Differences Among NGOs in The Business

http://bas.sagepub.
com/
Business & Society
http://bas.sagepub.com/content/53/1/105
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0007650311418195
2014 53: 105 originally published online 7 September 2011 Business Society
Amy O'Connor and Michelle Shumate
Network
NGO Cooperative Differences Among NGOs in the Business
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
International Association for Business and Society

can be found at: Business & Society Additional services and information for
http://bas.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://bas.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://bas.sagepub.com/content/53/1/105.refs.html Citations:
at University of Bucharest on May 8, 2014 bas.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Bucharest on May 8, 2014 bas.sagepub.com Downloaded from
What is This?
- Sep 7, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record
- Dec 20, 2013 Version of Record >>

at University of Bucharest on May 8, 2014 bas.sagepub.com Downloaded from at University of Bucharest on May 8, 2014 bas.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Business & Society
2014, Vol 53(1) 105 133
The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0007650311418195
bas.sagepub.com
1
North Dakota State University, ND, USA
2
University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, IL, USA
Corresponding Author:
Amy OConnor, North Dakota State University, Department of Communication, #2310, 202
Ehly Hall, PO Box 6050, Fargo, ND 58108-6050, USA.
Email: amy.oconnor@ndsu.edu
Differences Among
NGOs in the Business
NGO Cooperative
Network
Amy OConnor
1

and Michelle Shumate
2
Abstract
Informed by the symbiotic sustainability model, this theory-building research
compares a stratified subsample (N = 66) from 695 nongovernmental orga-
nizations (NGOs) that have relationships with U.S. Fortune 500 companies
in 11 industries (N = 155). Using network analysis and centering resonance
analysis, the research compares the about us statements of three groups of
NGOs with different indegree centralities. The results of this study suggest
that NGOs with multiple corporate partners are distinct from NGOs with
single corporate partners. Across all levels of centrality, NGOs in cross-
sector cooperative relationships tend to focus on children and be service
oriented. In addition, federated NGOs were more likely to occupy a central
position in the businessNGO cooperative network and foundations were
more likely to have relationships with multiple corporations. Local NGOs
were more likely to have only one cross-sector relationship and were, by
a significant margin, the largest group. Propositions for future research are
offered based on the findings.
Keywords
cross-sector partnerships, symbiotic sustainability model, social network
analysis, computerized text analysis, NGOs
Article
at University of Bucharest on May 8, 2014 bas.sagepub.com Downloaded from
106 Business & Society 53(1)
As part of the growing corporate social responsibility (CSR) movement, non-
governmental organizations
1
(NGOs) and corporations, are forming coopera-
tive relationships at an unprecedented level (Bendell, 2000; McIntosh, 2007).
Recent research indicates that 89% of Americans think that businesses, gov-
ernments, and NGOs should collaborate to solve pressing social and environ-
mental issues (Cone, 2008).
2
NGOcorporate cooperative relationships,
therefore, meet the cultural expectations Americans have about the role of
business in society, while advancing social issue awareness and enhancing
organizational legitimacy. In 2005, Fortune 100 companies gave in excess of
US$10.5 billion to NGOs (Corporate Giving Standard, 2006). Cause market-
ing provides over US$4 billion of additional support for charitable causes
annually (Center for Nonprofit Success, 2009). Partnerships offer brand dis-
tinction and increased revenue through value associations for both NGOs and
corporations (Cone, 2008; McIntosh, 2007). In addition, NGOcorporate
partnerships can help corporations earn public trust (Edelman Trust Barometer,
2010). Research indicates that 85% of Americans report having a more posi-
tive image of a product or company that supports a cause about which they
care (Cone, 2008).
In keeping with these trends, a growing body of business scholarship has
been concerned with the businessNGO interface (Kourla & Laasonen,
2010). However, most of this literature has focused on activist NGOs that
challenge or seek to modify corporate action (Den Hond & De Bakker, 2007;
Doh & Guay, 2004; Soule, 2009). According to Kourula and Laasonen
(2010), only 16% of the research on NGOs in business and management has
focused on businessNGO relationships. As noted by Selsky and Parker
(2005, p. 858), when scholarship investigates cross-sector socially oriented
partnerships, it has tended to have a strong instrumental orientation that
reflects the conventional resource dependence argument in organization stud-
ies. Such research often focuses on the process of cross-sector partnerships
(e.g., Le Ber & Branzei, 2010; London, Rondonelli, & ONeil, 2006) or on
successful cases (e.g., Harvey & Schaefer, 2001; Stafford, Polonsky, &
Hartman, 2000). Other research suggests that a small portion of charities
receive the vast majority of corporate dollars; specifically, of the US$65 bil-
lion given to the 400 largest charities in 2005, more than 25% went to only
ten NGOs (Kadlec, 2006). This research indicates a long-tailed distribution
in philanthropic giving and suggests some NGOs may be preferred partners.
Taken together, prior research offers detailed accounts of how particular
NGOs and corporations engage each other and generally how philanthropic
dollars are distributed.
OConnor and Shumate 107
In response to this research, Selsky and Parker (2005) identify two gaps in
the literature; they challenge researchers to strengthen the conceptual under-
pinnings and conduct more macrolevel studies of cross-sector partnerships.
To answer this call, the authors offer a macrolevel analysis to uncover the
cooperative relationship patterns of NGOs and corporations. Specifically, the
purpose of this research is to extend theorizing about the characteristics of
NGOs that are more central in the businessNGO cooperative network.
Given this, the authors ask, across the collaboration continuum (Austin,
2000), how do NGOs with multiple U.S. Fortune 500 partners describe them-
selves in comparison to NGOs with fewer cross-sector partners?
NGOs and the private sector have been increasingly called on to offer a
social safety net (Andreason, 1996, p. 48), in the face of government ineffi-
ciencies and resource constraints (see Bendell, 2000; Teegen, Doh, & Vachani,
2004). As such, the types of NGOs that are most central and least central in the
businessNGO cooperative network have important implications for society.
For example, a few highly central NGOs in the network may occupy a position
of power. Such NGOs, especially if they fund other NGOs, act as a broker
between corporations and beneficiaries (see Burt, 1992). Furthermore, the cen-
trality of a limited number of NGOs raises important questions about the role of
organizational discourse in determining which social issues are supported,
which are marginalized, and the social implications of these disparities. In addi-
tion, the characteristics of NGOs in more central and less central places within
the businessNGO cooperative network may shed light on neglected social
issues, especially if the public sector withdraws support from these areas.
Finally, as corporations seek to strategically manage their relationships with
NGOs, knowledge of which types of NGOs occupy central positions and the
likely structural holes within the network is of value. Corporations may seek
particular types of NGO relationships to add to their competitive advantage,
setting them apart from popular trends (Porter & Kramer, 2006).
To begin this inquiry, the authors describe the theoretical model of cross-
sector cooperative relationships on which this research builds. Then, the
authors use a combination of network analysis and computerized textual
analysis to determine the centrality of NGOs in cross-sector cooperative rela-
tionships and examine the about us descriptions. The combination of these
methods is unique; network analysis allows us to move beyond dyadic
descriptions of particular businessNGO relationships to a macronetwork
view and computerized textual analysis allows us to inductively identify the
characteristics of NGOs with differing numbers of corporate partners. The
authors conclude this article with a set of propositions and future directions
for businessNGO interface research.
Cross-Sector Socially Oriented Partnerships
3
Cross-sector socially oriented partnerships are formed explicitly to address
social issues and causes that actively engage the partners on an ongoing
basis (Selsky & Parker, 2005, p. 850). As noted by Austin (2000), these
partnerships vary along a continuum of collaboration, ranging from philan-
thropy and information sharing to more strategic and integrated relation-
ships. Cooperative businessNGO relationships are increasingly cited as an
important element in achieving advantages including the following: solving
problems larger than the capabilities of a single organization (Westely &
Vrendenberg, 1997), improving economic production (King, 2007; Taylor &
Scharlin, 2004), responding to issues that may disrupt the business environ-
ment (Esty & Winston, 2006), responding to stakeholder pressure (Bendell,
2000), and creating a triple bottom line (Elkington, 1998). Such research and
theorizing offer insights into the reasons why cross-sector relationships are
increasingly prevalent and are largely drawn from the resource dependence
and societal sector views (Selsky & Parker, 2005). The current research takes
a macrolevel approach, departing from these traditions, by grounding itself
in a community ecology-based model (Astley, 1985; Hawley & Theodorson,
1982). Such a move allows researchers to move beyond the characteristics
and benefits of individual cross-sector cooperative relationships to under-
standing the growing network of businessNGO relationships.
The Symbiotic Sustainability Model (SSM)
The present research builds on previous work introducing (Shumate & OConnor,
2010b) and testing (Shumate & OConnor, 2010a) the SSM. The SSM
departs from transaction costs economics (King, 2007), stakeholder theory
(Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997), and collaboration-theory (Westley &
Vrendenburg, 1997) approaches to businessNGO relationships (see Shumate
& OConnor, 2010b, for a full comparison); the central point of this depar-
ture is the assertion that the communication of the existence and character of
the cross-sector relationship to stakeholders, rather than the resources exchanged
within the relationship, is of primary importance. This communication is
understood as part of the institutional positioning flow of communication,
instead of the activity coordination flow; the activity coordination flow refers
to the ways in which communication is used to develop common goals, dis-
tribute responsibilities, and share information within interorganizational rela-
tionships. In contrast, the institutional positioning flow describes macrolevel
communication where boundary spanners negotiate terms of recognition of
the organizations existence and place . . . [including] both identity establish-
ment and development and maintenance of a place in the interorganiza-
tional or larger social system (McPhee & Zaug, 2000, p. 15).
Previous research on businessNGO relationships suggests that reputa-
tional benefits, derived from the institutional positioning of a businesss rela-
tionship with a NGO, are primary. Pearce and Doh (2005) note that most
empirical research suggests that the primary way CSR improves financial
performance is via reputation, making the communication of such initiatives
equal to or more important than the efforts themselves. According to the
SSM, the communication of cross-sector cooperative relationships allows
NGOs and businesses to obtain capital that may otherwise be unavailable.
This capital is mobilized by leveraging the functional differences of the
cross-sector partners. When organizational attributes are communicated to
stakeholders, messages are evaluated within the context of what is already
known about the organization (Kuperman, 2003) and based on the source
credibility (Hovland & Weiss, 1951) of the organization in a given domain.
In contrast, when functionally different organizations publicly align, the
credibility and existing schema of what is known about the partnering orga-
nization also influences stakeholder perceptions of legitimacy (Suchman,
1995) and authenticity (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996). Corporations may ben-
efit from the communication of cooperative relationships with NGOs, in part,
because of the source credibility of NGOs on social issues. NGOs have
greater public trust on the environment, human rights, and health (Wootliff &
Deri, 2001; see also Edelman Trust Barometer, 2010). In contrast, NGOs
may benefit from the economic capital that may be leveraged by business
stakeholders to fund programs, market their organization/social issue, and
enhance their organizations position within the NGO market.
The SSM draws on community ecology (Astley, 1985; Hawley, 1986) in
its description of the dynamic system of businessNGO relationships. First,
the public alignment of businesses and NGOs brings together two different
types of organizations with different performance measures, competitive
dynamics, organization cultures, decision-making styles, personnel compe-
tencies, professional languages, incentives and motivational structures, and
emotional content (Austin, 2000, p. 14; see also Dahan, Doh, & Teegen,
2010 for differences). The SSM defines the relationship between corporations
and NGOs as symbiotic, or a beneficial relationship between organizations
that do not have overlapping resource or identity niches (see Aldrich & Reuf,
2006). Symbiotic relationships are based on interdependencies and occur
when organizations in a population branch out from their original functional
identity to fulfill ancillary roles (Astley, 1985, p. 236). Second, when
organizations are in sustained symbiotic relationships, Hawley (1986) notes
they are buffered from dramatic environmental changes (e.g., boycotts, social
protest, and fundraising and media coverage drift). Thus, sustained symbiotic
relationships between businesses and NGOs have substantial benefits for
both parties, though as noted above, the type of benefits may differ.
By focusing on the institutional positioning of the businessNGO relation-
ship and the symbiotic nature of these relationships, new research areas are
brought into relief (see Figure 1). In particular, a research agenda that examines
the interorganizational patterns of business and NGO affiliations have emerged.
The SSM derives propositions concerning capital mobilization resulting from
NGOcorporate relationships, NGOs and businesses choice(s) of partner(s),
the number of partners NGOs and businesses are likely to communicate, and
Symbiotic
Sustainability
(P6)
Risky
Partnerships
(P5)
Portfolio of NGO-corporate partners
#of partnerships
communicated (P4)
Choice of
partner (P3)
Stakeholders
mobilize capital
Stakeholders
restrict capital
(P2)
Cease to
communicate
and/or
dissolve
Re-affirm
alliance
Communicative
constitution of the
existence and
character/valuation of
NGO-corporate
partnership(s) (P1)
Experienced
costs outweigh
potential capital
accumulation
Potential capital
accumulation
outweighs
experienced costs
Negotiate
with
stakeholders
Environment
Figure 1. The symbiotic sustainability model.
the potential risks and rewards of such relationships (see Table 1). In Shumate
and OConnor (2010a), the propositions about the number and choice of NGO
partners that businesses choose were investigated. In that research, most busi-
nesses communicated relationships with five or fewer NGO partners.
Furthermore, the research demonstrated that businesses in common industries
preferred different NGOs operating in the same social issue industry. In com-
bination, Shumate and OConnor suggest that the NGO partnerships given
primacy in corporate communication is strategic and based on the stakehold-
ers perceived ability and willingness to mobilize capital.
Table 1. The Propositions of the Symbiotic Sustainability Model (SSM).
Proposition
1 The existence, character, and valuation of NGO-corporate alliances
5
is
communicatively coconstructed by alliance partners and stakeholders.
2 Cross-sector alliance partners and stakeholders communication and
coconstruction of the existence, character, and valuation of the alliance
mobilizes and/or restricts various forms of capital for NGOs and
corporations.
3 Alliance partner choice is influenced by the alliance partners perceived
ability to mobilize stakeholders and their associated capital, as evidenced
by the partners already accumulated capital and their current position in
the symbiotic network.
3a Organizations are more likely to seek alliance partners in an economic or
issue industry if competitors within their industry have sought similar
alliances with partners in that industry and have achieved gains.
3b Organizations are less likely to seek alliances with partners that have an
existing relationship with another organization in their industry.
3c Organizations are more likely to seek alliance partners who have had a prior
cross-sector alliance that led to capital accumulation for another alliance
partner outside of their industry.
4 As the number of cross-sector alliance partners increase, the communication
of such alliances results in a diminishing return from stakeholders;
conversely, the communication of a limited number of alliances increases
perceptions of value.
5 NGOs and corporations in alliances risk a loss of legitimacy from their own
stakeholders and criticism from the alliance partners stakeholders.
6 NGOcorporate alliance partners will be more buffered from and less
vulnerable to disturbances in their environments than corporations and
NGOs not in enduring cross-sector alliances.
Source: Shumate & OConnor (2010).
The present research continues this research agenda. Although Shumate
and OConnor (2010a) identify the strategic nature of particular social issues
and patterns of economic and social industry alignment, research to date has
not investigated the characteristics of NGOs that occupy the most and least
central position in the businessNGO cooperative network. The present
research takes up this question.
NGO Characteristics
The term NGO covers a broad range of organizations (Frumkin, 2002),
including fierce advocates for ideological positions, direct service agencies,
foundations, and membership organizations. The number of NGOs has sky-
rocketed in the previous three decades (Sikkink & Smith, 2002). In 2009,
there were over 1.1 million registered 501c3 organizations in the United
States (Strom, 2009) and, according to the Yearbook of International
Organizations, there are more than 25,000 NGOs with an international scope
of operations (Union of International Associations, 2009). With a growing
number of NGOs, several typologies have been offered. These typologies
can be characterized into three groups: NGO aims, NGO orientation to busi-
ness, and strategic fit.
Typologies focusing on aims discriminate among NGOs based on their
stated purposes and activities. For example, Yaziji and Doh (2009) describe
NGOs as being either self-benefiting or other-benefiting. Self-benefiting
NGOs seek to advance the interests of their members and can include mem-
bership organizations and labor unions. Other-benefiting NGOs, in contrast,
seek to provide a service to groups external to the organization. These two
types of NGOs can be further distinguished by their activities, which include
advocacy and direct service. Although these two distinctions are useful in
understanding the broad spectrum of NGO aims and activities, as noted by
Den Hond (2010) in his review of Yaziji and Dohs (2009) book, there is
nothing to link this typology to a prescription about which types of NGOs
corporations are more likely to choose as partners.
The orientation to business typologies classifies NGOs based on their
ideological relationship with business. hlstrm and Sjstrm (2005) divide
NGOs into four categories: preservers, protestors, modifiers, and scrutiniz-
ers. Den Hond and De Bakker (2007) similarly describe NGOs in terms of
their tactics based on two dimensions: the level of collective action participa-
tion and their radical/reformist ideologies. Elkington (1998, 2004) classifies
NGOs as dolphins, sealions, orcas, and sharks. Although dolphins and
sealions collaborate with business, orcas and sharks conflict with business
through a variety of tactics. Although hlstrm and Sjstrm (2005) and Den
Hond and De Bakkers (2007) typologies treat all collaborative NGOs as one
type, Elkington further distinguishes among collaborative NGOs, drawing a
distinction between dolphins and sealions. Dolphins act discriminately when
forging partnerships and identify individual organizations based on their
position within their industry. Sealion NGOs, however, are less discriminate
and seek partnerships based more on economic industry, with less focus on
individual corporate positions within the industry. In one of the most exten-
sive business-orientation typologies, Van Tulder and Van Der Zwart (2006)
distinguish between 10 types of NGOs, largely based on their level of inde-
pendence from business. At one end of the continuum are business-oriented
NGOs (BONGOs) that represent the interest of businesses as their sole mis-
sion. In the middle of the typology are strategic-oriented NGOs (STRONGOs),
which focus on achieving some outcome in collaboration with one or more
businesses. At the confrontational end, direct action NGOs (DANGOs) are
described as hard-core action groups (p. 122), who may even carry out
illegal activities against corporate interests. Lucea (2010), in a study of cog-
nitive maps of the NGO landscape in Ecuador, found that NGO managers and
business leaders classify NGOs differently. Although NGO managers
describe six subgroups of NGOs based on scope, funding, and ideology, firm
managers classify NGOs into three groups based on their cooperative, con-
frontational, or of little relevance to their firms. As such, Luceas research
suggests that business-oriented typologies may be more accurate renderings
of firm managers classification schema than NGO managers.
To summarize, orientation to business typologies distinguish NGOs pri-
marily by level of cooperation with business. Both Elkington (1998) and Van
Tulder and Van Der Zwart (2006) go further than this primary classification,
distinguishing between types of NGOs likely to collaborate with businesses.
Elkington distinguishes between NGOs likely to form partnerships within
businesses that have not had previous cross-sector relationships (i.e., dol-
phins) and those that seek partnerships with businesses that already have
existing or past cross-sector relationships (i.e., sealions). Van Tulder and Van
Der Zwart distinguish between dependent NGOs that are easily co-opted by
business interest and interdependent NGOs that focus on problems and solu-
tions. Although useful in understanding the various orientations that NGOs
may have to businesses, these typologies do not provide insight into either the
social issue or other characteristics that might make a small set of NGOs
highly desirable partners.
The strategic fit typologies suggest that NGOs can be classified based on
a variety of characteristics and resources. For example, London and Roninelli
(2003) suggest that NGOs should be classified based on their attitude toward
partnership and expertise. They state that the ideal NGO partner is
Credible as a responsible, legitimate, and knowledgeable organization;
understands private enterprise and that corporations need to make prof-
its; is experienced in jointly improving a corporations economic and
environmental performance, gives cost effective and technically sound
advice; and recognizes that meaningful changes in large corporations
take time. (p. 33)
Similarly, Austin (2000) suggests that NGO partner selection is a matter
of strategic fit, asking managers to consider if common goals and common
ground can be identified. Porter and Kramer (2006, p. 83) further suggest that
strategic fit is related to the social issue that the NGO addresses. They sug-
gest that corporations should identify, prioritize, and address the social
issues that matter most or the ones on which it can make the biggest impact.
The strategic fit typologies suggest that NGO partnerships begin with the
right match of NGO to corporation; this match is related to the corporations
individual needs, its distinction among its peers within its industry, and how
it might achieve competitive advantage. This line of research has made the
strategic management of a portfolio of NGO partnerships a key issue within
the CSR literature. However, strategic fit typologies, like the business orien-
tation typologies, fail to address why a small group of NGOs seem to be the
right strategic choice for many corporations across industries.
The aforementioned typologies offer useful descriptors of NGObusiness
relationships along a cooperative continuum. The prior research, however,
does not offer a macrolevel empirical analysis of the patterns of cross-sector
collaborative relationships nor does it explore the relationships beyond a
priori classification schemas. The current research, therefore, takes up the
question: How do NGOs with multiple U.S. Fortune 500 partners describe
themselves in comparison to NGOs with fewer cross-sector partners? This
research question distinguishes among NGOs that have cooperative relation-
ships with businesses, in the tradition of Elkington (1998) and Van Tulder
and Van Der Zwart (2006) and follows Yaziji and Doh (2009) and Porter and
Kramers (2006) suggestion that NGO aims and social issues are primary
distinguishing features of these organizations. As noted by Pearce and Doh
(2005, p. 32), a firms first step in choosing an NGO partner is to determine
the social causes it will support and why. Our research uses computerized
textual analysis of NGOs about us statements to characterize NGOs with
different numbers of cross-sector relationships, thus potentially expanding
existing a priori typologies. Through textual analysis, the authors can deter-
mine which NGO characteristics (e.g., social issue, organizational structure)
are given most prominence by the NGOs themselves. In doing so, the authors
develop a set of propositions about NGOs most likely to be central in the
businessNGO cooperative network.
Method
This research examines NGOcorporate collaborative relationships reported
on a sample of U.S. Fortune 500 corporations CSR websites. The authors
chose to examine websites because they are a form of strategic communica-
tion that is widely disseminated (Esrock & Leichty, 1998) and 55% of
Americans report using the Internet to learn about social causes (Cone, 2008).
This research derives its sample of NGOs from a previous study (Shumate &
OConnor, 2010a) that examined the numbers and patterns of relationships
between NGOs and businesses. Although the NGOs identified are the same,
this research uniquely examines these NGOs about us statements and com-
pares central NGOs with more peripheral NGOs. About us statements rep-
resent NGO-initiated communication that highlights those organizational
attributes the NGO has chosen to give primacy. As such, they are an appropri-
ate source to answer the research question. The authors used a combination of
network analysis and computerized textual analysis to answer the research
question posed in this study. The combination of these methods allowed us to
examine the cross-sector collaborative relationship ties and the language used
to describe the NGOs activities and structure.
Sample
To identify the NGOs analyzed in this study, the authors began with a purpo-
sive sample of 158 corporate websites from the 2005 U.S. Fortune 500 corpo-
ration list. Three organizations experienced a merger reducing the effective
sample to 155 corporations. All organizations in the U.S. Fortune 500 list that
represent one of 11 economic industries were included in the sample. The
authors chose industries, according to Hendry (2006), that were most likely to
be confronted with stakeholder pressure. The authors reasoned these firms
would be the most likely to include NGO relationships in their public
communication. These included firms that had in recent history violated soci-
ety norms (e.g., tobacco), that were visible to consumers either through brands
or the value chain (e.g., general merchandisers), and firms that operate in
industries under scrutiny by activist groups (e.g., mining-crude oil). Using
Fortunes North American Industry Classification System, the following
industries were included in our sample, chemical (n = 14), commercial banks
(n = 18), general merchandisers (n = 13), hotels, casinos, and resorts (n = 15),
mining-crude oil (n = 9), motor vehicles and parts (n = 17), petroleum refining
(n = 9), specialty retailers (n = 24), telecommunication (n = 16), tobacco (n = 2),
and utilities, gas, and electric (n = 28). Each website was garnered from the
2005 online version of the U.S. Fortune 500 list. Each website was printed
between November 22 and November 29, 2005. The authors examined three
locations on corporate websites to identify NGOs listed by the corporation.
These locations included the about us, community, and/or social respon-
sibility sections. The authors did not examine the websites of subsidiaries,
press releases found on the website, or PDF files.
The indegree centrality, or the number of U.S. Fortune 500 organizations
from our sample that cited the NGO as part of its CSR efforts, was deter-
mined for each NGO in this sample. The authors then divided this initial
sample into three groups, Prominent NGOs, or NGOs with four or more ties
(n = 22), Known NGOs, or NGOs with either three or two ties (n = 37), and
Solitary NGOs with a single relationship with a sampled U.S. Fortune 500
corporation (n = 636). Because of the uneven distribution of NGO indegree
centrality, the authors took a stratified random sample of the NGO texts, so
that there were 22 texts from each of the three groups. If no website text could
be identified, an additional randomly sampled organization was identified as
a replacement. In doing so, the authors created three sets of comparably sized
texts, so that the size of the text would not impact the word influence or num-
ber of unique words for each set of organizations. Of the 695 NGOs, 610
NGOs had websites that included an about us statement. The effective
sample for this study is 66 NGO texts (see Table 2). Finally, the NGO text
files were subjected to centering resonance analysis (Corman & Dooley,
2006; Corman, Kuhn, McPhee, & Dooley, 2002).
Measures
For the purpose of this research, two measures were included in the analysis.
First, the authors examined the network relationships of each organization in
the sample. Second, the authors examined the resonance analysis maps of
NGO descriptions derived from the centering resonance analysis. Resonance
maps are visual descriptions of the prevalence of noun phrases within a set of
texts and the relative distance between noun phrases in the texts. Both reso-
nance scores for individual noun phrases and phrase pairs were calculated and
a visual map of the relationships among the noun phrases was created.
Table 2. Sample of NGOs From Each of Three Categories.
Prominent NGOs Known NGOs Solitary NGOs
American Cancer Society
(9)
Americas Second Harvest (3) American Diabetes
Association (1)
American Heart
Association (5)
Boy Scouts (3) Best Buys Childrens
Foundation (1)
American Red Cross (31) Breast Cancer Research
Foundation (2)
Borrow Smart (1)
Big Brothers Big
Sisters (6)
California African American
Museum (2)
Center for Child and Family
Advocacy (1)
Habitat for
Humanity (15)
City of Hope (2) Center for Collaborative
Research in Education (1)
Boys and Girls Clubs of
America (13)
City Year (2) Charity Newsies, Columbus (1)
International Red Cross
and Red Crescent
Society (4)
Congressional Black Caucus
Foundation (2)
Chicago Foundation for
Women (1)
Junior Achievement (18) Disasters Emergency Committee (2) DePaul University (1)
Juvenile Diabetes
Research
Foundation (4)
Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS
Foundation (2)
Humane Society (1)
March of Dimes (9) Girl Scouts of America( 3) Laughlin Memorial Hospital (1)
NAACP (5) Goodwill Industries (2) Lindenwood University (1)
National Center for
Missing and Exploited
Children (4)
International Reading Association (2) Lower Eastside Girls Club
NY (1)
National Minority
Supplier Development
Council (4)
Meals on Wheels Association (3) Martins Creek Environmental
Preserve (1)
Nature Conservancy (4) Museum of Modern Art (3) Murphy Education Program (1)
Salvation Army (11) National Arbor Day Foundation (2) Ohio Cancer Research
Associates (1)
Toys for Tots (6) National Society for Hispanic
MBAs (3)
Partnership for a Drug Free
America (1)
UNICEF (4) Reach out and read (2) PNC Arts Center (1)
United Negro College
Fund (7)
Reading is Fundamental (2) PNC Grow Up Great (1)
United Way (55) St. Jude Childrens Research
Hospital (3)
Prospect Park Alliance (1)
Urban League (7) Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer
Research Foundation (3)
Reading Recovery Council of
North America (1)
YMCA (5) United States Hispanic Chamber
of Commerce Foundation (3)
Valley Hospital- The Center for
Child Development (1)
YWCA (6) World War II Memorial (2) World of the Children Inc. (1)
Note: Number in parentheses indicates indegree centrality of the NGO.
Cross-sector cooperative relationships. Each foundation or NGO that was
mentioned in the corporate website communication, as identified above,
was recorded. Programs that were internal to the company (e.g., work-
place diversity or tolerance programs) were not included as they differ
from programs, foundations, and NGOs that serve external stakeholders.
Intercoder reliability was excellent (Krippendorfs alpha = .97). There
were 813 cooperative relationships with NGOs recorded. Indegree central-
ity is defined as the number of ties coming into a given node (see Wasserman
& Faust, 1994 for a more detailed description of centrality and other net-
work measures). In this study, indegree centrality is a measure of the
number of U.S. Fortune 500 corporations in the sample that referenced a par-
ticular NGO.
Word influence and resonance. This research uses Centering Resonance
Analysis (CRA) to index the words in sets of texts that have the most dis-
cursive importance. CRA examines component noun phrases, or the nouns
and adjectives that composed the subject or object of a sentence (see Corman
& Dooley, 2006; Corman et al., 2002 for a complete description). Compo-
nent noun phrases are linked in a semantic network based on the sequential
order they occur in the text. This semantic network is valued, and the link
values indicate the number of times that words sequentially appear. Two
measures are derived from this semantic network: word influence and reso-
nance. Following Corman and colleagues (2002, 2006), word influence is
operationalized as
I
g i g
N N
i
T
jk jk
j k
=

<
( ) /
[( )( ) / ] 1 2 2
where g
jk
indicates the number of geodesics, or shortest paths, between
the j and k nouns, and g
jk
(i) is the number of geodesics that contain word
i, and N indicates the total number of words in the semantic network. For
example, in the following text, the word with the highest influence scores
is habitat.
What is Habitat for Humanity International? Habitat for Humanity
International is a nonprofit, ecumenical Christian housing ministry.
Habitat for Humanity International seeks to eliminate poverty housing
and homelessness from the world, and to make decent shelter a matter of
conscience and action. Habitat invites people of all backgrounds, races,
and religions to build houses together in partnership with families in need.
Habitat appears four times in the text. This means that the word habi-
tat is more likely to occur on the shortest path between nouns than world.
As the number of words in a text is the denominator in the equation, the mean
word influence scores tend to decrease as text size increases. For readers
familiar with social-network analysis, the word influence measure is derived
from betweenness centrality, so that word influence is a measure of the
degree to which a word ties together other words within the text.
Resonance describes the relationship between two texts. Texts resonate
with one another to the extent that they deploy words in the same way as a
given network (Corman et al., 2002, p. 177). The resonance of words in two
texts is calculated as
WR
AB
=
= =

I I
i
A
j
B
ij
AB
j
N B
t
N A
1 1
( ) ( )
where I indicates the influence score of each of the words as indicated above,
N(A) and N(B) is the number of unique words in each of the texts respec-
tively, and
ij
AB
is an indicator function that equals 1 when the two words are
the same and 0 when the words differ. Although the unstandardized measure
is included here, the reported values are standardized. Pair influence and pair
resonance are similarly calculated, but instead of a single word, the pair of
nouns are included and weighted by the frequency in which they co-occur.
Data Analysis
This research uses a combination of network analysis and CRA. First, the
indegree centrality of each of the NGOs in the network was calculated.
Because of the nature of CRA analysis, discrete sets of NGOs were required.
The authors examined the indegree distribution and created two cut-points to
create the Prominent, Known, and Solitary NGO categories. The texts
needed to be of relatively equal size, so the authors balanced two factors in
choosing the cut points: a sizable N in each group, and meaningful descrip-
tions to be given for each category. While cut-points are not ideal ways to
describe continuous data, utilizing them allowed us to construct texts from
three parts of the indegree centrality distribution and systematically compare
them. Such comparisons were not possible without the use of cut points.
Second, the selected texts were subjected to CRA and the word influence and
resonance scores were compared. Based upon an examination of these
results, a set of propositions were derived.
Results
The research question guiding this study asks: how do NGOs with multiple
U.S. Fortune 500 partners describe themselves in comparison to NGOs with
fewer cross-sector partners? To answer this research question, the results of
this study compare the about us texts of NGOs in three categories.
Prominent NGOs have four or more ties, Known NGOs have either two or
three ties, and Solitary NGOs have a single tie with a sampled U.S. Fortune
500 company. Table 3 provides a summary of the descriptors used by each
category of NGOs.
Prominent NGOs
Prominent NGOs reported four or more corporate ties. In response to the
research question, the words with the highest influence scores were child
Table 3. Comparison of Descriptions of Prominent, Known, and Solitary NGOs.
Prominent Known Solitary
Highest
influence
child (.14),
community (.10),
service (.08),
mission (.06), and
people (.06).
foundation (.090),
program (.086),
people (.08), and
new (.08)
child (.15), community
(.10), service (.08),
program (.07), and
education (.06)
Word pairs community/service
(.04), child/
community (.03),
community/people
(.03), child/service
(.02), and child/
family (.02).
service/citizen (.03),
foundation/people
(.02), foundation/
mission (.02), and
foundation/cancer
(0.02)
child/family (.06),
child/center (.05),
child/community
(.03), service/
program (.03), child/
service (.03).
Low
influence
charity (.02) and
community/
member (.01).
hope (0.02), U.S. (0.02),
United States (0.02)
life (.02), people/
American (0.01),
program/cancer
(0.01), foundation/
Koman (0.01) and
foundation/education
(0.01)
national (.02) and
child/care (.00)
Unique
words
headquarters,
territory, and
affiliate
breast/foundation,
social/
entrepreneur(ship),
citizen/service,
exhibition, museum,
and concept
certified, knowledge,
assessment
Figure 2. Semantic network of prominent NGOs about us statements.
(0.14), community (0.10), service (0.08), mission (0.06), and people (0.06).
The word pairings with the highest influence score were community/service
(0.04), child/community (0.03), community/people (0.03), child/service
(0.02), and child/family (0.02). The words and pairings with the lowest influ-
ence scores were charity (0.02) and community/member (0.01). Among the
unique words with the lowest resonance with the other texts for Prominent
NGOs were headquarters, territory, and affiliate. The semantic map of
prominent NGOs about us statements is pictured in Figure 2. In the figure,
the darker circles indicate more central nouns and the darker lines indicate
stronger relationships between words.
Figure 3. Semantic network of Known NGOs about us statements.
Known NGOs
Known NGOs had two or three corporate ties and were representative of a
diverse set of NGOs. Figure 3 displays the word map of these NGO texts. In
response to the research question, the words with the highest influence scores
were foundation (0.09), program (0.086), people (0.08), and new (0.08). The
word pairings with the highest influence scores were service/citizen (0.03),
foundation/people (0.02), foundation/mission (0.02), and foundation/cancer
(0.02). The words and pairings with the lowest influence scores were hope
(0.02), United States (0.02), life (0.02), people/American (0.01), program/
Figure 4. Semantic network of Solitary NGOs about us statements.
cancer (0.01), foundation/Komen (0.01) and foundation/education (0.01).
Among the unique words with the lowest resonance with the other texts were
breast/foundation, social/entrepreneur(ship), citizen/service, exhibition,
museum, and concept.
Solitary NGOs
Solitary NGOs had one corporate tie. In response to the research question,
the words with the highest influence scores were child (0.15), community
(0.10), service (0.08), program (0.07), and education (0.06). The word pair-
ings with the highest influence scores were child/family (0.06), child/center
(0.05), child/community (0.03), service/program (0.03), and child/service
(0.03). The words and pairings with the lowest influence scores were national
(0.02) and child/care (< 0.00). Among the unique words for the solitary
NGOs were certified, knowledge, and assessment, based on their low reso-
nance with the other texts. Figure 4 depicts the word map of this set of NGOs
about us texts.
Discussion and Propositions
The purpose of this research is to extend theorizing about the characteristics
of NGOs based on centrality in the businessNGO cooperative network. The
results of this study suggest that NGOs with multiple cross-sector relationships
are textually distinct from NGOs with a single cross-sector relationship. The
characteristics of each of the three groups will be discussed in turn.
Prominent NGOs
The NGOs with four or more business ties (for whole network N = 22, 3%),
which the authors termed Prominent NGOs, were among the most recogniz-
able names in the NGO sector and had distinct about us statements in
comparison to the other categories. Prominent NGOs were more likely to
highlight their organizational structure, using the words headquarters, ter-
ritory, and affiliate. NGOs in this category utilized a federated structure
(Yaziji & Doh, 2009), in which a central headquarters governed local affili-
ates in various territories. Such a structure may make these NGOs appealing
to corporations. NGOs with federated structures have two levels of benefits
for corporate partners. At the national or international level, federated NGOs
have a clearly recognizable brand. Indeed some NGOs have brand equity on
par with their corporate partners (Cone, 2009).
4
Such NGO brands, because
of their significant social and cultural capital, are better able to enhance the
reputation of their corporate partners. In addition, corporations are able to
leverage their relationship in the various local communities where they have
operations through the NGOs federated structure. OConnor and Shumates
(2011) examination of U.S. Fortune 500 CSR statements suggests that cor-
porations seek to support the communities in which they live and work.
NGOs with a federated structure allow corporations to support their local
community and align themselves with an NGO with a national or interna-
tional brand reputation.
Proposition 1: NGOs with federated structures will occupy the most
central position in the NGOcorporate cooperative network.
Known NGOs
Known NGOs (for whole network N = 37, 5%) uniquely describe their orga-
nizations as foundation based. Not only did foundation have a high influ-
ence score, but it was frequently paired with other words in the description
(e.g., foundation/people, foundation/mission). Foundations are other-benefiting
NGOs (Yaziji & Doh, 2009), but their action is typically to evaluate and fund
organizations that engage in direct service or advocacy. Such organizations
have potential benefits as NGO partners for corporations wishing to minimize
the risk of social issue involvement. Foundations provide an arms-length
relationship with advocacy or direct-service groups, operating through the
mediating foundation. The benefits of such efforts can be attributed to cor-
porate engagement, whereas the potential responsibility for negative actions
of NGOs can be attributed to the foundation.
Proposition 2: NGO foundations will be more likely to have multiple
corporate partners than NGOs characterized by direct service or
advocacy activities.
Solitary NGOs
Solitary NGOs were the largest category (for whole network N = 636, 91%),
representing the bulk of the indegree centrality distribution. Unlike Prominent
or Known NGOs, Solitary NGOs were less likely to describe their activities
as national. Indeed, an examination of these organizations reveals that 12 of
the 22 NGOs sampled in this category had community-specific operations
(e.g., Lower Eastside Girls Club of NY, Lindenwood University, and
Prospect Park Alliance). Although NGOs with local operations may play an
important role in a corporations community relations, the same local NGO
is unlikely to be chosen as a partner by more than one U.S. Fortune 500
corporation.
Proposition 3: NGOs with a local scope of operations are more likely
to have one large corporate partner than national or international
NGOs.
Cooperative NGOs
Although several factors distinguish Prominent, Known, and Solitary NGOs,
there are some striking commonalities in their statements. One of the most
obvious is the role of the word child in the about us statements. Child
is the word with the highest influence for Prominent and Solitary NGOs and
is found in the word map of the Known NGOs as well. Although a diverse
number of social issues could be identified and could be categorized accord-
ing to the aims of NGOs across categories in a variety of ways, the common
aim that is most central across types of NGOs with business relationships is
benefiting children. Thus,
Proposition 4: NGOs that have as one of their aims to improve the
lives of children are more likely to be included in the businessNGO
cooperative network than NGOs that do not include benefiting chil-
dren in their aims.
A second interesting commonality in the about us statements across cat-
egories was the prominence of service. As noted by Yaziji and Doh (2009),
NGO activities can be classified as either advocacy or service. Service NGOs
tend to address direct needs, whereas advocacy NGOs attempt policy or insti-
tutional change to eliminate the conditions that cause such needs. From the
results of this research, corporations are more likely to engage service NGOs
than advocacy NGOs.
Proposition 5: Service NGOs are more likely to be included in the
businessNGO cooperative network than advocacy NGOs.
Limitations and Future Directions
This study offered a macrolevel analysis to explore the patterns of centrality
among cross-sector cooperative relationships. Admittedly, such a focus
resulted in several limitations which in turn highlight areas of future inquiry.
First, within each category, there are NGOs that can best be described as
outliers. Although these NGOs had the specified number of corporate rela-
tionships, their description and characteristics did not conform to that of the
other NGOs in their category. The Prominent NGO category included the
NAACP. Given the advocacy activities of this organization, its inclusion in
the Prominent category seems to counter Proposition 5, that advocacy NGOs
are less likely to be included in the network. The Solitary NGO category
included the American Diabetes Association. Considering its nationwide
operations, network affiliates, research agenda, and national reputation as a
leader in its issue industry, the American Diabetes Association has charac-
teristics that are consistent with those in the Prominent NGO category. The
organizations inclusion in the solitary NGO category is less clear and would
benefit from further investigation.
Second, the results of this study demonstrate differences among NGOs
and the level of indegree centrality reported. However, the methods chosen
for this study do not provide insight into why NGOs have the number of cor-
porate partners reported. Additional research is needed to determine if NGOs
fall into categories by choice or natural selection. Such research may provide
explanations for the NGO outliers identified in this study. In addition,
research that compares NGOs void of cross-sector relationships would add to
our understanding of the types of NGOs unwilling or unable to engage in
cooperation with businesses.
Third, this research introduces the use of CRA as a way to distinguish
among the millions of NGOs that might engage in cross-sector cooperative
relationships. One advantage of using computerized-textual analysis for this
task is that CRA can analyze vast corpuses of text with relative ease. Drawing
the key words from the results and propositions, future research should
include the word influence scores for the identified noun phrases in quantita-
tive analyses that include NGO size and age to predict the NGOs most likely
to be in cross-sector relationships.
Fourth, to examine the macrolevel businessNGO cooperative network,
the authors sacrifice depth for breadth. Although patterns of collaboration are
described, the characteristics of each of the 813 relations within the network
are not known. Future research should examine the characteristics of rela-
tionships that highly central NGOs have with businesses, and where those
relationships would fall on the collaboration continuum (Austin, 2000).
Finally, as noted by Lucea (2010) there may be a significant difference in
what an organization attempts to project as its image and how that image is
perceived by others. By restricting the analysis to the about us texts of
NGOs, the authors neglected other possibly relevant texts, including news
articles and blogs critiquing the NGOs. Future research that is inclusive of
both perception data and other data sources would be beneficial.
Conclusion
This study investigated the characteristics and descriptions of NGOs
with varying numbers of collaborative relationships with U.S. Fortune 500
corporations in 11 economic industries. The distribution of the network rela-
tionships suggests that a very small number of NGOs play a central role in
the NGOcorporate relationship network. The activities of Prominent NGOs
and their impact on social issues should be of interest to business leaders and
policy makers, especially as the third sectors role increases (Teegen, Doh,
& Vachani, 2004).
Although prior research has suggested typologies of NGOs that engage in
relationships with corporations, these inquiries have yet to examine the char-
acteristics of NGOs with different numbers of cross-sector cooperative rela-
tionships. In response to this gap, our research demonstrates that NGOs in
cooperative relationships tend to focus on children and tend to be service
rather than advocacy oriented. In addition, our research suggests that feder-
ated NGOs were more likely to occupy a central position in the cross-sector
cooperative network. Furthermore, foundations were more likely to have
relationships with multiple corporations than either direct service or advo-
cacy NGOs. Local NGOs were more likely to have only one cross-sector
cooperative relationship and were, by a significant margin, the largest group.
This research makes two contributions to the current research on the
businessNGO cooperative interface. First, this research explores a broad
network of businessNGO relationships, moving beyond the dyadic level. As
such, this research takes up Selsky and Parkers (2005) call for more macro-
level empirical research on cross-sector partnerships. Second, this research
expands theorizing about the characteristics of NGOs most likely to be part-
nered in some way with corporations. Extending the cross-sector partner
choice proposition of the SSM, the authors offer five testable propositions
drawn from the characteristics emphasized in NGOs about us texts.
As public interest in cross-sector collaborative relationships (Cone, 2008)
and the number of NGOs continues to grow to fill the gap left by government
(Yaziji & Doh, 2009), the choice of with which NGO to develop a coopera-
tive relationship is likely to become increasingly salient to managers. Moving
beyond the cooperation/adversarial divide will be necessary to decipher
which NGO relationship is likely to leverage the most capital for business.
The patterns of cross-sector cooperative relationships that exist and emerge
will influence the ability of NGOs and corporations to maintain operations,
enhance competitive position, and develop new solutions to business and
social issues.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.
Notes
1. Teegen, Doh, and Vachani (2004, p. 466) define NGOs as private, not-for-profit
organizations that aim to serve particular societal interests by focusing on advo-
cacy and/or operational efforts on social, political and economic goals, including
equity, education, health, environmental protection, and human rights.
2. The 2008 Cone Cause Evolution Study presents the findings of an online survey
conducted August 14-15, 2008 by Opinion Research Corporation among a demo-
graphically representative U.S. sample of 1,071 adults, comprising of 500 men
and 571 women 18 years of age and older. The margin of error associated with a
sample this size is +/ 3%.
3. Although Kourla and Laasonen (2010) distinguish between cross-sector partner-
ships and cooperative businessNGO relationships, we use the terms interchange-
ably in this research to denote any cooperative relationship between businesses
and NGOs.
4. The 2009 Cone Nonprofit Power Brand 100 study presents the findings of research
that compiled a list of the largest nonprofits in the U.S.-based, although scope of
work can be international, on private support and income-based rankings. The data
was subjected to additional filters including tax status, issue industry, location, and
geographic reach. Brand power was determined using a nationally representative
sample of 1,000 adults to measure consumer perception in combination with audit
of public communication, volunteer support base, efficiency, growth, and public
support.
5. The term alliances was used the SSM to denote business-NGO relationships. The
term was used to describe these relationships as cooperative arrangement that did
not necessarily indicate equality, as suggested by partnership. We have used an
even broader descriptor of these arrangements in this article, as alliance may indi-
cate a stronger relationship than is indicated by some businesses (see Austin, 2000,
for more on the continuum of relationships)
References
hlstrm, J., & Sjstrm, E. (2005). CSOs and business partnerships: Strategies for
interaction. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14, 230-240.
Aldrich, H., & Ruef, M. (2006). Organizations evolving (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE.
Andreasen, A. R. (1996). Profits for nonprofits: Find a corporate partner. Harvard
Business Review, 74(6), 47-59.
Astley, W. G. (1985). The two ecologies: Population and community perspectives on
organizational evolution. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 224-241.
Austin, J. E. (2000). The collaboration challenge: How nonprofits and businesses
succeed through strategic alliances. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bendell, J. (2000). Civil regulation: A new form of democratic governance for the
global economy. In J. Bendell (Ed.), Terms of endearment: Business, NGOs and
sustainable development (pp. 239-254). Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Center for Nonprofit Success. (2009). Cause marketing: Building profitable relation-
ships with corporate partners. Retrieved from http://www.cfnps.org/ShowSemin
araspx?eid=56&rsid=84001&Smid=937
Cone. (2008). Corporate responsibility report. Boston, MA.
Cone. (2009). The Cone nonprofit power brand 100. Boston, MA.
Corman, S. R., & Dooley, K. J. (2006). Crawdad text analysis system 2.0. Chandler,
AZ: Crawdad Technologies, LLC.
Corman, S. R., Kuhn, T., McPhee, R. D., & Dooley, K. J. (2002). Studying complex
discursive systems: Centering resonance analysis communication. Human Com-
munication Research, 28, 157-206.
Corporate Giving Standard. (2006). Retrieved from www.corporatephilanthropy.org/
images/resources/resources_gin_2006.png
Dahan, N. M., Doh, J., & Teegen, H. (2010). Role of nongovernmental organizations
in the business-government-society interface: Special issue overview and intro-
ductory essay. Business & Society, 49, 20-34.
Den Hond, F. (2010). Review essay: Reflections on relationships between NGOs and
corporations. Business & Society, 49, 173-178.
Den Hond, F., & De Bakker, F. G. (2007). Ideologically motivated activism: How
activist groups influence social change activities. Academy of Management
Review, 32, 901-924.
Doh, J. P., & Guay, T. R. (2004). Globalization and corporate social responsibility:
How non-governmental organizations influence labor and environmental codes of
conduct. Management International Review, 44(2), 7-29.
Edelman Trust Barometer. (2010). Annual Global Opinion Leaders Study. Retrieved
from www.edelman.co.uk/trustbarometer
Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century busi-
ness. Stony Creek, CT: New Society.
Elkington, J. (2004). Enter the triple bottom line. In A. Henriques & J. Richardson
(Eds.), The triple bottom line: Does it all add up? (pp. 1-16). Sterling, VA: Earth-
scan.
Esrock, S. L., & Leichty, G. B. (1998). Social responsibility and corporate webpages:
Self-presentation or agenda setting? Public Relations Review, 24, 305-319.
Esty, D. C., & Winston, A. S. (2006). Green to gold: How smart companies use envi-
ronmental strategy to innovate, create values and build competitive advantage.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Frumkin, P. (2005). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer. Boston,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Harvey, B., & Schaefer, A. (2001). Managing relationships with environmental stake-
holders: A study of U.K. water and electricity utilities. Journal of Business Ethics,
30, 243-260.
Hawley, A. H. (1986). Human ecology: A theoretical essay. Chicago, IL: University
of Chicago Press.
Hawley, A. H., & Theodorson, G. A. (1982). Ecology and human ecology (revised
ed.). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Hendry, J. R. (2006) Taking aim at business: What factors lead environmental non-
governmental organizations to target particular firms? Business & Society, 45,
47-86.
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communi-
cation effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635-650.
Kadlec, D. (2006, October 29). How to give to the little guys. Time, 97.
King, A. (2007). Cooperation between corporations and environmental groups: A
transaction cost perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32, 889-900.
Kourula, A., & Laasonen, S. (2010). Nongovernmental organizations in business and
society, management, and international business research: Review and implica-
tions from 1998 to 2007. Business & Society, 49, 35-67.
Kuperman, J. C. (2003). Using cognitive schema theory in the development of public
relations strategy: Exploring the case of firms and financial analysts following
acquisition announcements. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5(2), 117-150.
Le Ber, M. J., & Branzei, O. (2010). (Re)forming strategic cross-sector partnerships:
Relational processes of social innovation. Business & Society, 49, 140-172.
London, T., & Rondinelli, D. (2003, Winter). Partnerships for learning. Stanford
Social Innovation Review, 28-35.
London, T., Rondinelli, D., & ONeil, H. (2006). Strange bedfellows: Alliances
between corporations and nonprofits. In O. Shenkar & J. J. Reur (Eds.), Hand-
book of strategic alliances (pp. 353-366). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Lucea, R. (2010). How we see them versus how they see themselves: A cognitive
perspective of firm-NGO relationships. Business & Society, 49, 88-115.
McIntosh, M. (2007). Progressing from corporate social responsibility to brand integ-
rity. In S. May, G. Cheney, & J. Roper (Eds.), The debate over corporate social
responsibility (pp. 45-56). New York: Oxford University Press.
McPhee, R. D., & Zaug, P. (2000). The communicative constitution of organizations:
A framework for explanation. Electronic Journal of Communication, 10(1), 1-17.
Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts.
Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-886.
OConnor, A., & Shumate, M. (2011). An economic industry and institutional level
of analysis of corporate social responsibility communication. Management Com-
munication Quarterly, 25, 154-182.
Pearce, J. A., & Doh, J. P. (2005). The high impact of collaborative social initiatives.
Sloan Management Review, 46(2), 30-39.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy & society: The link between com-
petitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review,
84, 78-92.
Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues:
Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31, 849-873.
Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996). Mediating the message: Theories of influ-
ences on mass media content. New York, NY: Longman.
Shumate, M. & OConnor, A. (2010a). Corporate reporting of cross-sector alliances:
The portfolio of NGO partners communicated on corporate websites. Communi-
cation Monographs, 77, 238-261.
Shumate, M. & OConnor, A. (2010b). The symbiotic sustainability model: Concep-
tualizing NGO-corporate alliance communication. Journal of Communication,
60, 577-609.
Sikkink, K., & Smith, J. (2002). Infrastructures for change: Transnational organiza-
tions, 1953-93. In S. Khagram & J. V. Riker (Eds.), Restructuring world politics:
Transnational social movements, networks, and norms (pp. 24-44). Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Soule, S. A. (2009). Contention and corporate social responsibility. Cambridge, MA:
Cambridge University Press.
Stafford, E. R., Polonsky, M. J., & Hartman, C. I. (2000) Environmental NGO-business
collaboration and strategic bridging: A case of analysis of the Greenpeace-Foron
Alliance. Business Strategy and the Environment, 9, 122-135.
Strom, S. (2009, December 5). Charities rise, costing U.S. billions in tax breaks. New York
Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/us/06charity.html?
_r=2&ref=todayspaper
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches.
Academy of Management Review, 20, 571-610.
Taylor, J. G., & Scharlin, P. J. (2004). Smart alliance: How a global corporation and
environmental activists transformed a tarnished brand. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Teegen, H., Doh, J., & Vachani, S. (2004). The importance of nongovernmental orga-
nizations (NGOs) in global governance and value creation: An international busi-
ness research agenda. Journal of International Business Studies, 6, 463-483.
Union of International Associations. (2009). Yearbook of international organizations
on-line: Guide to global civil society networks. Brussels, Belgium: Union of Inter-
national Associations. Retrieved from: http://uia.be/ybvolall
Van Tulder, R., & Van Der Zwart, A. (2006). International business-society manage-
ment: Linking corporate responsibility and globalization. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applica-
tions (Vol. 8). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Westley, F., & Vredenburg, H. (1997). Interorganizational collaboration and the pres-
ervation of global biodiversity. Organization Science, 8, 381-403.
Wootliff, J., & Deri, C. (2001). NGOs: The new super brands. Corporate Reputation
Review, 4, 157-164.
Yaziji, M., & Doh, J. (2009). NGOs and corporations: Conflict and collaboration.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Author Biographies
Amy OConnor (PhD, Purdue University) is associate professor in the Department of
Communication at North Dakota State University. Her research examines how corpora-
tions and society communicatively coconstruct understanding and acceptance of the
corporate form in society. Her work is published and forthcoming in Journal of
Communication, Management Communication Quarterly, and Public Relations Review.
Michelle Shumate (PhD, University of Southern California) is associate professor in
the Department of Communication at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Her research focuses on the dynamics of interorganizational networks designed to
impact large social issues in a variety of contexts. Her work is published and forth-
coming in Journal of Computer Mediated Communication.

Differences Among NGOs in The Business

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Differences Among NGOs in The Business

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

http://bas.sagepub.

International Association for Business and Society

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

- Sep 7, 2011 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Dec 20, 2013 Version of Record >>

Potrebbero piacerti anche