The Slaughtered and the Survivors: Collaboration Between Social Economy Organizations as a Key to Success in Times of Financial Crisis

  • Francisco José López-Arceiz
  • Ana José Bellostas
  • María Pilar Rivera-Torres
Original Paper
  • 185 Downloads

Abstract

The objective of this study is to analyze the aspects that allowed a critical part of Social Economy Organizations (SEOs) to survive a recession period, especially participation in collaborative networks. The financial stress of an SEO will depend on the resources and capabilities available to the organization. To analyze the financial stress of Spanish SEOs, we defined a sample of 714 SEOs. Approximately half of these organizations suffered from financial stress in the analyzed period (2009–2012). The results obtained in this study reveal the existence of three factors that distinguish organizations under financial stress: (a) a high dependence on government funding; (b) changes in the relationship between staff and volunteers; and (c) a lack of access to markets. The combination of these three elements results in an unsustainable situation for the organization. The development of a collaborative profile increases the SEO’s probability of surviving the adverse manifestations of its environment.

Keywords

Social Economy Organizations Latent growth modelling Financial stress Resource-based theory Collaborative profile 

Résumé

L’objectif de la présente étude est d’analyser les aspects qui permettent à une part importante des organismes d’économie sociale (OES) de survivre à une récession, particulièrement dans le contexte de la participation à des réseaux collaboratifs. Les difficultés financières d’un OES dépendront des ressources et capacités dont l’organisme dispose. Pour analyser les difficultés financières d’OES espagnols, nous avons créé un échantillon de 714 d’entre eux. Environ la moitié de ces organismes ont vécu des difficultés financières durant la période analysée, soit de 2009 à 2012. Les résultats de cette étude révèlent l’existence de trois facteurs de distinction des organismes qui éprouvent des difficultés financières: a) une forte dépendance au financement gouvernemental; b) des modifications de la relation qui unit le personnel et les bénévoles; et c) un manque d’accès aux marchés. La combinaison de ces trois éléments donne lieu à une situation insoutenable pour l’organisme. La création d’un profil collaboratif augmente la probabilité que l’OES survive aux conditions négatives de son milieu.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel dieser Studie ist es, die Aspekte zu analysieren, mit Hilfe derer ein wichtiger Teil der sozialwirtschaftlichen Organisationen die Rezessionsphase überstanden haben, insbesondere die Teilnahme an kollaborativen Netzwerken. Die finanzielle Belastung einer sozialwirtschaftlichen Organisation hängt von den ihr zugänglichen Ressourcen und ihren Fähigkeiten ab. Zur Anlayse der finanziellen Belastung von sozialwirtschaftlichen Organisationen in Spanien definierten wir eine Probe von 714 Organisationen. Rund die Hälfte dieser Organisationen stand im untersuchten Zeitraum (2009-2012) unter finanziellem Druck. Die Ergebnisse dieser Studie decken drei Faktoren auf, die finanziell gestresste Organisationen abheben: a) eine hohe Abhängigkeit von staatlicher Finanzierung, b) Veränderungen in der Beziehung zwischen den Mitarbeitern und den Ehrenamtlichen und c) ein mangelnder Marktzugang. Die Kombination dieser drei Elemente führt zu einer untragbaren Situation für die Organisation. Die Entwicklung eines kollaborativen Profils erhöht die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass die sozialwirtschaftliche Organisation, die nachteiligen Manifestationen ihres Umfelds übersteht.

Resumen

El objetivo del presente estudio es analizar los aspectos que permitieron a una parte crítica de las Organizaciones de Economía Social (SEO, por sus siglas en inglés) sobrevivir a un período de recesión, especialmente la participación en redes colaborativas. El estrés financiero de una SEO dependerá de los recursos y de las capacidades disponibles en la organización. Para analizar el estrés financiero de las SEO españolas, definimos una muestra de 714 SEO. Aproximadamente la mitad de estas organizaciones sufrieron estrés financiero en el período analizado (2009-2012). Los resultados obtenidos en el presente estudio revelan la existencia de tres factores que distinguen a las organizaciones bajo estrés financiero: a) una elevada dependencia de la financiación gubernamental; b) cambios en la relación entre el personal fijo y los voluntarios; y c) una falta de acceso a los mercados. La combinación de estos tres elementos da lugar a una situación insostenible para la organización. El desarrollo de un perfil colaborativo aumenta la probabilidad de que la SEO sobreviva a las manifestaciones adversas de su entorno.

Abstract

本研究的目的是,分析让社会经济组织 (SEO) 的关键部分能够度过衰退期的方面,尤其对于协作网络的参与。SEO的财务压力取决于组织可用的资源和能力。为分析西班牙SEO的财务压力,我们定义了714 SEO样本。分析周期内,约一半此类组织都存在财务压力 (2009-2012)。从本研究获得的结果表明,可以通过三个因素辨别遭遇经济压力的组织;a) 高度依赖于政府拨款;b) 员工和志愿者关系的改变;和 c) 缺少市场进入。这三个元素的组合导致组织无以为继。协作发展让SEO在不利环境中存活的概率增加。

Abstract

本研究の目的は、特に共同ネットワークへの参画が不況期に生き残るために社会経済組織 (SEO) にとって重要な側面を分析することである。SEOの金融ストレスでは組織に利用可能な機能と資金が異なる。スペインのSEOの金融ストレスを分析して、714件のSEOのサンプルを定義づけた。この組織の約半分は、分析期間 (2009-2012年)の金融ストレスで苦しんだ。本研究で得られた結果から、金融ストレスの下で組織を区別する3つの要因の存在、a) 政府資金に依存度が高い、b) スタッフとボランティアの関係の変化、c) 市場へのアクセスの欠如が明らかになった。これら3つの要素の組み合わせから組織の持続不可能な状況が結論づけられる。共同プロファイルの開発は、環境の副作用症状を存続させるSEOの確率を増加させる。

Abstract

الهدف من هذه الدراسة هو تحليل الجوانب التي سمحت ببقاء جزء هام من منظمات الإقتصاد الإجتماعي(SEOs) على قيد الحياة في فترة الركود، خاصة المشاركة في شبكات تعاونية. فإن الضغوط المالية لمنظمات الإقتصاد الإجتماعي(SEOs) تعتمد على الموارد والإمكانيات المتاحة للمنظمة. لتحليل الضغوط المالية لمنظمات الإقتصاد الإجتماعي(SEOs) الأسبانية، حددنا عينة من 714 من منظمات الإقتصاد الإجتماعي(SEOs) حوالي نصف هذه المنظمات يعاني من الضغوط المالية في فترة تحليلها (2009-2012). النتائج المتحصل عليها في هذه الدراسة تكشف عن وجود ثلاثة عوامل التي تميز المنظمات تحت الضغوط المالية: أ) الإعتماد الكبير على التمويل الحكومي. ب) تغير في العلاقة بين الموظفين والمتطوعين؛ وج) عدم وجود إمكانية الوصول إلى الأسواق. الجمع بين هذه العناصر الثلاثة يؤدي إلى وضع لا يطاق بالنسبة للمنظمة. تطوير الشخصية التعاونية يزيد إحتمال أن منظمات الإقتصاد الإجتماعي(SEOs) تبقى ثابتة أمام مظاهر بيئتها السلبية.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank “The Third Sector’s Social and Economic Studies Group” (GESES) and “Value creation in organizations Group” (CREVALOR) for their suggestions in the elaboration of this manuscript. Moreover, we thank Ministry of Education and Culture (FPU13/02481) for its support.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1968). Organizational interdependence and intra-organizational structure. American Sociological Review, 33(6), 912–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, I. E., & Seaman, C. A. (2007). Likert scales and data analyses. Quality Progress, 40(7), 64–65.Google Scholar
  3. Amin, A., Cameron, A., & Hudson, R. (2003). Placing the social economy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Andreasen, A. R. (1996). Profits for nonprofits: Find a corporate partner. Harvard Business Review, 74(6), 47–50.Google Scholar
  5. Ariza-Montes, A., Roldán-Salgueiro, J. L., & Leal-Rodríguez, A. (2015). Employee and volunteer. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 25(3), 255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and business. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses. Part 2: Partnership processes and outcomes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 929–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2014). Creating value in nonprofit-business collaborations: New thinking and practice. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Austin, J., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social and commercial entrepreneurship: same, different, or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baur, D., & Schmitz, H. P. (2012). Corporations and NGOs: When accountability leads to co-optation. Journal of Business Ethics, 106(1), 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bell, G. G., Mossman, C. E., Swartz, L. M., & Turtle, H. (1998). An empirical comparison of bankruptcy models. Financial Review, 33(2), 35–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bellostas, A. J., López-Arceiz, F. J., & Mateos, L. (2016). Social value and economic value in social enterprises: Value creation model of Spanish sheltered workshops. VOLUNTAS-International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(1), 367–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Benton, A. D., & Austin, M. J. (2010). Managing nonprofit mergers: The challenges facing human service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 34(5), 458–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. (2004). Social alliances: Company/nonprofit collaboration. California Management Review, 47(1), 58–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Bhandari, S. B., & Iyer, R. (2013). Predicting business failure using cash flow statement based measures. Managerial Finance, 39(7), 667–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Borzaga, C., & Galera, G. (2012). The concept and practice of social enterprise. Lessons from the Italian experience. International Review of Social Research, 2(2), 85–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Borzaga, C., & Tortia, E. (2007). Social Economy organizations in the theory of the firm. In A. Noya & E. Clarence (Eds.), The social economy. Building inclusive economies. New York: OECD.Google Scholar
  19. Boschee, J. (2001). Eight basic principles for nonprofit entrepreneurs. Nonprofit World, 19(4), 15–18.Google Scholar
  20. Bourgeois, L. J. (1981). On the measurement of organizational slack. Academy of Management Review, 6(1), 29–39.Google Scholar
  21. Britt, C. P. (2014). The financial crisis was good for something: Improved nonprofit efficiency. USA: Arkansas University.Google Scholar
  22. Cairns, B., Harris, M., & Hutchinson, R. (2010). Collaboration in the voluntary sector: A meta-analysis. London: Institute for Voluntary Action Research.Google Scholar
  23. CEPES. (2016). Estadísticas de la Economía Social. Madrid: CEPES.Google Scholar
  24. Chad, P., Kyriazis, E., & Motion, J. (2013). Development of a market orientation research agenda for the nonprofit sector. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 25(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chang, J. N., Seetoo, D. H., Yu, C. M., & Cheng, C. Y. (2015). Relational management mechanisms for strategic alliances among nonprofit organizations. VOLUNTAS-International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(5), 2458–2489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management, 26(1), 31–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dees, J. G. (2001). Social entrepreneurship. Enterprising nonprofits: A toolkit for social entrepreneurs. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Defourny, J., & Kim, S. Y. (2011). Emerging models of social enterprise in Eastern Asia: A cross-country analysis. Social Enterprise Journal, 7(1), 86–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2007). Defining social enterprise. Social Enterprise: At the Crossroads of Market, Public Policies and Civil Society, 7, 3–27.Google Scholar
  30. Dekker, H. C. (2003). Value chain analysis in interfirm relationships: A field study. Management Accounting Research, 14(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Díaz-Foncea, M., & Marcuello, C. (2012). Social enterprises and social markets: Models and new trends. Service Business, 6(1), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dutting, G., & Sogge, D. (2010). Building safety nets in the global politic: NGO collaboration for solidarity and sustainability. Development, 53, 350–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public Administration Review, 64(2), 132–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Martin, J. A. (2000). Dynamic capabilities: What are they? Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1105–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Emerson, J., & Twersky, F. (1996). New social entrepreneurs: The success, challenge and lessons of non-profit enterprise creation. San Francisco: Roberts Foundation.Google Scholar
  36. Emery, F. E., & Trist, E. L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations, 18(1), 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Erikson, T. (2002). Entrepreneurial capital: The emerging organization’s most important asset. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(3), 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. European Commission (2011). Social Business Initiative (COM(2011) 682 final).Google Scholar
  39. European Parliament (2009). Social Economy-Toia Report. European Parliament.Google Scholar
  40. Evers, A. (2001). The significance of social capital in the multiple goal and resource structure of social enterprises. In C. Borzaga & J. Defourny (Eds.), The emergence of social enterprise. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Firkin, P. (2003). Entrepreneurial capital. In A. De Bruin & A. Dupuis (Eds.), Entrepreneurship: New perspectives in a global age (pp. 57–75). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  42. Foster, M. K., & Meinhard, A. G. (2000). Structuring student volunteering programs to the benefit of students and the community: The Ontario experience. Dublin: ISRT Fourth International Conference.Google Scholar
  43. Gainer, B., & Padanyi, P. (2002). Applying the marketing concept to cultural organisations: An empirical study of the relationship between market orientation and performance. International Journal of Nonprofit & Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(2), 182–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Gainer, B., & Padanyi, P. (2005). The relationship between market-oriented activities and market-oriented culture: Implications for the development of market orientation in nonprofit service organizations. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 854–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gálvez, M. M., Caba, M. C., & López, M. (2012). Responsabilidad social y transparencia on-line de las ONG: Análisis del caso español. CIRIEC-Espana, 74, 207–238.Google Scholar
  46. Gazley, B. (2010). Linking collaborative capacity to performance measurement in government–nonprofit partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(4), 653–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Geobey, S., & Weber, O. (2013). Lessons in operationalizing social finance: The case of Vancouver city savings credit union. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 3(2), 124–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Graff, L. L. (2006). Declining profit margin: When volunteers cost more than they return. International Journal of Volunteer Administration, 14(1), 24–32.Google Scholar
  49. Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: Implications for strategy formulation. Knowledge and Strategy, 33(3), 3–23.Google Scholar
  50. Greiling, D. (2007). Trust and performance management in nonprofit organizations. Innovation Journal: Public Sector Innovation Journal, 12(3), 1–24.Google Scholar
  51. Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(4), 619–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 293–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Handy, F., & Brudney, J. L. (2007). When to use volunteer labor resources? An organizational analysis for nonprofit management. Vrijwillige Inzet Onderzoch, 4, 91–100.Google Scholar
  54. Helming, B., Jegers, M., & Lapsley, I. (2004). Challenges in managing nonprofit organizations: A research overview. VOLUNTAS-International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(2), 101–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Hu, M. (2013). Termination of NGO alliances in China: Typology and determinants. USA: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  56. Hunt, S. D. (1997). Competing through relationships: Grounding relationship marketing in resource-advantage theory. Journal of Marketing Management, 13(5), 431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Iyer, E., & Murti, V. K. (2015). Comparison of logistic regression and artificial neural network based bankruptcy prediction models. Business Analytics & Intelligence, 3(1), 23–31.Google Scholar
  58. Kale, P., Dyer, J., & Singh, H. (2001). Value creation and success in strategic alliances: Alliancing skills and the role of alliance structure and systems. European Management Journal, 19(5), 463–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States and Europe: Understanding and learning from the differences. VOLUNTAS-International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(3), 246–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kim, H., & Gu, Z. (2006). A logistic regression analysis for predicting bankruptcy in the hospitality industry. The Journal of Hospitality Financial Management, 14(1), 17–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kremer, M., Lieshout, P., & Went, R. (2009). Doing good or doing better. Amsterdam: WRR.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lévesque, B., & Mendell, M. (2005). The social economy: Approaches, practices and a proposal for a new community-university alliance. Journal of Rural Cooperation, 33(1), 21–45.Google Scholar
  63. Levine, S., & White, P. E. (1961). Exchange as a conceptual framework for the study of interorganizational relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5(4), 583–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ley 22/2003, Concursal [Insolvency Act].Google Scholar
  65. Ley 5/2011, de Economía Social [Social Economy Act].Google Scholar
  66. López-Arceiz, F. J., Bellostas, A. J., & Rivera, M. P. (2016). The effects of resources on social activity and economic performance in Social Economy organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 26(4), 499–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Luis Vives Foundation. (2012). Anuario del Tercer Sector en España. Madrid: ADI Servicios Editoriales.Google Scholar
  68. MacIndoe, H., & Sullivan, F. (2014). Nonprofit responses to financial uncertainty: How does financial vulnerability shape nonprofit collaboration? Journal of Management and Sustainability, 4(3), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Mahmoud, M., & Yusif, B. (2012). Market orientation, learning orientation, and the performance of NPOs. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 61(6), 624–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Maier, F., Meyer, M., & Steinbereithner, M. (2016). Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: A systematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1), 64–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mano, R. (2014). Networking modes and performance in Israel’s nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 24(4), 429–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Mano, R. (2015). Funding allocations in Israel: An empirical assessment of the new philanthropy approach. VOLUNTAS-International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(5), 2130–2145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Marcuello, C., & Salas, V. (2001). Nonprofit organizations, monopolistic competition, and private donations: Evidence from Spain. Public Finance Review, 29(3), 183–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Martín, S. (2016). Are volunteers a substitute resource of workers? An approach from Aragonese foundations of family origin. Zaragoza: University of Zaragoza.Google Scholar
  75. Mason, C., & Doherty, B. (2015). A fair trade-off? Paradoxes in the governance of fair-trade social enterprises. Journal of Business Ethics, 136(3), 451–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. McKinney, J. B. (2015). Effective financial management in public and nonprofit agencies. ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
  77. Meyskens, M., Robb-Post, C., Stamp, J. A., Carsrud, A. L., & Reynolds, P. D. (2010). Social ventures from a resource-based perspective: An exploratory study assessing global Ashoka fellows. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 34(4), 661–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Monzón, J. L. (2010). Las grandes cifras de la economía social en España. CIRIEC: Valencia.Google Scholar
  79. Monzón, J. L., & Chaves, R. (2008). The European Social Economy: Concept and dimensions of the Third Sector. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 79(3–4), 549–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Mook, L., Farrell, E., Chum, A., Handy, F., Schugurensky, D., & Quarter, J. (2014). Individual and organizational factors in the interchangeability of paid staff and volunteers: Perspectives of volunteers. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 5(2), 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Munshi, J. (2014). A method for constructing Likert scales. Available at SSRN 2419366.Google Scholar
  82. Murphy, P. J., & Coombes, S. M. (2009). A model of social entrepreneurial discovery. Journal of Business Ethics, 87(3), 325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Murray, V. V. (1998). Interorganizational collaborations in the nonprofit sector. Westview: Boulder.Google Scholar
  84. Newbert, S. L. (2005). New firm formation: A dynamic capability perspective. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(1), 55–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Nieto, E., García del Junco, J., Reyna, R., & Robina, R. (2013). Los roles de colaboración entre las principales ONG españolas. CIRIEC-España, Revista de Economía Pública, Social y Cooperativa, 79, 87–114.Google Scholar
  86. Noya, A., & Clarence, E. (2009). Community capacity building: Fostering economic and social resilience. USA: OECD.Google Scholar
  87. Ohlson, J. A. (1980). Financial ratios and the probabilistic prediction of bankruptcy. Journal of Accounting Research, 18(1), 109–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. O’Regan, N., Ghobadian, A., & Sims, M. (2004). The link between leadership, strategy, and performance in manufacturing SMEs. Journal of Small Business Strategy, 15(2), 45–57.Google Scholar
  89. Peng, T. J., & Kellogg, J. L. (2003). Partners, resources, and management mechanisms of inter-organizational collaborative ties in non-profit organizations. Journal of American Academy of Business, 3(1/2), 291–298.Google Scholar
  90. Peredo, A. M., & Chrisman, J. J. (2006). Towards a community-based enterprise. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Pirvu, D., Ungureanu, E., & Hagiu, A. (2009). Evaluation of the need for development of social enterprises. Case study in the Argeș County. Revista de Cercetare şi Intervenţie Socială, 27, 51–65.Google Scholar
  92. Platt, H. D., & Platt, M. B. (1991). A note on the use of industry-relative ratios in bankruptcy prediction. Journal of Banking & Finance, 15(6), 1183–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Polonsky, M. (2003). Who receives the most help: The most needy or those with the best marketers? International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 8(4), 302–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Polonsky, M. J., Garma, R., & Chia, N. (2004). Australian environmental alliances from an environmental NGOs perspective. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 12(2), 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Polonsky, M., & Grau, S. (2008). Evaluating the social value of charitable organizations: A conceptual foundation. Journal of Macromarketing, 28(2), 130–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Porter, M. E. (1981). The contributions of industrial organization to strategic management. Academy of Management Review, 6(4), 609–620.Google Scholar
  97. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2002). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy. Harvard Business Review, 80(12), 56–68.Google Scholar
  98. Premachandra, I. M., Bhabra, G. S., & Sueyoshi, T. (2009). DEA as a tool for bankruptcy assessment: A comparative study with logistic regression technique. European Journal of Operational Research, 193(2), 412–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Proulx, E. K., Hager, A. M., & Klein, C. K. (2014). Models of collaboration between nonprofit organizations. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 63(6), 746–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Provan, K. G. (1984). Interorganizational cooperation and decision making autonomy in a consortium multihospital system. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 494–504.Google Scholar
  101. Purdy, J. M., & Gray, B. (2009). Conflicting logics, mechanisms of diffusion, and multilevel dynamics in emerging institutional fields. Academy of Management Journal, 52(2), 355–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. PwC Fundacion (2013). La reacción del Tercer Sector social ante la crisis. Madrid.Google Scholar
  103. Resolution of March 26th, 2013-Plan General de Contabilidad de las entidades sin fines lucrativos [[Spanish Nonprofits Accounting Plan].Google Scholar
  104. Salamon, L. M. (2016). Reconceptualizing the third sector: Towards a new consensus. In ISTR’s 12th international conference, the third sector in transition: Accountability, transparency, and social inclusion. June 30th, Sweden.Google Scholar
  105. Salamon, L. M., & Sokolowski, W. (2014). The third sector in Europe: Towards a consensus conceptualization. In Third sector impact project working paper, Vol 2, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
  106. Sarpong, D., & Davies, C. (2014). Managerial organizing practices and legitimacy seeking in social enterprises. Social Enterprise Journal, 10(1), 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31(6), 849–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Shoham, A., Ruvio, A., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Schwabsky, N. (2006). Market orientations in the nonprofit and voluntary sector: A meta-analysis of their relationships with organizational performance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(3), 453–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Sloep, P. (2011). Redes de aprendizaje, aprendizaje en red. Comunicar, 19(37), 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Social Economy Europe (2016) http://www.socialeconomy.eu.org/.
  111. Spear, R., Huybrechts, B., & Nicholls, A. (2013). The role of legitimacy in social enterprise-corporate collaboration. Social Enterprise Journal, 9(2), 130–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Strategy 2020 EU (2009). Communication from the Commission, European Commission.Google Scholar
  113. Teasdale, S., & Buckingham, H. (2013). Job creation through the social economy and social entrepreneurship. USA: OECD.Google Scholar
  114. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Villajos, E., & Sanchís, J. R. (2014). Las empresas sociales y el management social. Revista Vasca de Economía Social, 10, 189–216.Google Scholar
  116. Villarroya, M. B., & Inglada, M. E. (2014). Siguen las ONG españolas los mecanismos voluntarios de accountability? Análisis del seguimiento de un grupo de ONG españolas de los principios propuestos por la Fundación Lealtad. REVESCO. Revista de Estudios Cooperativos, 15(115), 186–214.Google Scholar
  117. Weerawardena, J., McDonald, R. E., & Mort, G. S. (2010). Sustainability of nonprofit organizations: An empirical investigation. Journal of World Business, 45(4), 346–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Wu, L. Y. (2010). Applicability of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views under environmental volatility. Journal of Business Research, 63(1), 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Young, D. R., & Salamon, L. M. (2002). Commercialization, social ventures, and for-profit competition. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The state of nonprofit America. Washington: Brooking Institution Press.Google Scholar
  120. Zeyen, A., Beckmann, M., & Akhavan, R. (2014). Social entrepreneurship business models: Managing innovation for social and economic value creation. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
  121. Zuckerman, H. S., & D’Aunno, T. A. (1990). Hospital alliances: Cooperative strategy in a competitive environment. Health Care Management Review, 15(2), 21–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francisco José López-Arceiz
    • 1
  • Ana José Bellostas
    • 1
  • María Pilar Rivera-Torres
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Accounting and FinanceUniversity of ZaragozaSaragossaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Marketing and Market ResearchUniversity of ZaragozaSaragossaSpain

Personalised recommendations