Governance Structures in Customer-Owned Hybrid Organizations: Interpreting Democracy in Mutual Insurance Companies

  • Tiziana Sardiello
  • Susanna Alexius
  • Staffan Furusten


This chapter focuses on governance challenges in mutually owned insurance companies. We analyze the variation in how hybrids organize themselves and discuss why mechanism for institutionalization is not always in place. A comparative approach was chosen to study how democracy is expressed and the ownership governance system is organized in two Swedish insurance companies with a long history, where Folksam was always a mutual and Skandia only recently became a mutual. Departing from imprinting theory (Stinchcombe, Social Structure and Organizations. In Handbook of Organizations, ed. J.P. March, 142–193. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965), the findings suggest that institutional conditions at the time of their establishment as mutuals may have imprinted governance practices in these mutuals that persist beyond the founding phase.


Governance Mutuality Insurance companies Democracy Imprinting 


  1. Alexius, S., M. Gustavsson, and T. Sardiello. 2017. Profit-Making for Mutual Benefit: The Case of Folksam 1945–2015. Score Working Paper Series 2017, 2.Google Scholar
  2. Alexius, S., and L. Löwenberg. 2018. Shaping the Consumer – A Century of Consumer Guidance. In Organizing and Reorganizing Markets, ed. N. Brunsson and M. Jutterström. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Association of Mutual Insurers and Insurance Cooperatives in Europe (AMICE). 2015. United in Diversity. The European Mutual Insurance Manifesto 2014.
  4. Battilana, J., and S. Dorado. 2010. Building Sustainable Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Commercial Microfinance Organizations. Academy of Management Journal 53: 1419–1440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Battilana, J., and M. Lee. 2014. Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing. Academy of Management Annals 8 (1): 397–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Billis, D. 2010. Towards a Theory of Hybrid Organizations. In Hybrid Organizations and the Third Sector: Challenges for Practice, Theory and Policy, ed. D. Billis, 46–69. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boltanski, L., and L. Thévenot. 2006 [1991]. On Justification: Economies of Worth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Braun, V., and V. Clarke. 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3 (2): 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brunsson, N. 1994. Politicization and “Companyization”. Management Accounting Research 5: 323–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Czarniawska, B. 2014. Storytelling: A Managerial Tool and Its Local Translation. In Global Themes and Local Variations in Organization and Management. Perspectives on Glocalization, ed. G.S. Drori, M.A. Höllerer, and P. Och Walgenbach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Denis, J.-L., E. Ferlie, and N. Van Gestel. 2015. Understanding Hybridity in Public Organizations. Public Administration 93: 273–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DiMaggio, P.J., and W. Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited. Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review 48: 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Edelman, L. 1992. Legal Ambiguity and Symbolic Structures: Organizational Mediation of Civil Rights Law. American Journal of Sociology 97 (6): 1531–1576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Folksam. 1946. Årsredovisning och förvaltningsberättelse (Annual Report).Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2012. Slutrapport. Parlamentariska kommittén. Förändrade styrelser och ett utvecklat kundinflytande.Google Scholar
  16. Furusten, S. 2013. Institutional Theory and Organizational Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grip, G. 2008. Folksam 1908–2008. Vol. 1: Försäkringsrörelsen. Stockholm: Informationsförlaget.Google Scholar
  18. Grossi, G., and A. Thomasson. 2015. Bridging the Accountability Gap in Hybrid Organizations: The Case of Copenhagen. Malmö Port. International Review of Administrative Sciences 81: 604–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Meyer, J.W., and B. Rowan. 1977. Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structures as Myth and Ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83: 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Powell, W., and P.J. DiMaggio. 1991. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Rose, N. 1999. Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Skelcher, C., and S.R. Smith. 2015. Theorizing Hybridity: Institutional Logics, Complex Organizations and Actor Identities: The Case of Non-Profits. Public Administration 93: 433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Spear, R. 2004. Governance in Democratic Member-Based Organizations. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 75: 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stinchcombe, A.L. 1965. Social Structure and Organizations. In Handbook of Organizations, ed. J.P. March, 142–193. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  25. The Economist. 2003. Misbehaviour in Sweden: Skandal. December 4.Google Scholar
  26. Teorell, J. 1998. Demokrati eller fåtalsvälde. Om beslutsfattande i partiorganisationer. Uppsala: Acta universitatis upsaliensis.Google Scholar
  27. Van Gyampo, R.E., and E. Graham. 2014. Constitutional Hybridity and Constitutionalism in Ghana. Africa Review 6: 138–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Westphal, J.D., and E. Zajac. 2001. Explaining Institutional Decoupling: The Case of Stock Repurchase Programs. Administrative Science Quarterly 46: 202–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tiziana Sardiello
    • 1
  • Susanna Alexius
    • 1
    • 2
  • Staffan Furusten
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.ScoreStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  2. 2.Stockholm School of EconomicsStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations