corporations and non-profit

organisation hold different values and missions on comprehensive and individual plan, and

furthermore states that this will always be the case with cross-sector partnerships.

Nonetheless, Elbers (2004:48) also argues that it is imperative to align values and missions

when it comes to the specific collaboration and its cause.

2.3.4 Success factors Pedersen and Pedersen (2013:13) present trust and consistency in partner goals as

prerequisites for a successful cross-sector partnership, and underline the significance to: “(..)

overcome differences in mission and culture, develop shared understandings, and encourage

a two-way open and honest communication” (Pedersen and Pedersen 2013:13). Additionally,

“clarity in purpose, alignment in mission, strategies and values, value creation for partners,

learning and

commitments” are also key factors for establishing a healthy cross-sector partnership

(Pedersen and Pedersen 2013:13). Austin’s (2000) notion of alliance enablers refers to four

identified factors, which have proven to facilitate the success of cross-sector partnerships

(Austin 2000:71):

1. Focused attention

2. Communication

3. Organisational system

4. Mutual expectations and accountability

Focused attention entails a high level of attention and involvement in the project throughout

each organisation (Austin 2000:85-86). Secondly, Austin (2000:86) proposes that

communication (2) in a cross-sector partnership should be effective, frequent, transferred via

multiple channels as well as both formal and informal (Wymer and Samu 2003:18) arguing that

effective communication fosters trust (Austin 2000:86). Furthermore, constructive criticism and

openness are also vital elements (Austin 2000:86). Again, is it important to involve the entire

organisation “so that the employees feel that by doing their job, they are helping to achieve


Page|20

some good” (Austin 2000:86). Third, developing an organisational system (3) helps delegating

roles and responsibility, and is argued to enhance alliance vitality (Austin 2000:87). Finally,

Austin (2000:87) reports that clarifying expectations, regarding deliverables, to the other

partner (4) increases the performance and generates greater shared value. In line with this,

Elbers (2004) proposes the following set of success factors supporting Austin’s (2000) alliance

enablers:

• Trust

• Senior management support

• The ability to meet performance expectations

• Clear goals

• Partner compatibility

• Shared decision making

• Transparency

(Elbers 2004:52-54)

2.3.4.1 Partnership drivers Austin (2000:71) identifies four elements that drive the force of cross-sector partnerships:

1. Strategy, mission and values alignment

2. Personal connection and relationships

3. Value generation and shared visioning

4. Continual learning

Austin (2000:82) discovers that developing strategy, mission and values alignment (1)

strengthens a cross-sector partnership as fighting for the same cause produces a stronger

collaboration. Moreover, he emphasises the importance of all relevant members of the

organisation/corporation agreeing on the initiative, as well as fitting the interests of the external

stakeholders of each party (Austin 2000:82). Austin (2000:71) also posits that establishing

personal connection and relationships (2) is vital for the success of the collaboration. The

emotional connection with the partner and social mission is what Austin (2000:82) defines as


Page|21

the fuel for a cross-sector partnership. In addition to this, “the mission connect is the

motivational driver, and the personal relationships are the glue that bind the organization

together” (Austin 2000:83). Thus, chemistry is also a key factor. Simply put; “You have to like

the people you’re dealing with” (Austin 2000:83). Likewise, Wymer and Samu (2003)

emphasise the importance of, in particular, management liking and respecting each other: “If

organizational leaders fail to establish supportive, respectful relational bonds, then the

organizational relationship is unlikely to flourish” (Wymer and Samu 2003:18). Finally,

involving as many people from both parties as possible, beyond the top management, will

create a greater personal tie and a feeling of accomplishing something as a unit. Additionally,

this also prevents issues that might occur if key individuals or project managers should leave

the organisation (Austin 2000:83).

Value generation and shared visioning (4) covers the assumption that participants must be

able to generate value for one another (Austin 2000:84). Furthermore, having a shared vision

is an indispensable factor and the key to developing collective strategies. The following quote

by a CEO from a corporation engaging in cross-sector partnerships further supports this

notion: “The better partnerships are the ones where they bring us in at the brainstorming

phase, rather when they have already decided exactly what they want to do and they’re just

confronting us with a final plan” (Austin 2000:84-85). Lastly, continual learning (4) is defined as

the on-going search, hunger and desire to learn and find new ways to optimise the

collaboration in order to generate as much value as possible (Austin 2000:85).

2.3.5 Alliance barriers Pedersen and Pedersen (2013:13) draw attention to the issue that existing literature tends to

over-romanticise the benefits, applicability, processes and results of cross-sector partnerships,

and subsequently addresses the need to explore potential pitfalls and barriers to the success

of cross-sector partnerships. First and foremost, Pedersen and Pedersen (2013:13) present

“the lack of goodwill and trust between NGOs and business (…) as the key barriers to

partnership establishment”. In addition to this, a cross-sector partnership implies a

dependency on one another, and “the deeper the alliance, the more exposed each partner is

to what happens to the other” (Austin 2000:78). For instance, if one participant behaves

unexpectedly or inappropriately, and inconsistently with what was agreed upon, it may


Page|22

damage the other participant’s reputation (Bator and Stohl 2011:408; Wymer and Samu

2003:7).

From the corporate view, a number of causes for conflict when collaborating with non-profit

organisations can also be identified e.g. “conflict of interest and strategic orientation”, “lack of

common expectations”, “lack of communication”, “limited project management, “lack of

understanding and recognising different roles”, “lack of knowledge on NGO culture –and vice

versa” and “lack of understanding of each other’s premises” (Pedersen and Pedersen

2013:14). Conversely, non-profit organisations argue that corporations rarely understand the

non-profit organisation’s mind-set and values, and also indicate that corporations collaborate

in the pursue of a better PR strategy rather than for the cause itself (Pedersen and Pedersen

2013:14). Simultaneously, loss of independence and “being perceived as giving up values and

goals” (Bator and Stohl 2011:408), is also considered a consequence for non-profit

organisations engaging in cross-sector collaborations. Baur and Schmitz (2011) refer to this as

Co-optation, and more specifically as “the loss of autonomy when engaging with corporate

partners” (Baur and Schmitz 2011:12). According to Bauer and Schmitz (2011:12), if a

collaboration becomes too imbalanced in terms of power, the non-profit organisation interests

may become aligned with the corporation’s interest, and the non-profit organisation faces the

risk of losing influence and status. Bator and Stohl (2011:407) argue that non-profit

organisations face more risks than benefits when engaging in cross-sector partnerships, and

further state that “there are fewer risks that corporations face, relative to NGOs, precisely

because the work done through the partnership is not directly related to the MNC’s

organizational goal (i.e. to turn a profit)”. To exemplify, a car manufacturer would engage with

a cross-sector partnership as a supplementary activity to the primary activity of producing cars.

On the contrary, a non-profit organisation engages with the cross-sector partnership as one of

its primary activities as the project is directly linked to the organisation’s main goal to help

people, improve the environment or alike. Thus, the car manufacturer faces fewer risks as the

collaboration is not directly linked to its car production and main source of income. Even

though both participants in a cross-sector partnership face a number of challenges and risks,

Bator and Stohl (2011:409) argue that the benefits of such collaboration typically outweigh the

costs. This statement does, however, appear to be somewhat generalising, given that the

experiences and outcomes of a cross-sector partnership presumably differ in the eyes of each

participant.


Page|23

2.3.6 Cultural differences Different sectors have different cultures. Thus, when two, or more, sectors join forces, cultural

differences will come into play (Elbers 2004:50). In fact, a study by Elbers (2004:50) reveals

the general assumption that cultural differences constitute a barrier to successful cross-sector

partnerships (Elbers 2004:50).

Within the corporate view, profit and increasing stakeholder returns are presumed to be the

main fields of interests (Elbers 2004:50), and corporations tend to prefer and rely on

quantitative and tangible results (Elbers 2004:50-51). Also, it is assumed that corporations “are

seen as operating on the opposite end of the continuum of concern of poverty” as opposed to

the mission of non-profit organisations (Elbers 2004:50).

Non-profit organisations work within the field of social change and improving human

conditions. Distinct from corporate activity results, non-profit organisations’ results as less

tangible and difficult to measure, and “in contrast to companies, they are not directly judged by

their performance” (Elbers 2004:51). Due to the fact that non-profit organisations’ results are

less tangible, corporations often regard non-profit organisations as “naive, unrealistic and less

effective” (Elbers 2005:50). Corporate culture is built upon the notion of measurable goals and

performance, and understanding a culture diverging from this can be challenging. Research by

Elbers (2004) primarily focuses on the implementation stage of cross-sector partnerships, and

how cultural differences affect this particular stage. Consequently, as this study addresses

cross-sector partnerships in respect to the initiation stage (section 2.3.1.2), cultural differences

will be assessed with regards to their impact on selecting and identifying a partner for a cross-

sector partnership. 2.3.7 Identifying and selecting a cross-sector partner According to The Partnership Lifecycle (section 2.3.1.2), the process of selecting a partner

takes place during the initiation stage (The Partnership Resource Centre 2012:2). A cross-

sector partnership can arise via two different routes: (1) The issue route and (2) The

opportunity route. The issue route is “(…) largely based on the extrinsic motivation of parties to

address an issue by forming a new alliance” (The Partnership Resource Centre 2012:4). With

this route, the project begins when the individual parties acknowledge the existence of a

complex societal issue, and the need to act upon it. Then, they separately define and analyse


Page|24

the issue. Based on external triggers, i.e. the complexity of the issue and the impossibility of

solving it one actor alone, they decide to address the issue. Finally, the potential partner

selection takes place. This is where the initial interaction between the parties happens (The

Partnership Resource Centre 2012:4). In contrast, the opportunity route is when a partnership

is formed by intrinsic motivation. This is where two, or more, organisations sense a

responsibility, and share an ambition to collaborate with each other on the basis of this

responsibility (The Partnership Resource Centre 2012:4). Additionally, research underlines

that cross-sector partnerships arise if there is “shared enthusiasm or personal connection

between the representatives of the organisation” (The Partnership Resource Centre 2012:5).

A study by Elbers (2004) reveals that many non-profit organisations take point of departure in

a number of criteria when looking for a match: (1) The potential to add value, (2) congruency

of mission, strategy and values, (3) commitment, and (4), reputation (Elbers 2004:48-49).

However, Elbers (2004:48) states that the criteria are rather vague and generalising as they

ignore the many nuances of cross-sector partnerships. Overall, his advice goes as follows: “If

an NGDO2 is interested in partnering, it must decide whether or not the advantage created by

collaboration is worth the required investment” (Elbers 2004:48). Elbers (2004:50) further

presents a number of reasons for non-profit organisations rejecting partnership offers

including: “Had a ‘tainted image’”, “had a vision which differed too much with the NGDO’s

image” and “was perceived as trying to abuse the NGDO’s image”. Nonetheless, the work of

Elbers (2004) merely reflects the issue of selecting a partner from the perspective of non-profit

organisations, and ignores the preferences of corporations.

In conclusion, we will still need more research in order to understand the processes of

identifying and selecting cross-sector partners as this field is underexplored. Already in the

beginning of this millennium, Austin (2000) proposed that “the social purpose alliance

marketplace” was underdeveloped and inefficient, indicating that organisations and

corporations were not adequately equipped for seeking out collaboration partners. Wymer and

Samu (2003:17-18) also briefly touch upon the process of locating a partner. While bearing in

mind that their research was conducted back in 2003, “going through one’s social networks” is

presented as the most common, and practically only, method for identifying and selecting a

cross-sector partner (Wymer and Samu 2003:17). Thus, only limited research has explored

2NGDOisanabbreviationof”Non-GovernmentalDevelopmentOrganisation”


Page|25

this particular field (Austin 2000:88). The majority of research investigates typical motivational

drivers (Austin 2000; Cooke 2000; Pedersen and Pedersen 2013), benefits and risks (Bator

and Stohl 2011) and partnership typology (Austin 2005; Byiers et al. 2015). Only limited

research has touched upon the issue of how non-profit organisations and corporations,

respectively, attract partners for cross-sector partnerships, and which motivational drivers

typically come into play during this phase. This call for further research is also expressed by

Byiers et al. (2015:42) who state that only limited literature explores the approaches to attract

and select cross-sector partners, and further emphasise the importance to gain more

knowledge on this area. This thesis thus seeks to uncover this question by exploring the

approaches to attracting and identifying a cross-sector partner from the aspects of five

corporations and nine non-profit organisations.


Page|26

3.0

METHODOLOGY


Page|27

3.0 METHODOLOGY This section provides an account of the methodology applied in this study and the related

reflections. Figure 4 offers an overview of the structure in this section.

Figure 4: Overview of methodology section

Source: Own making

3.1 The design of this research study According to Grix (2002), a research study is designed by five building blocks, which together

constitute a sequential framework for a research process (Grix 2002:175). Ontology (1) refers

to the world view from which a researcher conducts research and presents theories (Grix

2002:177). Individuals perceive social reality differently (Grix 2002:179), and the way a

researcher perceives the world has implications for the research study as it influences and

3.8Thematicanalysis

3.7Transcribing

3.6Ethical considerations,anonymityandconfidentiality

3.5Interviewguides

3.4Interviewstructure

3.3Threetypesof interviews

3.2Thedatacollectionprocess

3.1Thedesignofthisresearchstudy


Page|28

decides choice of methods, analysis and the discussion and conclusion itself. Thus, ontology

constitutes the fundamental basis for initiating a research project (Grix 2002:177).

Epistemology (2) signifies how the researcher gathers his or her knowledge in the world view

stated by the ontological position (Grix 2002:177). Third, Methodology (3) represents the

assessment of methodological approach and its potential limitations asking oneself: “How can

we go about acquiring that knowledge?” (Grix 2002:180) whereas methods (4) refers to the

specific procedures applied during the data collection (Grix 2002:179). Finally, sources (5)

represents the data undergoing analysis (Grix 2000:180). Table 3 provides an overview of the

research design of this study, and is further elaborated in the following sections. Table 3: The design of this research study

Ontological position

Epistemological position

Methodology Methods Sources

Social

constructionism

(section 3.1.1)

Interpretivism

(section 3.1.2)

Qualitative

interviewing

(section 3.1.3)

Semi-structured

interviews

(section 3.1.4)

Interview

transcripts

(section 3.7)

Source: Grix 2002

3.1.1 Social constructionism In this study, social constructionism accounts for the ontological position framing the entire

study as all methodology, analysis and discussion is conducted from a social constructionist

perspective (Grix 2002:179). According to Burr (2015:2), there is no fixed definition of social

constructionism apart from the very simple assumption that knowledge is socially constructed.

Alternatively, an approach can be defined social constructionist if it identifies with one of the

four key assumptions as follows (Burr 2015:2): The first assumption says that if an approach

critically challenges our existing knowledge and understanding of the world, it can be defined

as a social constructionist approach (Burr 2015:2). Social constructionism is a paradigm that

confronts the idea of knowledge as a product of “(…) objective, unbiased observations of the

world” (Burr 2015:2), constituting one of the cornerstones within the epistemological positions

empiricism and positivism (Burr 2015:2). That is to say, social constructionism encourages us

to depart from bound perceptions and categorisations, rethink and challenge them as a way to


Page|29

produce new understandings based on context and subjectivity (Burr 2015:2-3; Galbin

2014:82; Gerger 1997:724). In essence, there is no such thing as a universal truth within

social constructionism as “constructionists view knowledge and truth as created, not

discovered by the mind” (Walker 2015:37). The second assumption is that our knowledge and

understandings of the world are shaped by history and culture entailing that our definition of

concepts depends on the historical and cultural context we are part of (Burr 2015:3-4). In line

with this, the third assumption dictates that knowledge is shaped by the social processes we

engage in (Burr 2015:2-3; Walker 2015:37). Lastly, the fourth key assumption is that social

action is determined by our knowledge and world view (Burr 2015:5). That is; social

constructionism implies that the knowledge we hold and the actions we perform are

constructed by our individual world views, and that a specific world view entails knowledge and

behaviour that would have been different, or even non-existent, within a different world view

(Burr 2015:5; Galbin 2014:82). In summation, the social constructionist mind looks at the world

as a web of discourses i.e. “(…) a set of meaning, metaphors, representations, images,

stories, statements and so on that in some way together produce a particular version of

events” (Burr 2015:75). In other words, this ontological paradigm posits our knowledge as a

product of social discourses (Burr 2015:91; Walker 2015:38).

This study is conducted from a social constructionist perspective owing to the fact that it

explores the motivation and preferences that come into play when initiating a cross-sector

partnership on the assumption that the motivational drivers are constructs of the participants’

individual world views (Burr 2015:5; Galbin 2014:82). Thus, the analysis is performed on the

supposition that cross-sector partnerships are products of different discourses (Burr 2015:91;

Galbin 2014:84; Walker 2015:38), and that none of the practices reflect a best approach or a

truth as they are founded on the individual, and not universal, perceptions of reality (Galbin

2014:84; Gergen 1997:724; Walker 2015:37). In agreement with this, this study explores the

motivational drivers for initiating a cross-sector partnership within a number of different

discourses. First, the study compares the motivational drivers and preferences within the two

overall discourses: Corporations and non-profit organisations. As Elbers (2004:50-51) states,

corporations and non-profit organisations hold different cultures, and thus represent two

different discourses (Burr 2015:91; Galbin 2014:84; Walker 2015:38). Likewise, the

corporations work within different sectors, and the non-profit organisations promote different

key issues and their size and scope differ as well. Therefore, this study acknowledges that the

informants hold different world views, and that none of these reflect best practice or a definitive


Page|30

truth (Galbin 2014:84; Gergen 1997:724; Walker 2015:37). As indicated, operating within the

social constructionist paradigm has certain implications for a study, and simultaneously, it

generates some theoretical and methodological issues to reflect upon (Burr 2015:171). Owing

to the liberty of interpretation, researchers within social constructivism are in the position to

make powerful subjective claims that are not based upon facts or measurable evidence (Burr

2015:173). For instance, a researcher might conclude a study on gender discrimination in the

work place stating that people regard this issue to be less relevant than it was ten years ago.

Thus, the conclusion is not established on measurable evidence but more or less relies the

researcher’s interpretation of the given issue. Burr (2015:177) also states that, within social

constructionism, there is no true definition of the world, and individuals understand reality in

different and contrasting ways. Researchers affiliated with other ontological positions, e.g.

foundationalists who operate more quantitavely, might disagree with the methods and findings

from a social constructionist study, and conduct the research in a different manner while

investigating the exact same issue (Grix 2005:182). In response to the high level of subjectivity

and absence of quantifiable data, justifying research within social constructionism is often

complicated because reliability and validity cannot be numerically measured. Yet, Burr

(2015:178) maintains that providing an in-depth description of the analysis and methodology is

conducive to legitimising validity (Burr 2015:178). In line with this, Walker (2015:38) posits that researchers within social constructionism “(…) set out to have their findings accepted by

presenting a convincing argument, rather than arguing that their results are definitive”.

3.1.2 Interpretivism Interpretivism constitutes the epistemological position in this study. From this position, the

researcher looks beyond the surface, and acknowledges that people are different, and that

social actions are executed differently and with different motives (Grix 2002:178). Research

within this position is conducted with the objective of subjectively interpreting the findings

consistent with the social constructionist assumption that knowledge and actions are

determined by social settings and discourses (Burr 2015:3.4). Simultaneously, Shin

(2014:146) defines interpretivism as an approach seeking to understand the different realities

and experiences of individuals from their particular point of view. Accordingly, this study seeks

to explore and interpret the early motivations and preferences of non-profit organisations and

corporations, respectively, for initiating a cross-sector partnership acknowledging that the


Page|31

findings are constructed by individual experiences, discourses and contexts (Burr 2015:2-3;

Walker 2015:37).

3.1.3. Qualitative interviewing In this study, qualitative interviewing is applied as the tool to in-depth analyse the approaches

to cross-sector partnerships. Bailey (1994:518) defines qualitative research as “nonnumerical

analysis; generally, analysis limited to nominal variables (for example race, sex, religion)

rather than ordinal variables or interval variables (…)”, which fits the objective of this study.

This study does not seek to analyse quantifiable data or test any hypotheses (Golafshani

2002:597; Kvale and Brinkmann 2009:308). Rather, it sets out to investigate and interpret the

phenomena of motivational drivers in different contexts of the initiation of a cross-sector

partnership (Daymon and Holloway 2011:8; Vaismoradi et al. 2013:398). Additionally, Bailey

(1994:34) underlines that “in fact, some sociologists feel that quantitative explanations are

artificial and tend to dehumanize, or at least oversimplify, social phenomena”, which further

supports the decision to conduct qualitative research. This study seeks to explore cross-

sector partnerships as a phenomenon, and the multiple meanings that are linked to this

(Graneheim and Lundman 2004:106).

3.1.3.1 Reliability and validity within qualitative research Golafshani (2003:597) posits that the concepts of reliability and validity are “rooted in the

positivist perspective” indicating that they are far less considered within qualitative research

than quantitative research. Bailey (1994:519) defines reliability as “the consistency of a

measure”, and Kvale and Brinkmann (2009:327) define validity as “the strength and

soundness of a statement; in social sciences validity usually means whether a method

investigates what it purports to investigate”. Looking at Bailey’s (1994:519) definition of

reliability, this clearly reflects Golafshani’s (2003:597) notion of reliability as a quantitative

concept with measure (Bailey 1994:519) being the quantitative characteristic (Golafshani

2003:597; Kvale and Brinkmann 2009:308). Consequently, Golafshani (2003:601-602)

attempts to redefine reliability and validity in the context of qualitative research. Instead of

reviewing the “the consistency of a measure” (Bailey 1994:327), Golafshani (2003:601)

suggests that the examination of trustworthiness is essential to enhance the reliability within


Page|32

qualitative research. Golafshani (2003:602) posits that even though many researchers ignore

the notion of validity within qualitative research, there is still a need for a “some kind of

qualifying check of measure of their research”. Consequently, Golafshani (2003:603-604)

redefines the terms of reliability and validity in the social constructionist perspective (section

3.1.1), among other things, arguing that “(…) to acquire valid and reliable multiple and diverse

realities, multiple methods of searching or gathering data are in order”. Mixed methods refers

to the approach of combining multiple quantitative and qualitative methods within one study.

Golafshani (2003:599) emphasises the usefulness of mixed methods within qualitative

research to enhance validity and reliability. From a constructionist perspective, combining

multiple data collection methods facilitates the exploration of different world views in a

qualitative study (Golafshani 2003:604). This study does not use mixed methods in its

traditional sense as it does not utilise both qualitative and quantitative methods. Nonetheless,

the study applies different versions of the same qualitative method as the interviews are

conducted differently in terms of medium, duration and elaboration (section 3.3). Thus, it could

be argued that this accounts for an alternative type of multiple methods. That is, employing

several qualitative methods or quantitative methods within one study (Tashakkori and Teddlie

2002:190). Furthermore, as this study applies different versions of the same method, it could

also be argued that this correlates with Creswell and Miller’s (2000:126-127) concept of

triangulation across data sources i.e. data assessment variation.

Conducting the semi-structured interview differently in terms of medium, duration and

elaboration coheres with the social constructionist stance that knowledge and the individual

world view is created by context (Burr 2015:2-3). In other words, this approach enables the

exploration of cross-sector partnerships within different contexts. Regarding the medium,

informant C1 specifically requested a face-to-face interview instead of a telephone interview,

which further differentiates this context from the telephone interviews. The unsolicited request

to arrange a physical meeting reflects a personal preference but could also indicate a

particular interest in the subject matter. In such case, the informant would be more motivated

to give the interview, and might have been more well-prepared compared to other informants.

In brief, the telephone interviews and the face-to-face interview represent two different

contexts subject to analysis (Burr 2015:91; Walker 2015:38). This also means that the

responses provided during the telephone interviews might have been different if the interviews

were conducted face-to-face and vice versa. Having said that, conducting both telephone- and

face-to-face interviews facilitates an assessment of the research issue within different

contexts. This is closely related with the social constructionist presumption that using multiple


Page|33

methods and sources, promotes the acquisition of valid and reliable knowledge from multiple

realities (Golafshani 2003:603-604). Linking this to the notion of triangulation within qualitative

research, Creswell and Miller (2000:126) define this as “(…) a validity procedure where

researchers search for convergence among multiple and different sources of information to

form themes or categories in a study”, and argue that such approach enhances validity as it

generates “multiple forms of evidence” (Creswell and Miller 2000:127). This study employs

different sources by collecting data from both corporations and non-profit organisations, as

well as all sources within these categories differ in terms of line of activity and key issues.

Consequently, this study applies different sources and versions of the qualitative interview with

the purpose of providing evidence enhancing the validity and reliability of the data collected

from the multiple realities assessed in the interviews (Creswell and Miller 2000:125-126;

Golafshani 2003:603-604).

3.1.4 The semi-structured interview Interviewing is a qualitative method as its purpose is to collect data, and subsequently

understand and interpret the data in relation to the phenomena that is being investigated

(Daymon and Holloway 2011: 220; Kvale and Brinkmann 2009:27). Kvale and Brinkmann

(2009) distinguish between three types of interviews: (1) The journalistic interview, (2) The

therapeutic interview, and (3) The research interview. For this study, the latter has been

designated as the most convenient method for data collection given that the purpose of a

qualitative research interview is to produce knowledge (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009:47).

The views and experiences of the informants are explored in the search for identifying,

describing and understanding the connection between these and the phenomena being

scrutinised. (Daymon and Holloway 2011:222). An alternative approach such as a

questionnaire could also have been applied but would have generated more superficial

data as questionnaires do not provide the opportunity for elaboration (Bailey 1994:174).

The interview is a very flexible approach as that the interviewer is in the position to

interpret and control the process if, for instance, a particular question needs to be

repeated or elaborated (Bailey 1994:174; Daymon and Holloway 2011:221). In contrast to

fixed questionnaries or structured interviews, the semi-structured interview entails much

more spontaneity (Turner 2010:756), eventually providing the interviewer with more


Page|34

informative, and perhaps, more sincere responses (Bailey 1994:174). Lastly it should be

mentioned that conducting an interview study produces a smaller sample compared to the

questionnaires. However, the response rates in an interview study are usually better given

that people “(…) who are unwilling to expend their energy to write out their answers may

be glad to talk” (Bailey 1994:174).

Interviews differ according to the degree of structure (Bailey 1994:188; Daymon and

Holloway 2011:224). This interview study is semi-structured meaning that it is shaped as

a structured conversation with a specific purpose (Daymon and Holloway 2011:225; Kvale

and Brinkmann 2009:3). As such, there is not one-size-fits- all template for a research

interview given its dependency on context. Below is a set of characteristics of the semi-

structured research interview (Daymon and Holloway 2011; Kvale and Brinkmann 2009):

• A descriptive method o Seeking to collect open and nuanced descriptions of the perceptions, views and

experiences (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009:28).

• Limited rules and methodological conventions o Nor an everyday conversation neither a questionnaire. Similar to human

conversations and dependent on the context. Clarifying answers with

elaborating questions (Daymon and Holloway 2011:221; Kvale and Brinkmann

2009:31).

• The interview guide o The interview is guided, but not controlled, by an interview guide with themes

and overall questions (Daymon and Holloway 2011:225; Kvale and Brinkmann

2009:130). 3.1.4.1 The seven stages of the semi-structured interview

This interview study was unfolded through the following seven stages as proposed by

Kvale and Brinkmann (2009:102) and illustrated with table 4.


Page|35

Table 4: The seven stages of the semi-structured interview

Stage 1: Thematising

Brainstorming on themes that needed to

be addressed in order to assess the

problem statement

Stage 2: Design

o Designing the overall structure and

approach of the three interview types

(section 3.3)

o Determining the level of confidentiality

and the issue of informant consent.

o Identifying informants and requesting

an interview (section 3.2.1 and 3.2.2)

o Producing the interview guide

(section 3.5)

Stage 3: Interview

Conducting the interviews and collecting

data

Stage 4: Transcribing

Transcribing the interviews (section 3.7)

Stage 5: Analysis

Performing a thematic analysis (section 3.8)

Stage 6: Verification

Determining the level of generalisability,

reliability and validity

Stage 7: Reporting

Reporting the findings and applied methods

in the analysis and discussion (section 4.0

and 5.0)

Source: Kvale and Brinkmann (2009:105)


Page|36

3.2 The data collection process To collect the data, I first identified a number of suitable informants, and subsequently e-

mailed them a request to be interviewed. Resultingly, nine non-profit organisations and five

corporations agreed to participate. Approximately a week prior to this date, the informants

received an interview guide (section 3.5) as an optional tool to prepare for the interview. After

the interview was conducted, each informant received an e-mail thanking for their time and

summing up the main practical matters regarding the use of their answers, the issue of

anonymity etc. (section 3.6). Figure 5 outlines the overall interview process from preparing to

finalising. Section 3.2.1 elaborates on the process of requesting interviews, and section 3.2.2

gives a brief account of the final informants.

Figure 5: The data collection process

Source: Own making

3.2.1. Requesting an interview 54 potential informants were identified for this study. I initiated the process of requesting an

interview by locating the e-mail addresses of each potential informants. All e-mail addresses

were public accessible facilitating unsolicited contact. Subsequently, two standard e-mails

were formulated: One for non-profit organisations and one for corporations (cf. appendix 1).

The e-mails were written in Danish as all organisations/corporations had headquarters within

borders while operating on international level. Hence, the receivers were not necessarily

English-speaking, and they may have found it peculiar to communicate in English when both

1.Identifyingpotentialinformants

2.Requesting aninterview(e-mail)

3.Settingdateandtime(e-mail)

4.Providingtheinformantswithinterviewguide

(e-mail)

5.Conductinginterviews

6.Thankingtheinformants(e-mail)

7.Transcribing


Page|37

sender and receiver were Danish-speaking. As a first inquiry equals a first impression, the e-

mails were produced with the intention of appearing informative and clearly formulated.

With reference to the sequence of information, the e-mails were structured as following:

1. Presentation of interviewer

2. Presentation of research area + request for interview

3. Practical matters regarding medium and duration

4. Invitation to contact

The first step in the e-mail (1) Presentation of interviewer, indicated my name and education.

With (2) Presentation of research area + request for interview, the research focus was

presented, and it was emphasised that the interview questions would not refer to any specific

partnerships. This was a means to establish trust and, if desired, confidentiality, as well as to

avoid the risk of rejects if the potential informant did not have insight in all cross-sector

partnership within the organisation/corporation. (3) Practical matters regarding medium and

duration was formulated as following: “The interview is expected to last X3 minutes, and will be

conducted via telephone, Skype or a personal meeting. That is completely up to you” 4. As

illustrated, the approximate duration was indicated as a means to make the request as specific

as possible, and the receivers were given the choice of selecting the medium as a way to

provide more flexibility.

Lastly, (4) invitation to contact semantically emphasised that their willingness to participate

would be of great help to the study: “If you would like to help me forward with this study, you

can contact me via the above mentioned contact information. I hope to get a positive reply”

(appendix 1)5. Even though this study is not a fundraising project, it could be argued that the

following statement by Goering et al. (2011:228) also applies to the production of an e-mail

requesting an interview: “Letters utilising credibility appeals and letters written at a high level of

readability produce the highest donations”. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines a

fundraiser as: “A person who seeks financial support for a cause or an organization” (Crowther

1995:480). The objective of writing this e-mail was to request an interview, and thereby receive

help for free. In contrast to the definition of fundraising (Crowther 1995:480), the request in this

3Xrepresentsthedurationasthisdifferedaccordingtointerviewtype4ThisquotehasbeentranslatedfromtheoriginalDanishversionintoEnglish(cf.appendix1)5ThisquotehasbeentranslatedfromtheoriginalDanishversionintoEnglish(cf.appendix1)


Page|38

e-mail does not concern financial resources. Instead, the e-mail is a request for the time and

resources of the receivers.

3.2.2 The final informants In response, nine non-profit organisations and five corporations agreed to be interviewed. As

per agreement with the informants, all names have been anonymised in the analysis and

discussion as these sections are open to the public. For that reason, all informants go under

the denominations as presented in table 5.

Table 5: Denominations of informants (2)6

Non-profit organisations

Corporations

NP1 C1

NP2 C2

NP3 C3

NP4 C4

NP5 C5

NP6

NP7

NP8

NP9

Source: Own making

It should be mentioned that I had peripheral network connections NP9 and C5 prior to this

study. As a consequence, the interaction with NP9 and C5 were carried out differently (cf.

figure 6 and 7). This affiliation will be further assessed in section 3.6.3.

6Thesametableappearsastable1intheintroduction(section1.0)butgoesbythedenominationtable5inthissectiontomaintainacoherentstructureinthesequenceoftables.


Page|39

Figure 6: Establishing contact with NP9

Source: Own making

Figure 7: Establishing contact with C5

Source: Own making

1.Contactingnetworkconnection viae-mail

2.Meetingwith networkconnection

3.Receivingcontactinformationoninformant

4.Settinguptheinterviewviae-mailandtelephone

1.Contactingnetworkconnection viae-mail

2.Receiving contactinformationoninformant

3.Settingup theinterviewviae-mail


Page|40

3.2.2.1 The participating non-profit organisations (NP1-NP9) The nine non-profit organisations all operate within different fields and are of different sizes.

Fields of activities include human rights, emergency aid, political change, agriculture, climate

change, disease prevention, animal welfare and protection and prevention of poverty and

crisis (cf. appendix 2). All non-profit organisations operate on international basis to different

extents. For the sake of anonymity and confidentiality, no further description on the non-profit

organisations appear in the public version of this study.

3.2.2.2 The participating corporations (C1-C5) The five corporations also represent different sizes, and operate within various lines of

activities including consumer goods, transport and energy, construction materials, home

interior and confectionery (cf. appendix 2). Similar to the non-profit organisations, no further

description on the participating corporations is included in the public version of the study.

3.3 Three types of interviews Three different types of interviews were conducted. All were semi-structured yet different with

respect to duration and medium. The telephone was, however, selected as the primary

medium (section 3.3.5.1). The interviews with C1-C5 constitutes the first type of interview, and

is further accounted for in section 3.3.1. Regarding the non-profit organisations, two different

kinds of interviews were conducted. The interview guide for NP1-NP8 took point of departure

in a 10-15-minute-long interview whereas the interview guide for NP9 was produced for a 30-

minute-long interview. The reason for conducting a 30-minute long interview with NP9 was that

this particular organisation constitutes a highly representative example regarding size and field

of activities, and as such, it depicts the ideal image of a non-profit organisation relevant to this

study. Thus, NP9 represents the main data source for non-profit organisations while NP1-NP8,

who are involved in a number of different niches, act as secondary data sources to obtain a

data set as representable as possible. Combining the main source (NP9) with a number of

different-sized niches (NP1-NP8) focusing on more specific key issues, is expected to obtain a

data set as representable as possible as the phenomenon is explored within a variety of

different contexts illustrating the diverse constructs of a cross-sector partnership.

Regarding the order of the interviews, the interviews with NP1-NP8 were conducted first with

the objective of obtaining a bigger picture of the phenomenon explored, and the interview with


Page|41

NP9 was conducted in the end with the purpose of going into depth and detail. The

development of the interview guides is accounted for in section 3.5.

3.3.1 Interviews with C1-C5 The interviews with C1-C5 were conducted with the expectation of a 30-minute-long duration.

As reflected in table 6 below, the duration did, however, vary as a consequence of the

individual contexts. Some informants were simply not as talkative as others, some were more

talkative than others, and some were in a rush for a meeting afterwards. All interviews were

conducted via telephone except the interview with C1 as this informant preferred to arrange a

physical meeting instead.

Table 6: Interviews with C1-C5

CORPORATION MEDIUM DURATION IN MINUTES C1 In-person 42.00 C2 Telephone 15.06 C3 Telephone 33.56 C4 Telephone 21.00 C5 Telephone 23.50

Source: Own making 3.3.2 Interviews with NP1-NP8 The interview guides for non-profit organisation NP1-NP8 were developed with point of

departure in a duration of 10-15 minutes. As table 8 demonstrates, the duration did, however,

vary a lot similar to the case of the interviews with corporations. All of the interviews were

conducted via telephone.

Table 7: Interviews with NP1-NP8 NON-PROFIT ORGANISATION

MEDIUM DURATION IN MINUTES

NP1 Telephone 19.32 NP2 Telephone 10.25 NP3 Telephone 08.41 NP4 Telephone 26.49 NP5 Telephone 16.34 NP6 Telephone 09.33 NP7 Telephone 11.36


Page|42

NP8 Telephone 22.38 Source: Own making 3.3.2 Interview with NP9 The interview with NP9 was the concluding interview, and the interview guide was produced

as a 30-minute-long interview. This interview was also conducted via telephone.

Table 8: Interview with NP9 NON-PROFIT ORGANISATION

MEDIUM DURATION IN MINUTES

NP9 Telephone 33.55

Source: Own making

3.3.1 Assessing the quality of telephone interviews The telephone was selected as the primary medium given the need for a flexible method, as

setting up face-to-face interviews with all informants would require more time and resources

than available for this study. As mentioned, the telephone interview offers a very flexible

approach (Cachia and Millward 2011:271) but, as with all methods, it carries some limitations

to reflect upon as well.

In accordance with Novick (2008:1), telephone interviews “(…) are often depicted as a less

attractive alternative to face-to-face interviewing”, as well as telephone interview as a method

typically belongs to the field of quantitative research (Cachia and Millward 2011:265; Novick

2008:1). Bailey (1994:174) and Novick (2008:1) draw attention to the issue of data loss as a

consequence of the absence of visual cues. As such, an advantages with face-to-face

interviews is that “the interviewer is present to observe nonverbal behavior and to assess the

validity of the respondent’s answers” (Bailey 1994:174), but this is simply not possible when

conducting a telephone interview. Novick (2008:6) refers to this issue as “loss of nonverbal

data” but posits that “(…) these data may not always be essential or helpful, as nonverbal

behaviour can easily be misinterpreted”. Another issue is the quality of the responses. In this

respect, Cachia and Millward (2011:270) refer to an empirical study by Sturges and Hanrahan

(2004) comparing the telephone interview with a face-to-face interview, consequently revealing


Page|43

that “the difference in the method of interviewing did not affect the responses, both in the

length of transcripts and in the type and depth of responses”. Bailey (1994) presents a

number of advantages supporting the conduct of telephone interviews including the argument

that “(…) you eliminate some of the bias which may be caused by visual characteristics of

interviewers” (Bailey 1994:197). In face-to-face interviews, the responses might be affected by

the informants’ attitudes towards the interviewer’s appearances, social class, age etc. (Bailey

1994:197). This risk is, however, limited in the context of telephone interviews. With physical

interviews comes the consequence of inconvenience as “(…) the respondents may give

answers in an interview situation that are less than his or her best effort merely because the

interviewer arrives when the baby was crying, the dog was barking, dinner was burning, and

the respondent needed to go to the bathroom” (Bailey 1994:175). This is a much smaller risk

with telephone interviews as they are easier to postpone if necessary (Bailey 1994:175;

Cachia and Millward 2011:271). In this study, five of the interviews (NP4, NP7, C3, C4 and C5)

were postponed, either a couple of days or hours, due to sudden changes in the informants’

time schedules. This did not cause any inconvenience or major changes in the study. If,

however, the interviews were to be physically conducted, rescheduling five interviews would

have been far more complicated (Bailey 1994:175; Cachia and Millward 2011:271). Similarly,

the telephone interview is a more effective method than the face-to-face interview as it does

not require any physical transportation (Bailey 1994:197; Novick 2008:1), and because it can

“provide access to participants who are otherwise hard to make contact with due to work

commitments” (Cachia and Millward 2011:270). Finally, conducting a telephone interview

increases the level of anonymity given that the informant typically feels less exposed in

contrast to a physical interview (Bailey 1004:198). In agreement with this, Novick (2008:8)

argues that “in fact, telephones may allow respondents to disclose sensitive information more

freely”.

3.4 Interview structure All three types of interviews were based on the same overall structure and three building

blocks as manifested by Kvale and Brinkmann (2009): (1) Briefing, (2) the interview body, and

(3) debriefing. These are accounted for next.


Page|44

3.4.1 Briefing Briefing accounts for the beginning and introductory part of an interview, and this is typically

the stage where the interviewer presents the purpose of the interview (Kvale and Brinkmann

2009:128). Turner (2010:757) refers to this stage as “Preparation for the Interview”, and further

suggests that the interviewer must “address terms of confidentiality”, “explain the format of the

interview, “indicate how long the interview usually takes” and “ask if they have any questions

before you both get started with the interview” (McNamara 2009 in Turner 2010:757).

Table 9 demonstrates the information provided during the briefing in this study.

Table 9: Briefing

Step 1 Thanking the informant for participating

Step 2 Notifying about sound recording, and requesting approval of

this

Step 3 Presenting interviewer’s education and university

Step 4 Introducing subject and focus

Step 5 Explaining the utilisation of answers

Step 6 Stating the accessibility of the study and level of anonymity

Step 7 Notifying about approximate duration

Step 8 Asking about potential doubts or questions

Source: Kvale and Brinkmann (2009:128); Turner (2010:757)

3.4.2 The implementation of the interview The implementation of the interview is where the interviewer asks questions, and the informant

provides answers (Daymon and Holloway 2011:225; Turner 2010:259). With reference to the

communicative situation, it was imperative to create a safe forum allowing for the informant to

speak freely (Turner 2010:757). Hence, appearing as an active listener was deemed important

for the informants to feel respected (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009:129).


Page|45

3.4.3 Debriefing The debriefing accounts for the closure of the interview (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009:129).

Kvale and Brinkmann (2009:129) report that a proper debriefing reduces the risk of the

informant feeling insecure, confused or even exposed after an interview. Consequently, all

interviews were concluded with a debriefing as follows:

Table 10: Debriefing

Step 1 Indicating that the interview is over

Step 2 Requesting additional thoughts, doubts or questions

Encouraging to contact interviewer if matters arise

Step 3 Thanking for the participation

Source: Kvale and Brinkmann (2009:129)

3.5 Interview guides As a consequence of working with three types of interviews, three different interview guides

were also produced. Given the fact that all informants were primarily Danish-speaking, the

interview guides are in Danish, and the interviews were then also conducted in Danish. The

fact that the corporations/organisations are involved in international affairs does not assure

that the informants are proficient or confident English-speaking. Apart from that,

communicating in English would feel unnatural in an interview with two primarily Danish-

speaking parties. The interview guides are attached as appendix 3 (C1-C5), appendix 4 (NP1-

NP8) and appendix 5 (NP9). Notice that the appendices are not publicly available.

The interview guides were produced with point of departure in Daymon and Holloway (2011)

and Kvale and Brinkmann’s (2009) notions of the semi-structured interview framework and

categorisation of questions. The interview guides were meant as helping tools rather than fixed

instructions, and the indicated themes and questions were facultative rather than compulsory.

Thus, not all themes and questions were covered in all interviews due to different contexts and

progresses. This approach enabled greater spontaneity and the possibility of exploring striking

and interesting views during the interviews (Bailey 1994:174).


Page|46

As indicated, the interview guide for NP1-NP8 was produced for a 10-15-minute-long interview

whereas the interview with NP9 was intended to last 30 minutes given its role as the primary

data source for non-profit organisations (section 3.3). The interview guide for NP1-NP8 covers

the overall themes related to the problem statement whereas the interview guide for NP9 goes

into depth and explores more specific themes such as cultural differences and evaluation of

cross-sector partnerships. Regarding the timing of production, I first developed the interview

guide for NP1-NP8 together with a draft for the NP9 interview guide. Along with the NP1-NP8

interviews, the NP9 guide was simultaneously adapted and specified as additional thoughts to

pursue came to mind. 3.5.1 Interview questions In this study, (1) introductory questions, (2) follow-up questions, (3) probing questions, (4)

direct questions, (5) structuring questions and (6) interpreting questions were applied (Kvale

and Brinkmann 2009:135). Overall, the questions were formulated with the purpose of being

descriptive as a means to provoke more spontaneous answers. Simultaneously, Turner’s

(2010:758) advice on using open-ended questions, allowing the informants to reflect on their

own, was also accommodated in this study. Also, the questions were kept as short, clear and

and neutral as possible to “avoid wording that might influence answers” (Turner 2010:758).

3.6 Ethical considerations, anonymity and confidentiality

To anonymise implies the omission of names or information on research participants or

research sites (Walford 2005:84). The concept of confidentiality is closely linked to anonymity

(Wiles et al. 2008:417) but further refers to “(1) not discussing information provided by an

individual with others, and (2) presenting findings in ways that ensure individuals cannot be

identified (chiefly through anonymisation)” (Wiles et al. 2008:418). With respect to anonymity

in this study, the names of the participating corporations and non-profit organisations have

been anonymised in the publicly available study in order to collect data as sincere and credible

as possible. However, the names have not been anonymised in the appendices as these are

unpublished and unavailable to the public forum. Keeping the names public in this version

would cause the risk of informants holding back information to protect their image or avoid

confrontation with collaboration partners (Walford 2005:86).


Page|47

Before conducting the interviews, it was decided to approach the issue of anonymity by

providing the informants with the implicit choice of being anonymised or not (Kaiser 2009:8;

Wiles et al. 2008:423) by initiating the first interviews saying: “As point of departure, your

answers will be anonymised unless you do not mind them being public”. Already at the first

interview (NP1), the informant did not show any response to this statement implying that he or

she was satisfied with staying anonymous. As matter of consistency, it was thus decided to

anonymise all informants.

3.6.1 Informed consent from participants Obtaining informed consent implies the action of “(…) making the subject fully aware of the

purpose of the study, its possible dangers, and the credentials of the researchers” (Bailey

1994:458) and to underline the specific level of confidentiality (Kaiser 2009:4; Kvale and

Brinkmann 2009:71). As 13 out of 14 interviews were conducted via phone, obtaining written

consent would be complicated. Alternatively, obtaining consent was unfolded through a

sequence of steps:

Figure 8: Obtaining informed consent from informants

Postprocess

E-mail: Thankingforparticipation,repeatinglevelofanonymity,utilisationofresponsesandaccesstofinalstudy.Invitingtocontactviatelephoneore-mailifnecessary

DebriefingInquiringpotentialdoubtsorquestions Invitingtocontact viatelephoneore-mailif

necessary

BriefingIntroducing thepurpose oftheinterview,utilisationofresponses,levelofanonymityandpublic accesstofinal

study,inquiring potentialdoubtsorquestions


Page|48

Source: Bailey (1994:458); Kaiser (2009:4); Kvale and Brinkmann (2009:71)

During the briefing (1), the informants were presented with the purpose of the interview, the

level of anonymity and explained that the study would become available on the Aarhus

University data base for theses and dissertations (Kvale and Brinkmann 2009:128; Turner

2010:757; Wiles et al. 2008:421). In addition, it was also clarified that none of their answers

would appear the thesis without having received their approval in advance via e-mail. As such,

the informants would have to accept or reject the quote beforehand in order to avoid potential

disputes about the usage of their statements. This also means that the informants were in

position to withdraw an answer if they felt uncomfortable with it being used in the specific

context (Wiles et al. 2008:425). Before initiating the interviews, all informants were asked if

they had any questions or doubts. This was repeated during the debriefing (2) when having

finished the actual interview. In continuation, the informants were encouraged to e-mail or call

me if questions occurred afterwards. Post process (3) refers to the stage after the interview

was conducted and debriefed. Kaiser (2009:5) claims that researchers typically present

interview participants to the confidentiality issues at the beginning of an interview, and

indicates that “discussions of data use and confidentiality need not be limited to the start of the

research relationship” (Kaiser 2009:9). Resultingly, this study sought to extend the process of

informing participants about confidentiality and informed consent as a means to build more

trust (Kaiser 2009:5). Thus, within a couple of hours after each interview, all informants

received a post process e-mail (cf. appendix 6) expressing gratitude for their help,

summarising the issue of anonymity and encouraging them to contact me in case of doubts or

alike. To illustrate, among the sentences included were: “As explained, your answers will

contribute to the analysis and discussion parts in my thesis. The thesis will be uploaded to

Aarhus University’s data base of theses and dissertations, but your name will be anonymised”

and “If I decide to use some of your answers as direct quotes in the thesis, I will e-mail them to

you for approval beforehand. If you have any questions or doubts, then please do not hesitate

to contact me” 7 The purpose of this e-mail was to complete the process of obtaining consent

as well to underline the issue of confidentiality and create trust with the informants. It was

important to underline that even though the interview had been finalised, it did not mean our

relation was also over. Having received a lot of responses, experiences and opinions, I was

now in possession of knowledge from within the organisation/corporation that might be even

7TheextractshavebeentranslatedfromDanishtoEnglish.TheoriginalDanishversionsareattachedasappendix6


Page|49

confidential. Hence, it was imperative to underline that their knowledge was in safe hands,

and that it would exclusively be applied in the context of this study (Wiles et al. 2008:418). 3.6.2 Audio recording During the briefing, the informants were notified about the audio recording as a means to get

their approval. Audio recording is regarded a standard and necessary interview procedure.

Still, informing the informants about this ahead of the interview is considered good ethical

manners (Daymon and Holloway 2011:222).

With respect to the telephone interviews, notifying the informants about the audio recording

was carried out straight after introducing my name, as it turned out that using the app

TapeACall produced continuing “beep-sounds”, which might cause annoyance or be

interpreted as another waiting call. Despite this, the “beep-sounds” actually turned out to be an

efficient indicator for assuring that the app worked, and that the call was being recorded.

3.6.3 Interviewing acquaintances As previously mentioned, the interviews with NP9 and C5 were arranged with help from

network connections. Beforehand, I was already peripherally connected with NP9 through my

position as student worker at a corporation engaged with NP9 through a collaborative project.

Thus, I was not familiar with the informant in person, but I was connected to the informant via

an acquaintance employed in the organisation. Similarly, a personal acquaintance established

contact with the adequate informant from C5. A study by Blichfeldt and Heldbjerg (2011)

explores the issue of interviewing friends and acquaintances, and define the latter as “(…)

people whom he/she knows rather well before they engage in an interview” (Blichfeldt and

Heldbjerg 2011:5-6). In this case, the prior relation to C5 and NP9 was only limited.

Notwithstanding, interviewing C5 and C9 might not have been realised without the connection

to the acquaintances. Blichfeldt and Heldbjerg (2015:12) posit that interviewing acquaintances

does not necessarily pose a threat to the quality of an interview. In fact, research suggests that

it might even enhance its quality as it facilitates trust, openness and in-depth dialogue.

(Blichfeldt and Heldbjerg 2011:23) This assumption especially applies to research within the

position of social constructionism, which advocates that all knowledge is subjective (Blichfeldt

and Heldbjerg 2011:6), and that there is no final and objective truth (Walker 2015:37). As

holders of this belief, Blichfeldt and Heldbjerg (2011:31) conclude that “in relation to all studies


Page|50

for which objectivity is not a goal, the researcher may choose freely between the interviewing

of strangers and the interviewing of acquaintance”.

3.7 Transcribing Kvale and Brinkmann (2009:178) state that “a transcript is a translation from one narrative

mode – oral discourse – into another narrative mode – written discourse”. Transcribing allows

the researcher to familiarise with the data at early stage, which is particularly advantageous

when producing a thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006:87). There is no universal

guideline to follow when transcribing an interview (Braun and Clarke 2006:88; Skukauskaite

2012:25). Instead, Braun and Clarke (2006) and Skukauskaite (2012) outline a handful of

recommendations and issues to consider. First and foremost, Braun and Clarke (2006:88)

advocate the importance of loyalty to the verbal account. Yet, the approach to transcribing and

notion of loyalty should be considered a contextual issue. Factors such as time, resources,

theoretical framework and research question shape the approach to transcribing along with the

researcher’s epistemological and ontological position (Skukauskaite 2012:2-4). On account of

this, Skukauskaite (2012:4) calls attention to the multiple perspectives to transcribing whereof

one particularly applies to qualitative research. Skukauskaite (2012:4-5) refers to this as the

third perspective, and characterises it as an approach to transcribing, which abandons the

notion of standardisation, and favours a more interpretive process. With this perspective

“transcribers make theoretical, contextual, value and practice-based decisions as they

construct representations of discourse” (Skukauskaite 2012:5). As this study is conducted from

a social constructionist position defining knowledge as a product of social discourses (Burr

2015:2-3; Walker 2015:37), the transcription of all 14 interviews relies on Skukauskaite’s

(2012) third perspective leaving the researcher with the responsibility to make theoretical

decisions based on the interpretation of the transcripts.

The audio playback control software ExpressScribe assisted the process of transcribing all 14

interview from beginning to end. The interviews were transcribed word-to-word, yet occasional

incoherent sentences were reformulated while preserving the key message. Unfinished, and

incoherent, sentences were omitted from the transcriptions. Furthermore, the audio recordings

contained a lot of utterances from both interviewer and informant e.g. “hmm” and “yes”. Only

utterances considered to be contextual relevant were transcribed. All transcriptions are

attached as appendix 7-20.


Page|51

3.8 Thematic analysis Thematic analysis is employed as the methodological tool to analysing the data in this

interview study. This method offers “(…) an accessible and theoretically flexible approach to

analysing qualitative data” (Braun and Clarke 2006:77). The epistemological approach of

social constructionism taken in this study agrees with the application of thematic analysis

(Braun and Clarke 2006:78). Conducting thematic analysis implies the identification and

interpretation of the semantic patterns expressed in the data. This is referred to as themes

(Braun and Clarke 2006:79; Vaismoradi 2013:399). Research by Braun and Clarke (2006:79)

reveals that no explicit instructions on how to conduct a thematic analysis exist. In line with

this, Braun and Clarke (2006) outline a tangible guideline to perform thematic analysis in their

six phases of thematic analysis. Consequently, the thematic analyses employed this study rely

upon these recommendations. In section 4.0, you will find a more detailed and sequential

description of the thematic analyses employed in this study and the data coding programme,

NVivo, assisting the identification of themes.

3.8.1 Limitations of thematic analysis As indicated, thematic analysis offers a very flexible approach to data analysis. In line with this

flexibility comes the critique of thematic analysis as an ‘anything goes’ method (Braun and

Clarke 2006:78). Conducting a thematic analysis puts the researcher in a position to make

many decisions and judgements, and the absence of instructive guidelines turns it into a

matter of common sense and intuition. Yet, this freedom is a characteristic of the majority of

qualitative research just as interpretation is a main feature as well. As Daymon and Holloway

(2011:7) advocate, complexity and diversity are characteristics of qualitative research, and, to

some extent, “qualitative researcher work at the edge of chaos” (Daymon and Holloway

2011:7). A qualitative research project is never fixed as new ideas may emerge, and other

directions may be followed. In many ways, qualitative research is contextual and open to

change. The same goes for thematic analysis. Yet, the six phases of thematic analysis (Braun

and Clarke 2006) provide a decent and overall framework to conducting a thematic analysis.

Furthermore, conducting a thematic analysis, and the process of categorising the key findings

into themes, implies a very structural and systematic approach to analysing and interpreting

data. In line with this, the two thematic analyses in this study are conducted with same


Page|52

approach: Both are guided by Braun and Clarke’s (2006) framework and repeat the same

sequential steps of thematic analysis, which provides stringency and, thus, validity to this

study. Thus, this provides a rational basis to performing a thematic analysis in this study.


Page|53

4.0

ANALYSIS


Page|54

4.0 THEMATIC ANALYSIS The thematic analysis approach in this study draws on Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six phases

of thematic analysis. Due to the absence of a fixed guideline to doing thematic analysis (Braun

and Clarke 2006), additional studies employing thematic analysis within different fields have

also been explored prior to conducting this analysis (Fage-Butler and Jensen 2013; Pascoal et

al. 2014) as a means to find inspiration and guidance on the formation of themes. The process

of identifying themes involved a number of phases. However, before touching upon these, it is

necessary to mention that this thematic analysis is primarily deductive in character as the

analysis is conducted with a number of theoretical concepts in mind. Yet, it is also somehow

inductive in character given its openness to the identification of themes and aspects across the

theoretical concepts.

Returning to the phases of thematic analysis, phase one was initiated by transcribing and

reading the collected data. In phase two, all transcriptions were uploaded to the data coding

programme NVivo, and all interesting features of data were then tagged and named. This is

also referred to as generating initial codes (Braun and Clarke 2006). In phase three, all codes

were listed and divided into potential themes and sub themes. In phase four, all themes were

reviewed to assess their validity and relevance, and thematic maps were developed. Finally, in

phase five, the names of the themes were refined and thematic maps were finalised. The

thematic maps graphically illustrate the two overall categories and the identified main themes,

themes and sub themes, and how these are linked to each other. Some themes have main

themes and sub themes, and some have not. Main themes function as the glue that binds two

or more parallel themes together, and sub themes are “themes-within-a-theme” providing

structure and indicating the hierarchy to a theme of more complex meaning (Braun and Clarke

2006:92).

A theme without a main theme or sub theme is not considered as a less important finding.

Also, it is not the number of instances that determines a theme (Braun and Clarke 2006:82). A

theme has been identified in accordance with Braun and Clarke’s (2006:82) definition stating

that: “a theme captures something important about the data in relation to the research

question, and represents some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set”.

Thus, a theme has been established when identifying a semantic pattern or a meaning

produced by the informant(s) relevant to the problem statement (Fage-Butler and Jensen


Page|55

2013:24; Vaismoradi et al. 2014:400). Accordingly, themes are identified at the latent level

indicating that the data is explored and interpreted beyond the actual surface in the search for

striking semantic patterns (Braun and Clarke 2006:84). This also means that this thematic

analysis is performed as a constructionist approach suggesting that experience and

knowledge are products of social interaction (Braun and Clarke 2006:85; Burr 2015:5; Galbin

2014:82). The identified themes are thus understood as products of the individual realities and

interactions of the informants.

Main themes, themes and sub themes are primarily expressed in the shape of statements

explaining certain criteria, preferences to a cross-sector partner etc. Each main theme, theme

and potential sub theme is accompanied by one or more quotations as a means to

demonstrate the prevalence of the theme and support the interpretations (Braun and Clarke

2006:93). All quotations have been translated into idiomatic English, while preserving the key

meaning, as empty words, mumbling, etc. is irrelevant to the analysis. To respect the issue of

confidentiality, all references to specific individuals, partners or alike go by the designation X.

Furthermore, all quotations have been approved by the respondents to avoid

misunderstandings, as the individual respondents have been e-mailed the original quotation(s)

and its English translation(s) in an e-mail requesting their approval.

Figure 9: The phases of the thematic analyses

Source: Braun and Clarke 2006

Transcribing andreadingdata(ExpressScribe)

Generatinginitial codes(NVivo)

Sorting codesintothemes

Reviewing themes

Refiningandnaming themes


Page|56

As this study seeks to explore the approaches to identifying a partner for a cross-sector

partnership from the perspectives of corporations and non-profit organisations, respectively,

the thematic analysis has been divided into two: Carrying out two separate analyses allows for

eventually comparing the results in the discussion, and was thus considered the most logical

approach.


Page|57

Figure 10: Thematic map NP1-NP9

Source: Own making


Page|58

4.1 Thematic analysis of data from interviews with non-profit organisations (NP1-NP9) This section accounts for the thematic analysis of the data collected in the interviews with non-

profit organisation NP1-NP9. Within this section are two categories: Identifying a partner

(section 4.1.1.) and Selecting a partner (section 4.1.2). ´

4.1.1 Category: Identifying and attracting a partner The thematic analysis reveals two dominant main themes in relation to the non-profit

organisations’ experiences and approaches towards identifying and attracting corporations to

collaborate with. First, it points to the identification of a pragmatic approach to identifying and

attracting partners, and, secondly, the notion that branding is a useful mechanism. Each of the

two themes are further accompanied by additional themes and sub themes.

Figure 11: Identifying and attracting a partner NP1-NP9

Source: Own making


Page|59

4.1.1.1 Theme: Pragmatic approach to identifying and attracting partners This theme functions as the main theme to the two themes: Approaches to identifying and

attracting partners are contextual and It is irrelevant who initiates contact. As these themes are

parallel, and thus on the same level, the main theme Pragmatic approach to identifying and

attracting partners provides the glue that binds them together, and displays the overall

semantic meaning.

Theme: Approaches to identifying and attracting partners are contextual

A number of non-profit organisations indicate that the approach to initiating contact and the

comprehensive approach to identifying and attracting a partner is contextual:

NP4: “In our view, the debate is sometimes a bit narrow-minded and sets up false or unnecessary

oppositions like: ‘You should not do campaigning, you should just collaborate om solving world

issues’. In reality, you can both criticise, collaborate, do public campaigning and have confidential

dialogue and trust between the parties”.

As such, NP4 points to the fact that there is no right formula to initiating cross-sector

partnerships indicating that the choice of approach depends on the specific partnership and its

context.

Additionally, six of the non-profit organisations (NP1, NP4, NP5, NP7, NP8, NP9) state that

there is no pattern or common approach when it comes to who initiates initial contact:

NP1: “I guess it actually varies who initiates contact; we experience both things. We have a

fundraising team of three people, and one of their tasks is to analyse and identify collaboration

options. And whenever they identify an overlap in interests, values or alike, we might contact the

corporation to talk about our options. But we also experience the opposite.”

NP7: “It varies who initiates contact. Sometimes corporations contact us directly, and other times

we try to identify and screen partners that match a concept or an idea we already have in mind”.

NP9: “We initiate contact to a corporation if we identify a potential that we consider to be

meaningful to our organisation. In such case, we will give a presentation on our idea(s) and try

to adapt our idea(s) into their strategy (…) However, we also experience that corporations

contact us as they are attracted by our great brand value.”


Page|60

As the quotations above indicate, the non-profit organisations both experience to initiate

contact and being contacted by corporations. Typically, the non-profit organisations initiate

contact when having a specific purpose to do so. Thus, it appears that the non-profit

organisations do not experience or apply any definitive approach as to who initiates contact as

it will always depend on the context.

Theme: It is irrelevant who initiates contact As the quotations in the above theme also indicate, there does not seem to be a specific

preference with regards to who should initiate the primary contact for a cross-sector

partnership. This assumption is explicitly stated by NP2 in the following quotation:

NP2: “I do not think it matters to us who initiates contact. What really matters to us is having a

shared interest and a mutual mission for what we are doing together”.

Thus, the thematic analysis reveals that a majority of the non-profit organisations neither

experience nor prefer any specific approach as to whether the non-profit organisation or

corporation establish the initial contact.

4.1.1.2 Theme: Branding is a useful mechanism The thematic analysis identifies branding as a useful mechanism to identifying potential

partners and attracting their interest. The notion of branding can further be divided into a

number of approaches, which are presented in the following three sub themes.

Sub theme: Social platforms create good networks This sub theme accounts for the use of social platforms to identify and attract partners for a

cross-sector partnership. In this thematic analysis, the use of social platforms is referred to as

a branding approach given the fact that networking with potential partners implies the mission

of appearing as an attractive organisation to collaborate with. NP7 points the the fact that

social platforms are useful for networking and identifying potential partners for collaboration:

NP7: “Third, and probably the most successful approach, we are part of different platforms that

provide fora for corporations, universities and NGOs to network with each other.”


Page|61

As indicated, NP7 regards the use of social platforms as the most successful approach to

initiating cross-sector partnerships.

Sub theme: Public debate attracts and identifies partners The thematic analysis reveals that NP4 uses presence and engagement in public debate as a

strategy to attract and identify partners to form cross-sector partnerships. As illustrated in the

following quote, NP4 brands its views and activities through public debate:

NP4: “We are present in the debate, and we engage in the debate. We express our meanings

(…) We also make an effort to tell the story of our dialogues and our approach. And then we hope

to attract someone who thinks the same and finds it exciting”.

In line with this, NP4 also indicates that engagement with public debate is a useful approach to

identifying partners. This assumption leads to the identification of the following sub theme.

Sub theme: Public critique produces unique collaborations Apart from using public debate to create awareness and attract partners, NP4 also engages in

public debate with a view to identifying partners, and initiating contact, to form a cross-sector

partnership. This approach is rather unique and different from the other approaches as NP4

initiates contact with partners by making them subject to public criticism:

NP4: “We are not afraid to do public criticism that might lead to collaboration. For instance, we

once criticised X in public. And when they admitted that this criticism was legitimate, and that the

challenges were too big to solve on their own, we initiated a collaboration”.

This approach is very pro-active, and indicates that NP4 does not hold back from taking

chances and choosing more untraditional paths. As indicated below, NP4 explicitly points to

the fact that this approach is different yet very useful to establishing a valuable relationship

and a common ground for a cross-sector partnership:

NP4: “In this way, this partnership is a bit different as it was initiated with critique. But because

we criticised X, we had something at stake. We had a relation; something held us together, and

required us to communicate with each other. And by doing that, we identified a number of shared

objectives on acting responsibly, contributing to a better world and so on.”


Page|62

In continuation, NP4 stresses that this approach requires openness, strength of will, and last

but not least, communication from both parties. When using public critique as a mechanism to

identify a cross-sector partner, NP4 makes en effort to openly communicate with the potential

partner about the root of the criticism, the possibilities ahead of them, NP4’s intentions and the

approach of turning criticism into collaboration:

NP4: “The best foundation for establishing partnerships is the places we identify critique but also

a willingness to move forward and collaborate together. But of course, it requires the openness

to move from critique to collaboration. This is something we have done with a line of industries,

and it is actually our model and approach; that is how we do it”.

In summary, the analysis identifies this approach as not only useful to identifying partners but

also useful as a branding mechanism to create awareness of NP4’s brand and attract

partners. NP4 reports to receive a lot of publicity on the collaborations initiated on critique

indicating that the public attention serves as a promotion of NP4 as a brand and its ability to

turn critique into successful cross-sector partnerships. Such publicity positions NP4 as a

competent non-profit organisation, and very likely, attracts the interests of corporations to

contact or take notice of NP4 and its activities.

4.1.1.3 Recapitulation of category In total, this category identifies a number of semantic patterns regarding the approaches to

and preferences for attracting and identifying partners from the aspects of non-profit

organisations NP1-NP9. Above all, the findings suggest that the non-profit organisations share

a pragmatic approach to identifying and attracting partners. This assumption arises from the

discovery that the non-profit organisations do not apply any specific approaches or follow any

fixed procedures to identifying and attracting partners. Rather, it appears that the non-profit

organisations consider their use of approach as context dependent. Furthermore, the thematic

analysis also points to branding as a useful mechanism to identifying and attracting

corporations including engagement on social platforms, involvement and visibility in public

debate and the strategy of generating public critique with the objective of entering into cross-

sector collaboration.


Page|63

4.1.2 Category: Selecting a partner This category presents the themes related to the approach to selecting a corporation as

collaboration partner. Three themes and associated sub themes are identified within this

category.

Figure 12: Selecting a partner NP1-NP9

Source: Own making

4.1.2.1 Theme: Screening is necessary The thematic analysis identifies the theme screening is necessary due to the emergence of the

pattern that the non-profit organisations perceive screening as a necessary tool to selecting

the right partner cross-sector partner. NP5 and NP6 point to their application of specific

screening tools as important elements in evaluating whether a corporation constitutes a proper

partner or not. This is exemplified with the following quotations:


Page|64

NP5: “We have developed a screening tool to use on potential partners to assess different criteria

and find answers to ‘why is the corporation doing this?’, ‘what is our opportunity to change the

corporation’s behaviour?’”

NP6: “We perform a Due Diligence process that every potential partner has to go through. There

are some different corporations that we do not collaborate with.”

In continuation of this, NP6 further characterises the Due Diligence process as tool to ensure

credibility in what they do, and who they collaborate with:

NP6: “Everyone goes through this process before we say yes. And we actually do this before

signing agreement.”

Interviewer: “So, this means a lot to you?”

NP6: “Yes, to have credibility in what we do”.

Additionally, the non-profit organisations also employ other approaches to assess and

evaluate potential partners. Among these are ethical guidelines as accounted for in the

following sub theme.

Sub theme: A match in ethical values is decisive

A total number of eight non-profit organisations (NP1, NP2, NP3, NP4, NP5, NP6, NP7 and

NP9) employ ethical guidelines to identify a suitable cross-sector partner. This is exemplified

with the following quotation:

NP2: “There are some fundamental things in relation to human rights that need to be straight. We

run this Due Diligence process on the business partners that we either collaborate with or consider

to collaborate with. And that might bring up some attention points to address with the partner. But

there are also some different categories that we avoid. We would never collaborate with the black

category e.g. someone from the weapon industry etc.”

Several of the non-profit organisations refer to industries that they perceive to be unethical and

thus, inadequate cross-sector partners. Among these are the weapon industry (NP2, NP9), the

fur industry (NP6) and the tobacco industry (NP9). Also, NP9 refuses to collaborate with

corporations that are somehow connected with child labour or slave trade, and NP6 always

turns down corporations involved with animal testing and money-laundering. This very

continuous pattern illustrates a common concern and dedication to only collaborate with


Page|65

corporations that are not involved with or related to any controversial activities that the non-

profit organisations perceive to be unethical and deviating from their core values:

NP1: “Of course, we follow some ethical guidelines in everything we do. For instance, if a

corporation represents something then we cannot represent with respect to the corporation’s

identify and activities we will not cooperate with them. If we do identify a match in values and

ethics, there is no problem for us to partner with them.”

Sub theme: A partner must be suitable for co-branding

Co-branding seems to be an important aspect of a cross-sector partnership from the

perspective of non-profit organisations. This is indicative of a shared emphasis of partnering

with corporations and brands that are attractive to rely on and suitable to represent the non-

profit organisation. In fact, NP3 and NP6 state co-branding to be one of their overall

motivational drivers to initiate a cross-sector partnership. This is exemplified in the quotation

by NP6 below:

NP6: “Another reason is that we want to extend people’s knowledge of our work through the

partnership. Thus, we see the partnership as a channel to promote our organisation, messages

and campaigns.”

Additionally, NP5 and NP9 also state that doing public relation activities with the corporation is

a natural part of a cross-sector partnership:

NP5: “We encourage the production of a press release about our collaboration and its objective.

We also state in our contracts and our budgets that we need to set aside time and resources to

develop some kind of public output. It can be an article about the collaboration or a publishable

version of the report that results from the collaboration”.

Thus, this further supports the assumption that the majority of the non-profit organisations

share the priority to collaborate with corporations suitable for co-branding and open to doing

public relations activities together.


Page|66

4.1.2.2 Theme: Transparency in motivation and expectations is evident Another prominent theme identified is Transparency in motivation and expectations. All non-

profit corporations, in one way or another, express a need for partnering with corporations

willing to work transparently and openly with regards to aspects as motivation, expectations

and values in general. For instance, NP7 denotes transparency as a vital element of a cross-

sector partnership as it minimises the risks of misunderstandings that might arise as a

consequence of cultural differences:

NP7: “Well, the clearer you are from the beginning, the better. Also, you have to be really explicit

in everything, because, as you have probably read, we speak different languages”.

Another striking patterns is that all nine non-profit organisations report that they always outline

and explain their motivation to their partners when entering into collaboration, and furthermore

emphasise the importance of doing so. This assumption is exemplified with an excerpt from

the interview with NP3:

Interviewer: “Do you present your motivation to your partner before entering partnership?”

NP3: “Yes, we are completely honest about that.”

Interviewer: “OK, so there is this transparency?”

NP3: “Yes, completely. From our experience, a partnership will become a mess if you do not do

so.”

Similarly, it appears that all nine non-profit organisations regard it as a vital element that the

corporations also present their motivation when initiating a potential cross-sector collaboration.

The overall reason for this seems to be that outlining the motivation to the collaboration assists

the identification of key values and fosters trust between the parties. This can be illustrated by

the data extracts below:

Interviewer: “When initiating a partnership, do both of you outline your motivation?”

NP9: “Yes, absolutely.”

Interviewer: “So, you also experience that the corporation does this?”

NP9: “Yes, 100 percent. Because outlining your motivation to each other ensures that you are

in this together”.

Interviewer: “So, you also prefer that they outline their motivation to you?”


Page|67

NP1: “Yes. The fundamental basis of our CSR activities is to identify matching values. Our

values are the starting point to contacting a partner. We should identify a value that we agree on

to constitute the foundation for our collaboration.”

If we turn our attention to the expectations to a cross-sector partnership regarding its process

and results, the analysis reveals that the non-profit organisations also regard the transparency

of these as crucial when selecting a partner. A total of seven non-profit organisations (NP1,

NP3, NP5, NP6, NP7, NP8 and NP9) point to transparency in expectations as an important

criterion when selecting a partner as expressed in the quotations that follow:

NP6: “Of course, it always depends on the size of the collaboration but we usually have quite a

lot of meetings before signing a contract and going public. The reason for this is that we need to

balance our expectations in relation to what each party wants, and that we need to clarify this

before signing the contract to avoid misunderstandings later on. Thus, balancing our expectations

is rather important.”

NP9: “It is not always that formal that you do a big Power Point presentation on your expectations.

It depends on the type of partner you are dealing with. We might as well do it over a cup of coffee

when drawing up the contract and outlining our overall purpose and expectations to the

partnership.”

Apart from this, this theme is particularly evident in the case of NP6. From the following

quotation, it becomes clear that NP6 regards transparency in expectations as an absolutely

vital element before initiating a cross-sector partnership, as it is decisive of whether to sign an

agreement with a partner or not. This statement was provided when inquiring about NP6’s

experience of whether corporations live up to the motives, values and responsibilities they

present in the initiation phase of a cross-sector partnership:

NP6: “Well, we do not sign a contract with a corporation if we get the impression that they do not

live up to this. If we, at any point in the process, get the feeling that we disagree on something or

that our expectations do not balance with each other, the contract will not be signed.”

Taken together, the analysis designates the importance of transparency in expectations and

motivation as a prominent theme given that the majority of the non-profit organisations


Page|68

proclaim such transparency to constitute the main groundwork for establishing a cross-sector

partnership.

Interestingly, NP3 expresses the concern that being honest and transparent about the

motivation for a cross-sector partnership does not always come naturally to corporations. The

following statement is expressed by NP3 when asking about whether or not corporations

typically outline their motivation when initiating a cross-sector partnership:

NP3: “I think you have to push them a bit to do that. You have to say: ‘Listen up, it is important

that we talk about this. What is it that you want to get out of this?’ Because often, there is this

bigger agenda behind it, and that is completely fair. But sometimes, the corporations hide this

from us because they want to make it look like they are doing it for altruistic causes. But obviously,

that is never how it is. So, it is extremely important to uncover this, and you sometimes have to

push them a bit to do that”.

Accordingly, this draws our attention to the issue, experienced by the non-profit organisations,

that some corporations disregard dialogue about motivation as they fear that their agenda and

motivation might damage the relationship to the non-profit organisation. Though, NP3 states

that corporations and non-profit organisations always have different agendas, and that

outlining these does not threaten a partnership. As a matter of fact, the real threat occurs

when corporations hold back their agenda. Simultaneously, NP9 also underlines that even

though you are working on the same project, and you share the same interest in the project,

the corporation’s and the non-profit organisation’s overall agenda and motivation to engaging

with this partnership will never be identical:

NP9: “We will always enter collaboration with a different motivation than the corporation. Whereas

we are bound by some financial objectives to help people around the world, the corporations often

engage with cross-sector partnerships with the purpose of establishing a strategic CSR profile.

Thus, we always enter cross-sector partnerships with different motivation whereas we do share

the same interest in the collaboration. Regarding the latter, this is vital to a cross-sector

partnership as we only sign agreement if we share the same interest in the collaboration.”

Hence, NP3 and NP9 indicate that the motivation for a cross-sector partnership will never be

aligned. Yet, it must always be acknowledged. Thus, it can be concluded that non-profit


Page|69

organisations request the need for corporations to be honest and transparent about their

motivation as this enhances the quality of a cross-sector partnership.

4.1.2.3 Theme: Openness about cultural differences is important An overall theme on the issue of openness about cultural differences also emerges from this

analysis. This theme occurs as a main theme covering the two additional themes, which follow

next.

Theme: Corporations and non-profit organisations speak different languages From the perspective of the non-profit organisations, a prominent theme is that corporations

and non-profit organisations have different approaches when it comes to communication,

project management etc. The non-profit organisations refer to this as cultural differences, and

furthermore establish cultural differences as an inevitable element of a cross-sector

partnership.

NP9: “We often talk with the private sector, and that is really a completely different industry with

different objectives and different ways of communicating”.

NP7: “Also, you have to be really explicit in everything, because, as you have probably read, we

speak different languages (…) We refer to partners in one way, they refer to partners in another

way, we talk about beneficiaries and they talk about customers.”

As the quotations above indicate, it appears to be a shared view that corporations and non-

profit organisations speak different languages when it comes to communication. Additionally,

several non-profit organisations also underline that non-profit organisations and corporations

differ in their approaches and processes. In particular, NP9 draws attention to two main areas

of concern regarding the cultural differences between corporations and non-profit

organisations. First, corporations do not always understand the notion of voluntariness and its

key value to the existence and core identity of NP9:

NP9: “Fundamentally, the volunteers drive our organisation. We just have to support them, and

we need to show them respect. If they are involved in an activity in connection with a partnership,

we cannot make any demands on them (…) But the corporations do not always understand this.

The thing is that the volunteers are volunteers because it is their passion. So, it is not their job to

carry bags or clean up after us. If we asked them, I am sure some of them would be glad to do


Page|70

that. But as a matter of principle, we do not ask them at all. We would never show them the

disrespect and make it seem like we are taking advantage of them.”

Secondly, NP9 also sheds light on the use of social media as a cultural issue as some

corporations do not understand why NP9 cannot use social media as a commercial channel to

promote products, services etc. NP9 uses social media to tell the stories of people and causes

around the world, and to express gratitude to the people helping the organisation. As NP9

states, corporations are attracted to NP9’s size and great reach, and see it as a possibility to

get a foot in on social media and benefit from their reach. Though, executing commercial

activities on social media contradicts with the values of NP9. Thus, this gives rise to potential

cultural conflicts:

NP9: “We follow some rules and norms in everything we do, and we cannot break these rules by

posting a funny ad because someone thinks it makes sense and will make some more money.

That would violate our entire communication- and digital marketing strategy. Also, we have proof

that commercial activities cost us our followers as they do not find it interesting. But this can be

really difficult for business to understand.”

In concluding on this, NP9 states the following:

NP9: “And that is just two out of many examples on the difficulty of understanding our world; in

our organisation, we have extremely many agendas whereas this is rarely the case within a

smaller corporation.”

Additionally, NP7 indicates that corporations are often surprised by how non-profit

organisations operate, indicating a lack of knowledge on the cultural differences between the

two sectors. Likewise, NP8 also draws attention to the ignorance of cultural differences as

expressed in the following:

NP7: “Sometimes, I do not think the corporations know that when they go into something with us,

things often take longer timer. There are many ‘checks and balances’ because we are being

measured, and we have to do a lot of documentation and monitoring. Thus, things take longer

time because we have a more holistic approach than the corporations.”


Page|71

NP8: “The real challenge with these partnerships is the great cultural difference between

corporation and NGO. I am not sure that the difference is that big. But often, we experience lack

of knowledge from both sides and limited understanding of each other’s capabilities and

capacities in the collaboration”.

Summing up, NP7, NP8 and NP9 refer to cultural differences as something that could

potentially constitute a barrier to a successful cross-sector partnership. Nonetheless, they also

accentuate that dialogue and transparency in cultural differences is key to avoid cultural

differences becoming a barrier to a successful cross-sector partnership.

Theme: Identifying and acknowledging cultural differences is important This analysis also unveils the assumption that cultural differences do not constitute a barrier

as such; cultural differences are regarded as something that needs to be identified and

communicated to avoid the risk of eventually becoming a barrier to success. Accordingly, this

theme covers the common concern of creating dialogue on the issue of cultural differences

with the purpose of acknowledging their existence and potential impact on the collaboration.

As referred to in the theme above, this is considered to reduce the risk of ignorance, and, thus,

produce a better understanding and acceptance of each other’s cultural differences:

NP9: “I do not experience it as a big problem. I experience it as something that needs to be

explained, and that it is not a natural thing to know from the beginning. And how should you also

know that? We do not expect everyone to know our world. I do not know their world either. So, it

actually all comes down to an explanation. But we also do what we can to explain it to them (…)

As early in the process as possible. Because that is often when people come to a stop and think

‘God, we did not know that’, and then they need to rethink the concept. Naturally, we will find

another solution but they have to give it some thought. Because, if they expected the entire

collaboration to be driven by our channels, they have to go home and think things through.”

As indicated above, NP9 finds cultural differences, and the potential conflicts they may give

rise to, as common features of a cross-sector partnership, and as something that needs to be

addressed in order to be solved. Similarly, NP8 also points out that corporations and non-profit

organisations must learn about the cultural differences during the very early stage of a cross-

sector partnership:


Page|72

NP8: “Much of my work is dedicated to educating our partners. It might sound a bit wrong but

what I mean is that I have to enlighten our partners on what we are capable of, our work and the

challenges we meet when operating in e.g. Africa or Tanzania. Why do things not just happen?

Why do things take time? We also need to talk about the conflicts and such. Thus, enlightening

each other is also an element of a cross-sector partnership and the dialogue you have with each

other. I have previously worked in a corporation and I am familiar with the overall culture. But

even so, culture is also different from one corporation to another. So this is an important thing to

learn about each other when initiating a partnership.”

Furthermore, NP7 stresses the necessity to use explicit language and communication

when interacting with a potential partner from another sector. As previously mentioned, it

appears that cultural differences run all the way down to the lexicographic level for which

reason clarity and explicitness in communication is referred to as important to minimise

the risk of misunderstandings generated by cultural differences:

NP7: “Well, the clearer you are from the beginning, the better. For instance, by making high

demands from the very beginning. Also, you have to be really explicit in everything, because, as

you have probably read, we speak different languages (…) We refer to partners in one way, they

refer to partners in another way, we talk about beneficiaries and they talk about customers.”

Conclusively, this theme appears to be of a prominent character with regards to non-profit

organisations’ approaches to selecting a partner: Communicating about cultural differences is

identified as a critical aspect of a cross-sector partnership, and, to some extent, whether a

partnership is established or not.

4.1.2.4 Recapitulation of category Taken together, the themes in this category provide important insights as for the non-profit

organisations’ preferences and views on the selection of a favourable cross-sector partner.

Above all, the non-profit organisations turn our attention to the importance of screening

corporations prior to selecting them as partner by looking at two criteria: First, it appears to be

a criterion that the corporation holds ethical values that are similar to those of the non-profit

organisation, and, secondly, the responses indicate that a corporation must be suitable for co-

branding implying that the non-profit organisations select corporations that are valuable to be

associated with in public space. Furthermore, the findings of this thematic analysis also

suggest that non-profit organisations strive for the establishment of transparent and open

cross-sector collaborations both in terms of the motivation and expectations of each party.


Page|73

Last but not least, informants also express the preference of engaging with partners that are

open and willing to acknowledge the cultural difference that are present in a cross-sector

collaboration.


Page|74

Figure 13: Thematic map C1-C5

Source: Own making


Page|75

4.2 Thematic analysis of data from interviews with corporations (C1-C5) This section accounts for the thematic analysis of the data collected in the interviews with the

five corporations (C1-C5), and is divided into the categories: Identifying a partner (section

4.2.1.) and Selecting a partner (section 4.2.2).

4.2.1 Category: Identifying and attracting a partner Thematic analysis identifies the very prominent semantic pattern that corporations show only

limited concern with attracting partners. Within this theme are the three additional sub themes

as illustrated below:

Figure 14: Identifying and attracting a partner C1-C5

Source: Own making


Page|76

4.2.1.1 Theme: Limited concern with attracting partners The responses provided by the corporations reflect very limited concern as to the approaches

to attracting cross-sector partners. This assumption emerges from the identification of three

related semantic patterns expressed by the informants. These are accounted for in the

following three sub themes.

Sub theme: Money and power attract partners Above all, the analysis identifies the common view that corporations (C1, C3 and C4) do not

find it necessary to perform branding activities in order to attract partners for a cross-sector

partnership:

C1: “What I usually tell myself when I get home is that I feel like one of the most cynical people

in Denmark. Every week, I crush the dreams of at least 50 people. Given our brand and reputation,

we get offers all the time, and most of them from people that could really deserve the help”.

C4: “We have no major concerns regarding behaviour and operations as we have high standards

and guidelines to ensure that we act responsibly and in line with our standards and legislation.

This is also why we are taken seriously”.

As C1 reports, non-profit organisations already show great interest in the corporation. As a

matter of fact, C1 turns down collaboration offers every single week. Similarly, C4 already

finds itself as being an attractive brand to collaborate with.

Additionally, it appears that C1 regards the issue of branding and attracting partners as only

relevant to the non-profit organisations implying that they should make an effort to impress the

corporations and not the other way around:

C1: “Nobody turns down the money. So we do not really have to do any branding. It is a matter

of who should try to impress the other. And in this case, we are the ones with the money”.

Thus, it appears that the corporations do not attach great importance to attracting potential

cross-sector partners as the non-profit organisations are already attracted by the brand,

money and popularity of the corporations.


Page|77

Sub theme: Corporations prefer to initiate contact

As already indicated, the corporations experience great interest from non-profit organisations

requesting collaboration. Interestingly, however, it appears that the corporations do not always

take advantage of this. As the quotation below suggests, C3 also receives offers on cross-

sector collaboration. Though, these are often offered by non-profit organisations looking for

money and not a cross-sector collaboration as such:

C3: “Regarding the partnerships that I have just mentioned, we actually contact them. Because

whenever we are contacted, it is because they are searching for donors, sponsors or alike. Given

our role as a big corporation, they think that they can get money from us in return for borrowing

some of their credibility. But we are really not interested in that kind of trade-off”.

The statement above tells us that C3 prefers to initiate contact to potential partners as the

offers the corporations receive are driven by money and thus are unattractive. Accordingly,

this reveals a preference of corporations to initiate contact for a cross-sector partnership to

avoid non-profit organisations that merely regard corporations as a source to money.

Furthermore, this also suggests that corporations do not focus on attracting partners with any

branding activities given the fact that they prefer to initiate the primary contact. Thus, the

findings in the two sub themes are somehow contradictory: Whereas the sub theme above

indicates that corporations find it unnecessary to attract and contact partners, this sub theme

shows that C3 actually prefers to initiate contact.

Sub theme: Networking as the only approach to identifying and attracting partners

The previous sub theme suggested that corporations prefer to initiate contact to potential

partners for a cross-sector partnership. In this respect, the analysis points to networking as the

most useful tool to identifying partners for cross-sector collaborations. As a matter of fact, it

appears to be to the only approach that the corporations apply. C4 states that the corporation

does not apply any particular branding strategies to attract partners, but that maintaining a

good and open relation to non-profit organisations is important. In line with this, C3 states the

following:

C3: “We are part of a development policy network where I get to meet some of the NGOs and the

people working for them. We show interest in the field, we attend conferences, we talk with

DANIDA and our Minister for Development Cooperation recently visited our project in Africa. And


Page|78

all that is part of the networking we do, and it provides us with readiness and network to the NGO

world for us to draw on. Someone we can make a phone call to; a friend we can call if we are in

doubt about something, right? I would describe this as our way of doing it rather than attracting

partners and doing something special. I do not think that is not how we see it.”

Thus, it appears that the corporations do not make use of any specific approaches to attracting

or identifying partners besides networking. In both the cases of C3 and C4, networking is not

seen as a specific approach to either identifying or attracting partners. Instead, networking is

considered an integrated part of the corporations’ overall activities that might potentially

facilitate opportunities within cross-sector collaboration.

4.2.1.2 Recapitulation of category All together, the themes in this category give rise to the assumption that the corporations find it

unnecessary to attract partners for two main reasons: First, non-profit organisations already

show interest in the corporations as they are attracted by power and money. Secondly, it

appears that corporations prefer to initiate contact contrary to being contacted by non-profit

organisations. When contacted by non-profit organisations, it is often with the sole purpose of

raising money, and this does not match C3’s definition of a cross-sector partnership. Thus,

attracting partners is not deemed necessary as C3 prefers to identify and initiate contact.

Linking with this, networking appears to be the only particular approach that the corporations

apply to identify and attract partners. Yet, both C3 and C4 define networking as an integrated

approach that is not directly applied as a branding tool. Thus, this supports the assumption

that the corporations pay limited attention to identifying and attracting cross-sector partners.

4.2.2 Category: Selecting a partner This category comprises six identified themes relevant to the corporations’ approaches to and

preferences as to selecting a non-profit organisation to become a cross-sector partner.


Page|79

Figure 15: Selecting a partner C1-C5

Source: Own making

4.2.2.1 Theme: A partner must be credible and suitable for co-branding The views and opinions expressed by the corporations draw attention to the necessity of

collaborating with non-profit organisations that appear to be credible, and thus, valuable to be

associated with in public. This concern is particularly shared by C1, C3 and C5, and is

illustrated in the quotations below:

C1: “It is also important that they are credible. As the market grows and the competition gets

bigger, more and more sketchy types appear. So, you have to ask yourself: ‘What kind of

organisation does our corporation tolerate?’ (…) It does not look good if a corporation like ours

collaborates with an organisation that squanders all its money away”.

C1: “That is a brilliant way to collaborate because you manage to help people and to create a

direct link to the corporations. And that is definitely something worth communicating about”.

C5: “The reason for choosing X was that, as an NGO, they have some legitimacy in relation to a

development agenda that we as a corporation do not have.”


Page|80

As C5 indicates, corporations benefit from the non-profit organisations’ credibility and

legitimacy. Apart from that, C1 draws attention to the necessity of identifying a fitting partner

for the corporation to be associated with and to establish partnerships worth communicating

about in public.

4.2.2.2 Theme: A partner must be professional and business-minded The data reflects a significant concern about collaborating with professional non-profit

organisations. As the following quotations display, this view is especially salient in the

responses by C3 and C4:

C3: “It is important that we find a partner that is professional. And often, the collaboration will be

about solving some particular issues. It is not about buying a partner that makes us look good so

we can borrow some of their credibility. That is not the way we see it.”

C4: “It is vital for us to work with serious partners. This also means that we are not involved in

any controversial projects”-

In line with this, C3 also alludes to the notion that non-profit organisations must realise their

responsibility in order to act as a business partner in a cross-sector partnership:

C3: “If you asked our board chairman, I think he would say; ‘If the NGOs do not understand that

it does not make sense to pay them money unless the service they provide is better than the

service a consultant could provide, they have not realised what it means to collaborate with

business’. I think that would be his point; that the collaboration has to revolve around some actual

aspects that we want to change together, and that we have to do that as professional business

partners. And if the NGOs want to be those business partners, they are more than welcome. If

not, we will find somebody else. That would be his way of saying it: That the NGOs need to wake

up to the reality where they are just as much a business as we are, and we are just as much an

NGO as they are. Thus, it is about who can achieve the results we aim for. Those are the people

we want to collaborate with.”

An assumption emerging from the quotation above is that non-profit organisations need to take

more responsibility and deliver the same level of quality as any other business partner. C3

does not select cross-sector partners simply because of their role as non-profit organisations.


Page|81

What appears to be decisive is that the partner is able to provide the desired service or

perform the action that the collaboration is searching for. Thus, this indicates that non-profit

organisations need to distance themselves from their role as non-profit organisations and

realise that, in a cross-sector collaboration, they are expected to deliver, perform and act on

equal terms with corporations.

4.2.2.3. Theme: Moving focus from money to value A common view amongst the corporations is that a cross-sector partnership must be

established upon a shared value. A variety of perspectives on this assumption are reflected in

the data. C3 reports that having a shared agenda and mutual field of activity is decisive when

selecting a cross-sector partner:

C3: “We look for partners who might have the same agenda. X are interesting because they are

very much involved with farmers, producers and the enhancement of their qualifications,

transactions, business sense and ability to work professionally. Thus, their programmes and

approaches fit with those of our corporation, as we are concerned with quality and optimal

business relations. So, somehow, we have a mutual agenda on specific areas (…) It has to

match our field of activity. If we face a challenge in the cattle industry, we would not go to an

organisation that does not operate with cattle farmers”.

The above statement provided by C3 draws attention to the importance of establishing cross-

sector partnerships with shared interest and purpose. Furthermore, C1 presents another

significant aspect of the value creation within a cross-sector partnership:

C1: “Having a drive for something is one of our shared values. This also means that working

more professionally on this collaboration is one of our main priorities. Next year, we will release

a number of communicative initiatives of this partnership”.

In the above quotation, C1 emphasises the overall characteristic of having a drive for

something as a shared value. Hence, this leads to the assumption that C1 regards mutual

characteristics as imperative to the establishment of a cross-sector collaboration.

A striking aspect of the interview data is the supposition that non-profit organisations do

not regard shared value as equally important to a cross-sector partnership. A number of


Page|82

corporations turn focus to the issue that many non-profit organisations place money above

value, and solely regard corporations as the sources to get this money:

C3: “Given our role as a big corporation, they think that they can get money from us in return for

borrowing some of their credibility. But we are really not interested in that kind of trade-off”.

C1: “We often have to ask ourselves why we are actually working together. Also, would there

even be a shared value if no money was involved? Of course, I am aware that money is what

drives a collaboration. However, in some collaboration, this could be less obvious.”

As C1 points out, money is a necessity for a cross-sector partnership to work. Yet, the

quotations above also indicate that money tend to overrule the shared value within a

cross-sector collaboration. This leads to the assumption that corporations wish to establish

collaborations where shared value is the driving force and money is the facilitator, as

opposed to collaboration where money is the driving force and the shared value is either a

facilitator or even non-existent.

Sub theme: Shared value is imperative A common concern is that a cross-sector partnership must bring benefits to both the non-profit

organisation and the corporation. As stated in the previous sub theme, it appears that the

corporations perceive non-profit organisations to be mainly occupied with money while

ignoring the notion of shared value. Linked with this, it seems to be a recurrent theme that the

corporations dissociate themselves from the philanthropic cross-sector partnerships, arguing

that a donation is not equivalent to a collaboration:

C1: “Of course, giving money to X is always a good thing. But we have to get something out of it

too, and we do not do that by merely donating money”.

C5: “The term ‘partnership’ is becoming a bit hackneyed, you know? Many people try to sell

donations as a partnership. But to us, a partnership is more than that. Donating money is not a

partnership. We need to bring our competences into play, and we should expect to get something

out of it”.


Page|83

Furthermore, C5 explicitly denotes a shared value approach as one of the main motivational

drivers to initiating a cross-sector partnership: C5: “During the recent years, we have started to work more systematically on partnerships based

on a shared value mind-set. That is, when we ask ourselves: ‘On which areas can we contribute

to solving societal challenges in such a way that it also benefits our business?’ So, this is when

the partnerships, projects and partners are identified specifically based on the criterion that it

should also generate a business value to us”.

As indicated above, C5 describes a shared value approach as a mutual benefit flow meaning

that the effort ascribed to a cross-sector partnership should generate benefits to both the

cause and the corporation. Hence, this statement supports the assumption that, from the

corporations’ point of view, a donation is not equivalent to a cross-sector partnership as it does

not generate a shared value. In line with this, C1 explains the notion of shared value within a

cross-sector partnership by exemplifying with the following:

C1: “To provide a successful example, we donate products to all X’s shelters in Denmark. And

this is a really good collaboration; it ads up because it is our products that are being donated (…)

There is also the financial aspect that it is cheap: We give them something that is of great value

to them but we pay a lower price than our consumers pay in our stores. Furthermore, a we can

see on Facebook etc., it also benefits us in terms of media coverage. Thus, they face an issue

that we are able to solve with our products. And I can give them something that is cheap for me

but of great value to them (…) And at some point, the price does not really matter to them. If we

solve their problem with good quality, and they would have to spend three times as much to solve

it on their own, then everybody is happy.”

Thus, C1 appears to have a very strong view on shared value as something that should

not be defined by money. Rather, this quotation suggests that shared value occurs when

both cross-sector participants create valuable benefits to another independent of the

financial resources spent on it. According to C1, the important thing is that both

participants are satisfied and get what they need.

Notably, the analysis also reveals the following concern as expressed by C1:

C1: “Often, the NGOs come to us and say ‘We would like some money’ without considering how


Page|84

it can benefit the company. From my perspective, this is something they need to work on”.

This quotation gives rise to the assumption that non-profit organisations do not think similarly

as corporations as for the importance of creating shared value and a mutual benefit flow in a

cross-sector collaboration. Furthermore, it also stresses the assumption that C1 regards the

identification of shared value as a criterion to selecting a cross-sector partner.

Sub theme: A partner must show gratitude Another sub theme that emerges is the view that non-profit organisations must show more

gratitude to their partners. This is closely linked with the main theme and the previous sub

theme indicating that non-profit organisations are too occupied with money. In particular, C1

expresses this view in the following:

C1: “Very often, the first question we get is: ‘When can I send the invoice?’ I suppose it is a human

thing that you want to be rewarded for doing something good, and you want them to pat you on

your shoulder for it. Just like when you hope that people notice when you put money in the

collection tin. There is something psychological about it.”

Thus, it appears that C1 consider non-profit organisations to take their help for granted, and

that they that do not really give something in return. This suggests that C1 looks for non-profit

organisations that are engaged in the project and show appreciation for the help they receive.

4.2.2.4 Theme: Geographical location matters The analysis spots that C1 finds the geographical location of the partner to be important when

establishing a cross-sector partnership:

C1: “If your company is located in Aarhus, it is very impractical if all of your meetings take place

in Copenhagen. So, we also have to consider the aspect of who can actually deliver something

right here? Every time I visit X in their very expensive five-floor property, I cannot help thinking

that moving their office to a smaller town would save them 30 million DKK a year. And then they

could use that money on helping children instead”.

Hence, it appears that C1 finds the non-profit organisations’ prioritising of money to be

illogical, which is an issue that might have an impact on the corporation’s selection of cross-


Page|85

sector partner. Taken together, this tells us that C1 prefers to collaborate with non-profit

organisations that are geographically close to the corporation as it facilitates a better dialogue

and higher levels of interaction within the cross-sector collaboration.

4.2.2.5 Theme: Transparency and open dialogue is important The majority of the participating corporations report that overall transparency and open

dialogue is essential for the establishment of an efficient cross-sector partnership. First and

foremost, C2, C3, C4 and C5 point towards the importance of outlining the motivation to one

another prior to initiating the collaboration:

C4: “As we are very transparent and accessible, organisations and NGOs might as well ask us

directly if they have any questions regarding alternative ways of producing a product or use of

alternative raw materials. We always aim at having an open dialogue and dealing with critique in

a constructive way. We are very open about our products, possible recycling and upcycling, and

we are very willing to share data and experiences. Transparency and openness are key to us and

create a sound basis for trust and an open dialogue”.

In total, all corporations state that transparency in motivation and expectation is an important

element in the initiation phase of a cross-sector collaboration. This is also illustrated with the

following quotation by C5:

C5: “In general, it is always a good thing to be open and clear about what you want before you

go ahead and do something. When we collaborate with another organisation, we always try to be

as transparent as possible from the beginning as for our motivation for collaboration and their

motivation for collaboration. In this way, you avoid misalignment and future misunderstandings”.

Thus, a striking aspect is that only C2, C3, C4 and C5 report that they actually adopt this

approach in practice. C1 draws attention to the issue that, despite its importance, transparency

is not always focus of attention:

C1: “We have not always presented our motivation to the NGOs, and that has been a problem

(…) Outlining the motivation is imperative, and it is also something we are going to do with X in

the future. We are changing our agreement and, somehow, starting over. It is similar to if you

have married someone, and then ask each other afterwards: ‘Well, should we find out what we

have in common?’ That is the wrong way of doing it. Ideally, you should fall madly in love with


Page|86

each other from the beginning. This also makes the practical aspects of a partnerships much

easier. And overall, I do not think we have been good enough at doing that”.

As C1 expresses above, transparency is regarded a key element in a cross-sector partnership

and something that needs to be improved in this particular case. By comparing a cross-sector

partnership with a marriage, C1 underlines the need to be transparent about one’s motives

and values from the very beginning as identifying a valuable relation is what constitutes the

foundation of a cross-sector partnership. Thus, it appears that all five corporations establish,

or plan on establishing, transparent cross-sector collaboration and expect potential partners to

do the same.

4.2.2.6 Theme: Identifying and acknowledging cultural differences is important It seems to be a common view amongst the corporations that cultural differences, and the

challenges they may entail, are inevitable in a cross-sector partnership. As C1 indicates,

cultural differences will always be present regardless the collaboration type:

C1: “Well, of course culture can slow things down; but that applies to all kinds of collaborations”.

In line with this, all five corporations also indicate that cultural differences do not pose a barrier

to the success of a cross-sector collaboration. In fact, C3 reports that the cultural differences

are gradually getting smaller and less noticeable drawing attention to the fact that non-profit

organisations are becoming more business minded and vice versa:

C3: “From my experience, NGOs are becoming more and more business minded. And I also

experience that, overall, corporations are becoming increasingly concerned with sustainability as

a business approach. Thus, it is easier to work with NGOs today than it was ten years ago”.

However, analysis still identifies the shared view that openness and dialogue on the cultural

differences is crucial when initiating a cross-sector collaboration:

C1: “In all cases, culture is an important thing to uncover from the beginning when selecting a

partner. And there will probably be some areas where it poses a barrier and some areas where it

does not”.


Page|87

C2: “I guess it might have an influence in relation to collaboration culture of expectations if you

say ‘I will get back to you tomorrow’, and then you do not hear anything for two weeks. That is,

how you think of this? In our culture, it might be considered very rude, while it is common practice

in other cultures. So yes, definitely. It is a very good thing to show understanding to the culture

you are collaborating with, you know? (…) There has to be some clear arrangements and an

understanding of these differences. Then, I am sure you will manage it.”

C5: “It is part of what it means to collaborate with another type of organisation; that we know that

they have other interests. You just have to to make it clear from the beginning that you are

different types of organisations, and that you have different visions and missions in this world.

And also you now join forces to exploit this overlap working for a mutual cause”.

Taken together, the corporations acknowledge that cultural differences always play a role in

the establishment of cross-sector partnerships. Furthermore, they emphasise the significance

of uncovering and understanding cultural differences prior to initiating a cross-sector

collaboration to avoid it becoming a barrier.

4.2.2.7 Recapitulation of category All together, the six themes in this category generate an overall image of the preferences and

criteria that the corporations use as starting points for selecting a non-profit organisation as

cross-sector partner. The first two themes point to the preferred characteristics of non-profit

organisations to be (1) credible and suitable for co-branding and (2) professional and

business-minded. Thematic analysis also discloses the semantic patterns that non-profit

organisations must prioritise value above money, and that they need to show more gratitude

for the help they receive from corporations. These assumptions are reflected in the main

theme Moving focus from money to value. Furthermore, it also appears that the geographical

location has an impact on the selection of partner, and that corporations regard transparency

and open dialogue as decisive elements in this process. Finally, the findings in this thematic

analysis also indicate that uncovering cultural differences is important.


Page|88

5.0

DISCUSSION


Page|89

5.0 DISCUSSION With the aim of exploring the motivational drivers and approaches that come into play in the

initiation stage of a cross-sector partnership, this section discusses the findings provided by

the two thematic analyses in section 4.0. This discussion comprises a number of sections:

Section 5.1-5.3 address the key findings, section 5.4 discusses their implications and section

5.5 accounts for the limitations of this study.

5.1. Approaches to identifying and attracting a partner Very little was found in the literature on the question of how corporations and non-profit

organisations identify and attract cross-sector partners. Consequently, this study set out with

the aim of uncovering such approaches from the perspectives of five corporations and nine

non-profit organisations. The current study found that the non-profit organisations seem to

have a very pragmatic approach to attracting partners: Their selection of approach is context

dependent, and it is irrelevant to them who initiates primary contact. Thus, they do not follow

any specific procedure to identifying and attracting partners (section 4.1.1.1). On the contrary,

the corporations show only limited concern with the issue of attracting partners. The reason for

this seems to be that the corporations already receive numerous offers from non-profit

organisations attracted by their money and brand (section 4.2.1.1). In total, the corporations

and the non-profit organisations display very different levels of concern to this issue.

Consequently, this means that the non-profit organisations are much more concerned with

branding as a mechanism to identify and attract partners. This includes the use of social

platforms to create networks, engagement and visibility in public debate and public critique as

a tool to identify partners. Even though the latter is only applied by NP4, this approach is very

pro-active and distinctive as NP4 attracts partners by making them subject to public critique.

NP4 draws attention to the strength of cross-sector partnerships founded on critique while

emphasising that this approach requires openness, strength of will and efficient

communication from both parties. Furthermore, NP4 also underlines that this approach creates

good publicity. Thus, using public critique as an approach facilitates the identification of

partners as well as it creates awareness and publicity on the brand of NP4, which possibility

attracts more followers or potential partners.

Conversely, the corporations already experience great interest from non-profit organisations,

and therefore do not find branding to be necessary. In fact, networking is identified as the only


Page|90

approach to identifying and attracting partners. Nonetheless, networking appears to be more

like an integrated approach that might potentially lead to new collaborations rather than being

a specific branding tool. As mentioned, corporations display only limited concern with

attracting partners as the non-profit organisations appear to be attracted by money and power.

Linked with this, an unanticipated finding is that, contrary to the other corporations, C3 prefers

to initiate contact as the offers from non-profit organisation are perceived as solely driven by

money and thus unattractive. These findings are somehow contradictory in that the majority of

the corporations show limited concern with attracting and contacting partners whereas C3

displays an obvious preference to initiate contact. However, it also indicates that the

corporations might not necessarily find this strong interest as very appealing. This assumption

is further supported by the theme Moving focus from money to value (section 4.2.2.3) in which

several corporations dissociate themselves from non-profit organisations prioritising money

above value. This is further discussed in section 5.3.2.

5.2 The motivation for a cross-sector partnership A major objective of this study was to identify the motivational drivers to initiate cross-sector

collaboration. Overall, the findings in this study seem to be consistent with those of Austin

(2000:77) and Pedersen and Pedersen (2013:8) suggesting that participants in a cross-sector

partnership enter into collaboration with different motivation.

With respect to the notions of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation (section 1.2.1), the

study reveals some interesting findings matching those observed in an earlier study by Ryan

and Deci (2000). In response to the classical definitions, Ryan and Deci (2000) offer a more

multi-faceted definition maintaining that intrinsic motivation is not always synonymous with the

best outcome, and that extrinsic motivation should not be generalised as equivalent to poor

quality. A key finding in this study is that the corporations appear to be more concerned with

the notion of shared value than the non-profit organisations. This assumption is expressed in

the theme Moving focus from money to value (section 4.2.2.3), and is further elaborated in the

sub themes Shared value is imperative and A partner must show gratitude. Linking this with

the notion of CSR as accommodation (Hamann and Acutt 2003) and additional studies on the

corporate motivation to initiate cross-sector collaborations (Bator and Stohl 2011; Baur and

Schmitz 2011; Branco and Rodríguez 2007; Byiers et al. 2015; Pedersen and Pedersen 2013;

Peloza and Falkenberg 2009), it is often assumed that corporations enter into cross-sector


Page|91

collaborations with the strategic intent to improve their CSR profile and buying a reputation.

Surprisingly, the findings of this study appear to be inconsistent with this. The theme Moving

focus from money to value indicates that corporations often find non-profit organisations to

neglect the issue of shared value in favour of money. Also, the analysis identifies the concern

that corporations receive limited gratitude from the non-profit organisations, and regard this as

an issue. Therefore, it seems that the roles have switched as it is now the corporations who

are mainly concerned with shared value above money. Connecting this observation with the

notions of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, traditional literature would argue that non-profit

organisations are intrinsically motivated to engage with cross-sector partnerships, and that

corporations are extrinsically motivated as a response to external pressure. The findings in the

analysis of non-profit organisation data do seem to be consistent with this: The non-profit

organisations are primarily intrinsically motivated as they enter into cross-sector collaboration

with the purpose of addressing an issue directly linked to their key activities e.g. providing

emergency aid. It could also be argued that they are somewhat extrinsically motivated as they

show much concern to the issue of co-branding. Nonetheless, this study maintains that the

non-profit organisations are primarily intrinsically motivated. Despite this, it appears that the

non-profit organisations do not put as much effort into a cross-sector partnership as the

corporations do. This assumption has it source in the theme Moving money from value

(section 4.2.2.3), which is a prominent theme in the data collected from corporations. It can

thus be suggested that this corroborates the ideas of Ryan and Deci (2000) who posit that

intrinsic motivation does not always foster effort, learning or best results. Though, it is

important to bear in mind that this does not mean that the non-profit organisations are not

sufficiently engaged in their cross-sector collaborations. What the findings here suggest is that

the corporations find that non-profit organisations are more concerned with the financial aspect

of a cross-sector partnership while forgetting the shared value, which Austin (2000) defines as

one of the prerequisites and cornerstones of a cross-sector collaboration.

With respect to the motivational drivers of the corporations, the overall findings are in line with

those of previous studies arguing that corporations are extrinsically motivated to enter into

cross-sector collaboration (Bator and Stohl 2011; Baur and Schmitz 2011; Branco and

Rodríguez 2007; Byiers et al. 2015; Hamann and Acutt 2003; Pedersen and Pedersen 2013;

Peloza and Falkenberg 2009). This conclusion is rooted in the observation that the

corporations emphasise the need to partner with organisations suitable for co-branding and

establish cross-sector collaborations worth communicating about (section 4.2.2.1). Also, as


Page|92

Bator and Stohl (2011:409) posit, when a corporation engages with a cross-sector

collaboration, the collaboration is an activity that is not directly linked to the corporation’s

overall goal. This further supports that, in most cases, corporations are extrinsically motivated

to initiate a cross-sector collaboration as the cause is not directly linked to the corporation’s

goal, and probably not “(…) a drive that comes from within” (Gass and Seiter 2014:295).

Nevertheless, this study also reveals that the corporations are significantly concerned with the

notion of shared value, and view this as a criterion to the establishment of a cross-sector

partnership. Thus, while the corporations are extrinsically motivated to collaborate across

sectors, they still prioritise the notion shared value and appreciate their partners to be devoted

to this approach as well. This matches the assumption of Ryan and Deci (2000) in that being

extrinsically motivated does not necessarily entail poor quality or poor results. All together, the

findings in this study seem to be consistent with Ryan and Deci’s (2000) presupposition that

the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is not always as black and white as

suggested by classical literature.

Bator and Stohl (2011:409) maintain that non-profit organisations face more risks than

corporations in a cross-sector collaboration given that the outcome is directly linked to the

organisational goal. Consequently, it is a notable finding that the non-profit organisations

appear to be less engaged than corporations when initiating cross-sector collaboration. As the

non-profit organisations face more risks, one would assume that they would make the highest

effort to create a good relation and shared value. Nonetheless, the findings in this study

suggest the opposite. A possible explanation for this might be that the non-profit organisations

prefer to initiate philanthropic partnerships in contrast to the corporations, which appear to

strive for the establishment of transactional partnerships. With reference to Austin’s (2000)

Collaboration Continuum (section 2.3.1.1), philanthropic cross-sector partnerships are

primarily concerned with generic resource transfers, e.g. donations, and limited interaction.

Conversely, transactional cross-sector partnerships entail competencies exchange and a higher level of interaction between the participants. The non-profit organisations might regard

philanthropic cross-sector partnerships as a safer solution than the transactional type given

the limited interaction and dependency on each other.

As mentioned in the literature review, whether or not corporations are also capable of

completing structural holes is an interesting issue for future research (section 2.3.3). The

notion traditionally applies to non-profit organisations’ position to complete structural holes for


Page|93

corporations by providing access to new resources, information, networks etc., and does not

consider the possibility that corporations could be in position to do that as well (Bator and

Stohl 2011). The findings in this study do not explicitly demonstrate that non-profit

organisations collaborate with corporations because they are in position to provide access to

resources that they cannot access alone. However, the findings do suggest that non-profit

organisations request cross-sector collaboration if the corporation is in position to help carry

through an idea or concept that the non-profit organisations have in mind (section 4.1.1.1).

Thus, it can be argued that the corporations complete some sort of structural hole as they

assist the non-profit organisations in achieving or implementing something that would be

difficult for them to realise on their own.

5.3 The attractive partner The findings in this study also provide insight into how non-profit organisations and

corporations picture their ideal cross-sector partner. First of all, both analyses identify

credibility as a key criterion to selecting a cross-sector partner (sections 4.1.2.1 and 4.2.2.1).

Non-profit organisations view screening and Due Diligence processes as necessary tools to

determine whether a corporation fits with their ethical values or not. Overall, the non-profit

organisations are very much reliant on ethical guidelines and always avoid a number of

unfitting industries e.g. the weapon industry, the fur industry and the tobacco industry.

Furthermore, collaborating with corporations suitable for co-branding also seems to matter to

the non-profit organisations. The main reason for this is that they want to promote their

messages through the corporation wherefore its brand and reputation must be attractive. By

comparison, the corporations also stress the need to collaborate with partners that are credible

and thus suitable for co-branding. C1 points to the rapid growth within the non-profit arena and

the emergence of more and more distrustful non-profit organisations. This assumption is

further related with the theme A partner must be professional and business minded (section

4.2.2.2). The findings within this theme suggest that non-profit organisations need to realise

their role as business partners in a cross-sector partnership and dissociate themselves from

their role as non-profit organisations. This means that they must provide quality at the same

level as any other business partners. Linking this with Austin’s (2000) alliance enablers

(section 2.3.4), it can be suggested that, from the corporate view, non-profit organisations do

not always live up the alliance enabler (1) Focused attention, which calls for a high level of

attention and involvement in the cross-sector project. Additionally, from the corporate


Page|94

perspective, it also seems that geographical location matters (section 4.2.2.4) as C1

expresses a need to collaborate with partners situated geographically close as it facilitates a

better dialogue and interaction between the participants.

As already indicated, moving focus from money to shared value (section 4.2.2.3) is a dominant

theme in the analysis of the data collected from corporations. In brief, this theme covers the

assumption that corporations encourage non-profit organisations to become more concerned

with the value of a cross-sector partnership and less occupied with the money involved. Due to

its great relevance, this finding is further discussed in section 5.3.2. Finally, both analyses

also reveal a number of interesting findings related to the issues of transparency in motivation

and expectations and cultural differences. These will be discussed in section 5.3.1 and 5.3.3

5.3.1 Transparency in motivation and expectations This study identifies an overall transparency as a common theme that stretches across a

series of aspects with respect to the approaches and preferences to identifying and selecting a

cross-sector partner. The analysis of data collected from non-profit organisations identifies the

theme Transparency in motivations and expectations is evident (section 4.1.2.2). By

comparison, Transparency and open dialogue (section 4.2.2.5) occurs in the analysis of data

collected from corporations.

With respect to motivation, this study reveals that both non-profit organisations and

corporations prefer to initiate their collaborations with an open dialogue on the motivational

drivers of both participants. The non-profit organisations regard this transparency as an

imperative, and almost decisive, element of a cross-sector partnership. On the contrary, while

all five corporations emphasise the importance of outlining the motivation before initiating

collaboration, C1 admits that this transparency has not always been common practice within

this corporation. However, C1 further states that this is an area of improvement, and

emphasises its key importance to the establishment of a successful cross-sector partnership.

Hence, transparency in motivation seems to be a key concern to both parties. However, an

interesting finding is that one of the non-profit organisations, NP3, often finds that corporations

avoid this dialogue on motivation as they are afraid that their motivation will be considered

unattractive, and that it will put the establishment of a cross-sector partnership at risk. In line

with this, NP3 underlines the importance of corporations being open and honest about their


Page|95

motivation. NP3 states that non-profit organisations are aware that corporations always have a

bigger agenda with a collaboration, e.g. earning profits, and that this does not put the

corporations in an unflattering light. By contrast, it does put the corporations in an unflattering

light if they hold back this agenda. Thus, this finding suggests that corporations should be

more open about their motivation. Nevertheless, it could be argued that the reason for this

issue is linked with the emergence of notions such as CSR as accommodation (Hamann and

Acutt 2003:258), buying the reputation (Bator and Stohl: 2011:409), which indicate that

corporations engage with CSR and cross-sector collaboration to accommodate social

pressures and improve their reputation. It is likely that some corporations avoid telling their

true motivation as they are afraid of being accused for merely wanting to generate profits or

benefit from the publicity of the collaboration. However, as this study suggests, corporations

actually seem to care both about generating profit, receiving publicity and creating shared

value. In fact, the notion of shared value appears to be more imperative to the corporations

than to the non-profit organisations. Thus, one might say that notions such as CSR as

accommodation and buying the reputation, are part of framing the corporate motivation as

primarily negative ignoring the possibility that corporations also care about the cause and

value of a cross-sector partnership. On the question of expectations, the findings illustrate that both non-profit organisations and

corporations also emphasise to outline and balance these when initiating a potential cross-

sector collaboration (section 4.1.2.2 and 4.2.2.5). From the perspective of the non-profit

organisations, transparency in expectations is a seen as a founding element of a cross-sector

partnership. In line with this, NP6 stresses that the process of balancing expectations is

decisive of whether to sign an agreement or not. Simultaneously, the corporations also regard

transparency in expectations as important. Yet, they do seem to be more concerned with

transparency in motivation. A possible explanation for this might be that the corporations in

this study are very much concerned with the the issue that non-profit organisations are

motivated by money and not value. Thus, this merely supports the assumption that moving

focus from money to value (section 4.2.2.3) is a prominent theme of concern from the

corporate perspective.

In summation, the findings in this section point to transparency in motivation and expectations

as vital to the initiation of a cross-sector partnership. Furthermore, this seems to be consistent

with Value definition, which accounts for the primary dimension in Austin’s (2000)


Page|96

Collaboration Value Construct (section 2.3.2). With this dimension, Austin (2000) suggests that

participants must outline their values, expectations and motives to each other before they

initiate cross-sector collaboration with the aim of identifying a “joint concern about addressing

a particular social problem” (Austin 2000:77-78). Additionally, Austin (2000:71) also refers to

mutual expectations and accountability as an alliance enabler, and Elbers (2004:52-54)

denotes transparency as a success factor when engaging with cross-sector collaborations.

Hence, this further supports the finding that transparency is a key element in the initiation

stage of a cross-sector partnership.

5.3.2 The notion of shared value One of the most important findings to emerge from the two analyses is that corporations and

non-profit organisations prioritise the notion of shared value differently. This finding is linked to

the motivation for a cross-sector partnership, wherefore it has already been introduced in

section 5.1.2. Nevertheless, the relevance of this findings calls for a section on its own.

In the analysis of data provided by corporations, the theme moving focus from money to value

(section 4.2.2.3) accounts for the view that many non-profit organisations tend to be very much

concerned with money and less interested in the value of a cross-sector partnership. As

mentioned, the corporations receive a lot of partnership offers as it appears that non-profit

organisations are attracted by money and brand. Furthermore, C1 and C3 underline that some

non-profit organisations view corporations merely as sources from which they can extract

money. C1 does maintain that money is a necessary element of a cross-sector partnership but

argues that it should never be the driving force. Conversely, shared value should be

considered the key mechanism facilitating the establishment of a cross-sector partnership, and

money should be considered as merely a facilitator. Apart from this, C1 also seems to

disagree with how non-profit organisations prioritise their money in general: When touching

upon the issue of geographical location (section 4.2.2.4), C1 turns attention to a non-profit

organisation with office in a very expensive property in Copenhagen, and argues that moving

the office to a smaller town would save them a lot of money, which could be used on their key

cause instead. Hence, this statement further bolsters the assumption that corporations

perceive non-profit organisations to be more concerned with money than value. In all, the

corporations encourage non-profit organisations to move focus from the financial aspect, and

realise the importance of creating shared value and the actual purpose of the collaboration.


Page|97

Connecting this observation with the literature, the corporations express the concern that non-

profit organisations only put limited effort into the value generation and shared visioning, which

accounts for one of Austin’s (2000:71) alliance drivers. As Austin (2000:84) maintains, value

exchange is an important element of a cross-sector partnership as well as both parties must

be invested and engaged in the project.

Finally, the analysis also reveals that corporations (C1) want non-profit organisations to show

more gratitude. Given the fact that non-profit organisations often prioritise money above value,

they also seem to forget, or perhaps neglect, expressing gratitude and appreciation for the

help they receive. With reference to Austin’s (2000) partnership drivers, non-profit

organisations do not show much concern to the driver called Personal connections and

relationships. Thus, C1 encourages non-profit organisations to be more invested in their

relationship with cross-sector partners. As Austin (2000:83) argues, the emotional connection

between is the glue that binds the cross-sector collaboration and its participants together.

5.3.3 Cultural differences As mentioned in the literature review (section 2.3.6), Elbers (2004) posits that the cultural

differences between corporations and non-profit organisations might pose a barrier to success

in a cross-sector partnership. Surprisingly, the findings in this study indicate that cultural

differences are not that decisive to the quality of a cross-sector partnership. Overall, both the

non-profit organisations and corporations maintain that cultural differences are inevitable in a

cross-sector partnership. However, the findings also suggest that the conflicts cultural

differences may give rise to are possible to prevent by means of transparent dialogue and

acknowledgement of each others’ differences. Thematic analysis identifies the theme

Openness about cultural differences indicating that the non-profit organisations encourage an

open dialogue on cultural differences from the very beginning of a cross-sector partnership

(section 4.1.2.3). They underline that cultural issues that might emerge are often related to

language, terminology and overall approaches. For instance, they experience a cultural

boundary between the cross-sector participants’ conception of time, social media strategies

and documentation processes. Yet, clear communication and dialogue relieves the conflicts

these aspects may induce, and the non-profit organisations prefer their potential partners to be

prepared for defining and acknowledging cultural differences when initiating a cross-sector

collaboration. In agreement with this, the theme Identifying and acknowledging cultural


Page|98

differences (section 4.2.2.6) suggests that corporations also value dialogue and

acknowledgement of cultural differences when selecting a partner. This theme also reveals

the unanticipated finding that some corporations regard the cultural boundary between

corporation and non-profit organisation as becoming progressively smaller and thus less

influencing on cross-sector collaborations. For instance, C3 states that non-profit organisations

are becoming more business-minded and corporations are increasingly concerned with

sustainability, and further argues that this facilitates the collaboration process. Taken together,

it appears that both the non-profit organisations and corporations perceive cultural differences

as less of an issue than suggested by Elbers (2004). However, this conclusion may be

explained by the fact that Elbers’ (2004) research on cultural differences primarily concerns

the implementation stage of cross-sector partnerships whereas this study focuses on the

initiation stage (The Partnership Resource Centre 2012). Consequently, the findings on

cultural differences in this study illuminates an area of research, which has only been limited

explored so far. In total, the findings provide with the insights that non-profit organisations and

corporations do not regard cultural differences as a barrier in the initiation stage of a cross-

sector collaboration. In fact, C3 views the cultural boundary between the two sectors as

increasingly indistinct. Nevertheless, the majority of non-profit organisations and corporations

do seem to realise the possible impacts of cultural differences but also see it as something

than can and should be overcome by open dialogue and acknowledgement from the very

beginning of a cross-sector partnership.

5.4 Implications of findings This study set out with the aim of assessing the motivational drivers and methods of approach

that come into play in the initiation stage of a cross-sector partnership. As this area has

remained rather unexplored so far, the findings of this study contribute to completing this

research gap.

As the sections above indicate, this study turned out to be very much concerned with the

motivational drivers of corporations given the emergence of the prominent theme moving focus

from money to value (section 4.2.2.3). This does not cause a limitation to the study, as these

findings are relevant to the non-profit organisations as well. Furthermore, this also correlates

with the statement provided by Byiers et al. (2015:41), which posits that “(…) the literature

says very little about how partners find and select each other, especially how firms select the

right NGO as a partner. This is therefore an interesting area for future research”.


Page|99

Overall, the findings may help non-profit organisations and corporations understand the

preferences and approaches of each other. Additionally, this study raises awareness of some

issues that have important implications to both non-profit organisations and corporations. For

instance, one of the most obvious findings to emerge from this study is that transparency is

vital to the establishment of a cross-sector partnership. In this connection, the non-profit

organisations call attention to the importance of corporations being open about their motivation

as they find dishonesty to damage the collaborations. Furthermore, the corporations

emphasise the need to move focus from money to value, and encourage non-profit

organisations to show more gratitude. Consequently, such findings may provide the

corporations and non-profit organisations with a better understanding each others’ preferences

and approaches to initiating cross-sector partnerships. Ideally, fostering such better

understanding might facilitate the initiation phase of their cross-sector partnerships, and help

cross-sector participants in avoiding potential conflicts, which may arise from the identified

issues.

5.5 Limitations In summation, this study has provided some interesting and satisfactory findings. Even so, it is

also subject to some limitations that must be considered in terms of their impact on the study

and its results.

First, it can be argued that a bigger sample would have provided a broader view on the issue

explored. To obtain a bigger sample, a questionnaire could have been employed. This would

have provided the opportunity to collect data from a larger number of informants, and thus

explore the issue from even more perspectives. However, the responses would have been

less elaborative and more impersonal due to the absence of physical connection and

interaction between interviewer and informants (Bailey 1994:174; Turner 2010:756).

Additionally, conducting telephone interviews also sets up limitations. These have already

been accounted for in section 3.3.1.

Secondly, with respect to the quality of the responses this study, it should be mentioned that

C2 was relatively new in the job position, which might have had an impact on the depth and

quality of the responses. Furthermore, a number of the informants postponed the interview,


Page|100

were in a hurry or had just finished a meeting right before the interview. Thus follows the risk

that these informants might have been stressed or unfocused, which may have had an impact

on the quality of the responses. Also, some of the informants provided some rather brief

responses due to time pressure whereas other seemed to have plenty of time to elaborate and

explain their responses. Resultingly, the interviews turned out to differ a lot in terms of duration

and elaboration. However, such variation is difficult to avoid as external factors, such as stress

and alike, will always impact the responses to a certain extent.

Lastly, while all 14 informants are anonymised, several informants did still ask questions about

the other participants in this study. Due to the anonymity and the issue of confidentiality, I

kindly explained that I was not allowed to answer their questions as this would breach the

confidentiality. However, the fact that they asked about this indicates a concern about the

other participants in the study. Furthermore, this could have caused the risk that the

informants were cautious in their responses as they did not know who else participates and

reads the study; it might even be one of their partners. Nonetheless, this study was

anonymised to avoid the risk of informants holding back information, and the issue of

anonymity was explained to the informants throughout the process to underline the level of

confidentiality and make them feel comfortable to share their opinions and experiences with

me.


Page|101

6.0

CONCLUSION


Page|102

6.0 CONCLUSION The purpose of this current study was to identify and compare the motivational drivers and

methods of approaches of the participants in international cross-sector partnerships between

non-profit organisations and corporations in the process of attracting and selecting partners.

This process is also referred to as the initiation stage (The Partnership Resource Centre

2012). Consequently, the results should offer a range of practices for attracting and selecting

cross-sector partners from the perspective of non-profit organisations as well as of

corporations. To achieve this purpose, 14 semi-structured interviews were conducted with five

corporations (C1-C5) and nine non-profit organisations (NP1-NP9). Subsequently, thematic

analysis was employed as analytical tool to analyse the semantic patterns emerging from the

data provided by the 14 informants.

With reference to the approaches to identifying and attracting cross-sector partners, a

comparison of the findings revealed that the non-profit organisations and the corporations

display significantly different levels of concern in this phase. The non-profit organisations

appear to have a very pragmatic and contextual approach, and consider branding as a useful

mechanism. Branding approaches include networking on social platforms, engagement in

public debate and identifying partners by making them subject to public critique. In contrast,

the corporations show only limited concern to attracting and identifying partners as they

already experience great interest from non-profit organisations. The reason for this seems to

be that non-profit organisations are attracted by the money and power of the corporations.

Consequently, the corporations do not consider branding as a necessary approach to attract

partners. From these findings emerges the interesting assumption that corporations do not

always appreciate the strong interest from non-profit organisations. In fact, C3 does not take

advantage of this interest as the offers from non-profit organisations are solely driven by

money and thus unattractive.

These findings are closely linked to the motivational drivers identified in this study. In

agreement with Austin (2000) and Pedersen and Pedersen (2013), the results revealed that

the non-profit organisations and corporations enter into collaboration with different motivation.

Likewise, the study also found that acknowledging this difference and maintaining a

transparent cross-sector collaboration is fundamental to the informants. In relation to the

notion of transparency, non-profit organisations encourage corporations to be more honest


Page|103

and open about their motivation. Also, corporations must realise that non-profit organisation

are aware and do accept that corporations enter cross-sector collaboration with an underlying

strategic intent, and that the actual cause is not their only motivational driver.

However, one of the most significant findings to emerge from this study is that the corporations

appear to prioritise value above money in a cross-sector partnership. While underlining that

money is a necessary element, they emphasise the need for non-profit organisations to move

focus from money to value. In other words, value should be considered the key mechanism,

and money should be considered the facilitator in a cross-sector collaboration. In connection

with this, corporations also express the need for non-profit organisations to show more

gratitude to their partners. Thus, it appears that some non-profit organisations show only little

concern to personal connections and relationships, which Austin (2000:83) posits to be one of

the main drivers in a cross-sector collaboration. Apart from this, the corporations also express

the view that non-profit organisations must be professional and offer the same quality as any

other business partner, which indicates that they need to put more effort into cross-sector

collaboration.

These findings are linked with Ryan and Deci’s (2000) presupposition that the distinction

between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation are not always as simple as suggested by classical

literature. The corporations are extrinsically motivated as they address an issue outside their

key activities that is not directly linked to their main goal. Yet, they do appear to be heavily

concerned with the value of the collaboration, and stress the need to show effort. Conversely,

the non-profit organisations are mainly intrinsically motivated as the activity of the cross-sector

collaboration is directly linked to the organisations’ key issue. However, the findings suggest

that the non-profit organisations put less effort into the cross-sector collaborations than the

corporations. Thus, this is consistent with the assumption that intrinsic motivation does not

always foster high effort and that extrinsic motivation is not equivalent to poor effort.

Furthermore, this study also reveals a common approach and preference in that a cross-sector

partnership must embrace the cultural differences as an inevitable part of the collaboration.

Both non-profit organisations and corporations draw attention to the significance of maintaining

an open dialogue about cultural differences and their potential impact on the collaboration.

Apart from this, the findings also suggest that the cultural boundary between the two sectors is

becoming less obvious in that non-profit organisations are becoming more business-minded


Page|104

and corporations are becoming increasingly concerned with sustainability. This is closely

linked with the finding that corporations tend to prioritise shared value above money, which

deviates from the traditional assumption that corporations engage with cross-sector

partnerships with the aim of buying the reputation of the non-profit organisation (Bator and

Stohl 2011:409).

In summation, the findings indicate that the corporations and the non-profit organisations have

different motivational drivers and priorities when it comes to cross-sector collaborations. A

possible explanation for this might be that non-profit organisations face more risks than

corporations when engaging with cross-sector collaborations: Thus, they may prefer to initiate

partnerships of more philanthropic character whereas corporations strive for transactional

cross-sector partnerships (Austin 2000).

Taken together, this study has gone some way towards enhancing our understandings of the

motivational drivers and methods of approach that come into play during the initiation stage of

a cross-sector partnership. Given the existence of a research gap on this field, the findings

contribute to an extension of the current research and knowledge. Apart from identifying the

motivational drivers and methods of approach, this study also illuminates a number of issues

relevant for cross-sector participants to become aware of. Ideally, this new knowledge might

provide corporations and non-profit organisation with a better understanding of the initiation

phase of cross-sector partnerships and help them avoid potential conflicts that may emerge

from the identified issues.

6.1 Recommendations for future research As mentioned in the literature review, four different arenas of cross-sector partnerships exist

(Selsky and Parker 2005). This study focuses on identifying partners in the arena of business-

non-profit partnerships. To develop a full picture of the issue of identifying partners for a cross-

sector partnership, additional studies exploring the remaining three arenas will be needed.

Thus, future studies on the current topic are therefore recommended to focus on the additional

arenas of cross-sector partnerships.

NUMBER OF CHARACTERS EXCL. BLANKS: 172.884


Page|105

REFERENCES


Page|106

REFERENCES Austin, E. J. (2000) Strategic Collaboration Between Nonprofits and Businesses. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 29, 69-97. Bailey, D. K. (1994) Methods of Social Research, 4th edn. New York: The Free Press Bator, J. M. and Stohl, C. (2011) New Partnerships for a New Generation of Corporate Social Responsibility”. In Ihlen, Ø., Bartlett, L. J and May, S. (ed.) The Handbook of Communications and Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 399-422. Baur, D. And Schmitz, P. H. (2011) Corporations and NGOs: When Accountability Leads to Co-optation. Journal of Business Ethics, 106, 9-21. Blichfeldt, S. T. and Heldbjerg, G. (2011) Why not? The interviewing of friends and acquaintances. Working paper. University of Southern Denmark, Department of Entrepreneurship and Relationship Management [PDF] Available at: http://static.sdu.dk/mediafiles/E/2/5/%7BE255E21E-4B55-4216-A242-45B95EF44099%7DWP%202011-1_samlet.pdf Accessed [31 May 2017] Branco, C. M. and Rodrígues, L. (2007) Positioning stakeholder theory within the debate on corporate social responsibility. Electronic Journal of Business Ethics and Organization Studies 12, 5-15. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 77-101. Brinkerhoff, M. J. (2002) Government-nonprofit partnership: A defining framework. Public

Administration and Development 22, 19-30.

Burr, V. (2015) Social Constructionism, 3rd edn. East Sussex: Routledge.

Byiers, B., Guadagno, F. and Karaki, K. (2015) From looking good to doing good: Mapping CSO-business partnerships. European Centre for Development Policy Management 182, 1-40.


Page|107

Cachia, M. and Millward, L. (2011) The telephone medium and semi-structured interviews: a complementary fit. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal 6, 265-277. Centre for International Development Issues (2004) Doing Business With Business. Available at: http://www.eldis.org/go/home&id=14286&type=Document#.WI-zSGMgbBI [Accessed 30 January 2017]

Cooke, D. (2000) Building social capital through corporate social investment. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration 2, 71-87.

Creswell, W. J. and Miller, L. D. (2000) Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry. Theory into Practice 39, 124-130.

Crowther, J. (1995) Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Daymon, C. and Holloway, I. (2011) Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations and Marketing Communications. [online] Oxon: Routledge. Available at: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com.ez.statsbiblioteket.dk:2048/lib/asb/reader.action?docID=574487 [Accessed 9 May 2017] Elbers, W. (2004) Doing Business with Business: Development NGOs interacting with the corporate sector. Centre for International Development Issues of Nijmegen. Fage-Butler, A. and Jensen, N. M. (2013) The interpersonal dimension of online patient

forums: how patients manage informational and relational aspects in response to posted

questions. Hermes - Journal of Language and Communication in Business 51, 21-38.

Galbin, A. (2014). An introduction to social constructionism. Social Research Reports 26, 82-92. Gass, H. R. & Seiter, S. J. (2014) Persuasion, Social Influence & Compliance Gaining, 5th edn. Harlow: Pearson.


Page|108

Gergen, J. K. (1997) The Place of the Psyche in a Constructed World. Theory and Psychology 7, 723-746. Goering, E., Connor, M. U., Nagelhout, E. and Steinberg, R. (2011) Persuasion in Fundraising Letters: An Interdisciplinary Study. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 40, 228-246. Googins, K. B and Rochlin A. S. (2000) Creating the Partnership Society: Understanding the Rhetoric and Reality of Cross-Sectoral Partnerships. Business and Society Review 105, 127-144. Golafshani, N. (2003) Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report 8, 597-606. Graneheim, U., H. and Lundman, B. (2004) Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today 24, 105-112. Grix, J. (2002) Introducing Students to the Generic Terminology of Social Research. Politics 22, 175-186. Hamann, R. and Acutt, N. (2003) How should civil society (and the government) respond to ‘corporate social responsibility’? A critique of business motivations and the potential for partnership, Development Southern Africa 20:2, 255-270. Herlin, H. and Pedersen, T. J. (2013) Corporate Foundations: Catalysts of NGO-Business Partnerships? The Journal of Corporate Citizenship 50, 58-90. ICRC (2017) Fundamental Principles. Available at: https://www.icrc.org/en/fundamental-principles [Accessed 30 January 2017] Kaiser, K. (2009) Protecting Respondent Confidentiality in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Health Research 19, 1632-1641. Kvale, S. and Brinkmann, S. (2009) Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Los Angeles: Sage Publications. Novick, G. (2008) Is there a Bias Against Telephone Interviews in Qualitative Research? Res Nurs Health 31, 391-298.


Page|109

Pascoal, M. P., Narciso, S. I. And Pereira, M.N (2014) What is Sexual Satisfaction? Analysis of Lay People’s Definitions. Journal of Sex Research 51, 22-30. Pedersen, P. G. E. and Pedersen T. J (2013) Introduction: The Rise of Business-NGO Partnerships. The Journal of Corporate Citizenship 50, 6-19. Peloza, J. and Falkenberg, L. (2009) The Role of Collaboration in Achieving Social Responsibility Objectives. California Management Review 5, 95-113. Ryan, M. R and Deci, L. E (2000) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 54-67. Selsky, W. J. and Parker, B. (2005) Cross-Sector Partnerships to Address Social Issues: Challenges to Theory and Practice. Journal of Management 31, 849-873. Senge, M. P and Neath, G. D. M. (2006) Learning together: new partnerships for new times. Corporate Governance. The International Journal of Business in Society 6, 420-230. Shin, Y. S. (2014) Two epistemological paradigms of self-management intervention for older adults with osteoarthritis. Japan Journal of Nursing Science 11, 144-149. Shumate, M. and O’Connor, A. (2010) The symbiotic sustainability model: Conceptualizing NGO-corporate alliance communication. Journal of Communication 60, 577-609. Skukauskaite, A. (2012) Transparency in Transcribing: Making Visible Theoretical Bases Impacting Knowledge Construction from Open-Ended Interview Records. Forum: Qualitative Research 13, article 14. Tashakkori, A. and Teddlie, C. (2002) Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Tennyson, R. (2008) Emerging opportunities for NGO-business partnerships. Available at: http://thepartneringinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Emerging-opportunities-for-NGO-business-partnerships1.pdf [Accessed 28 February 2017]


Page|110

The North-South Institute (2014) The Value of Cross-Sector Development Partnerships. [online] Available at: http://www.nsi-ins.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/The-Value-of-Cross-Sector-Development-Partnerships.pdf [Accessed 26 January 2017] The Partnerships Resource Centre (2012) Cross-Sector Partnership Formation. Available at: https://www.rsm.nl/fileadmin/Images_NEW/Faculty_Research/Partnership_Resource_Centre/Key_publications/cross-sector_partnership_formation.pdf [Accessed 30 January 2017] Turner, W. D. (2010) Qualitative Interview Design: A Practical Guide for Novice Investigators. The Qualitative Report 15, 754-760. Vachani, S., Doh, P. J. and Teegen, H. (2009) NGO’s influence on MNE’s social development strategies in varying institutional contexts: A transaction cost perspective. International Business Review 18, 446-456. Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H. and Bondas, T. (2013) Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing and Health Sciences 15, 398-405. Walford, G. (2005) Research ethical guidelines and anonymity. International Journal of Research & Method in Education 28, 83-93. Walker, A. C. (2015) Social Constructionism and Qualitative Research. The Journal of Theory Construction and Testing 19, 37-38. Whitely, A., Price, C. and Palmer, R. (2013) Corporate culture change: Adaptive culture structuration and negotiated practice. Journal of Workplace Learning 25, 476-498. Wiles, R., Crow, G., Heath, S. and Charles, V. (2008) The Management of Confidentiality and Anonymity in Social Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 11, 417-428. Wymer, W. W. and Samu, S. (2003) Dimensions of Business and Nonprofit Collaborative Relationships. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 11, 3-22. Yakovleva, N. (2003) Tri-sector partnership for community development in mining: a case study of the SAPI Foundation and Target Fund in the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). Resources Policy 29, 83-98.


Page|111

Appendix 1: E-mail requesting an interview Appendix 16: Interview transcript NP5

Appendix 2: Informants Appendix 17: Interview transcript NP6

Appendix 3: Interview guide C1-C5 Appendix 18: Interview transcript NP7

Appendix 4: Interview guide NP1-NP8 Appendix 19: Interview transcript NP8

Appendix 5: Interview guide NP9 Appendix 20: Interview transcript NP9

Appendix 6: Post-process e-mail

Appendix 7: Interview transcript C1





Appendix 12: Interview transcript NP1




LIST OF APPENDICES

201209700 master’s thesis · 2017-02-28 · 201209700 master’s thesis table of content 1.0...

Documents