Pathways to Lasting Cross-Sector Social Collaboration: A Configurational Study

The organizational form adopted by a corporation, usually the limited company, differs from that of the typical SE, either registered as the trading arm of a charity, trust or cooperative. Each organizational form’s governance structure reflects their strategic priorities. If the different governance structures are mutually perceived to be congruent because the goals and missions (the overarching organizational context of meaning) are perceived to be congruent, then the governance structures reproduce that context of meaning at the action level (Weber and Göbel 2006, 2010). In turn, the partners acknowledge the legitimacy of each other’s action and ensure requisite inter-connectibility. The levels of action and symbols are therefore regarded to be in relation to, not in isolation from, each other. The sense of inter-connectibility gives rise to an “aura of trust” (Meyer and Rowan 1977, p. 358) that lays the foundation for cooperation. In summary, despite, or because of, the different governance structures of corporations and SEs, perceived governance structure congruence is a necessary condition for a lasting cross-sector social collaboration (e.g., Di Domenico et al. 2009; Le Ber and Branzei 2010b; Rivera Santos and Rufin 2010; Kivleniece and Quélin 2012; Kinge 2014).

Analogously, the internal operating practices of different organizational forms are also known to vary; the corporate profit motive keeps processes lean, whereas the multiple reporting obligations of a SE imposes layers of bureaucracy. In Schütz’s terminology, identifying this alignment means reproducing organizationally superordinate contexts of meaning at the level of action, reciprocally granting legitimacy, and creating the necessary inter-connectibility. Finding alignment between the different administrative processes is thus a condition of a lasting cross-sector social collaboration (e.g., Di Domenico et al. 2009; Rivera-Santos and Rufin 2010; Kivleniece and Quélin 2012).

Further, the extent to which different organizational forms require engagement with stakeholders varies. Corporations provide an annual financial report to shareholders and social and environmental reporting is, to some extent, optional. In contrast, a SE will typically supplement the financial report with a detailed account of social and environmental impact. From a phenomenological perspective, achieving congruent accountability processes means reproducing the cognitive order in the organizationally superordinate contexts of meaning at the level of action (see above). This inter-connectedness is important because it signals external stakeholders that the partnership follows rational mechanisms. As a consequence, external stakeholders ascribe or do not ascribe external legitimacy to the partnership. The conferral of external legitimacy, in turn, influences the partners’ decisions to continue to collaborate. Congruence in accountability processes is thus a condition for a lasting cross-sector social collaboration (e.g., Di Domenico et al. 2009; Rein and Stott 2009; Austin 2010).

Prior research has examined the influence of different modes of give and take on lasting cross-sector social collaborations (Berger et al. 2004; Di Domenico et al. 2009; Austin 2010; Austin and Seitanidi 2012a, b; Kivleniece and Quelin 2012) and reciprocal expectations (Austin et al. 2007; Le Ber and Branzei 2010b; Austin and Seitanidi 2012a, b). Unfulfilled partner expectations are known to be a source of tension when inter-organizational relationships are at stake and associated with anger, frustration and even relationship termination (e.g., Weber and Weber 2011; Min 2017). Building on Sahlins (1972), we distinguish between balanced reciprocity, namely, outcomes that the partners requested and expect to achieve, this is expected resources and subsequent benefits, and generalized reciprocity, namely, outcomes that partners secured but that were not sought or expected when the collaboration was initiated, this is unexpected resources and subsequent benefits.

Lasting cross-sector social collaboration was operationalized in a two-step process. Both partners were contacted between 12 and 24 months after the initial data collection to assess if the collaboration was ongoing and, if so, information was gathered concerning their level of satisfaction with and resources gained from the collaboration. All collaborations were still ongoing. The satisfaction data was recorded on a 5-point Likert scale. We were thus able to capture both whether the relationship endured and partners’ satisfaction, yielding nuanced insights into the respective cross-sector social collaborations. We proceeded in this manner because, in line with Weber et al. (2017), we reason that partners would not continue to collaborate over a lengthy period if they were not by and large satisfied with outcomes, that is, if the costs exceeded benefits, or if the gains were unsatisfactory.

To construct the outcome measure we followed configurational logic. We first summed the satisfaction values for both partners. The creation of a single dyadic score by summing the observations is the most common technique for dyadic measurement (Kenny et al. 2006; Tambling et al. 2011). This procedure resulted in a scale from 2 to 10. We observed a skewed distribution of raw scores which suggests a relatively high satisfaction of the respective partners. Since it was our research interest to investigate social enterprises and their most important corporation partners, it was somewhat expected that the variance in satisfaction would hover around relatively high satisfaction scores. In line with our research interest and to counterbalance this observed effect, we defined the set of interest as ‘high satisfaction’ and set our cut point for set membership accordingly high. We calibrated our outcome measure the following: We allocated a value of 1 for dyads with a sum of 10, 0.83 for dyads with a sum of 9, 0.66 for dyads with a sum of 8, 0.49 for dyads with a sum of 7, 0.33 for dyads with a sum of 6. Values of 5 and lower were allocated 0. By allocating a 0.49 for dyads with a sum of 7 we acknowledge the theoretically possible but in our sample absent case that one partner is extremely satisfied (5) while the other partner is somewhat unsatisfied (2)—a situation which could indicate that the dissatisfied partner might be ready to leave.

Governance structure congruence was operationalized by using a binary measure of the presence or absence of a board of directors for both the corporation and the SE partners. Since this is a dichotomous variable, full membership (1) was determined if both partners had adopted the same governance structure (either presence or absence of a board of directors). If the partners did not have the same governance structures, they were allocated a non-membership (0).

We operationalized administrative processes by assessing the amount of regulations, paperwork, administration and bureaucratic procedures reported by the corporation and the SE partners. Each item was scored on a 5-point Likert scale. The delta between the partners’ responses for each measure was calculated. Using the observed distribution of aggregate scores as anchors (average regulations 1.13; average paperwork 1.1; average bureaucratic procedures 1.26), we then calibrated the following: For each measure, full membership (1) was accorded a delta of 0. A delta of 1 was accorded a calibrated value of 0.66; a delta of 2, 0.33; and all values higher than 2, full non-membership (0). The values for each dyad were then averaged to produce the final value.

The congruence in accountability processes was operationalized with a binary measure to indicate the extent of external auditing being conducted in each partner organization. Since this is a dichotomous variable, full-membership (1) was determined when congruent accountability processes were in place (either presence or absence of audited financial and social impact accounts). If the partners’ accountability processes were not congruent, they were allocated a non-membership (0).

To distinguish between the receipt of expected and unexpected resources, we first generated a list of expected benefits from the literature review: Knowledge, finance, competencies, additional capacity and other benefits or resources. We asked both partners to indicate, for each resource, whether they expected to gain them from the collaboration (1) or not (0). Later in the survey we asked the respondents to report for each resource the actual outcomes of their collaboration. This data was scored on a 5-point Likert scale for each resource. The distinction between expected and unexpected resources gained from the collaboration was operationalized by pairing the resources that each partner had initially expected or not expected to receive from the collaboration with the actual resources that they reported having received. For each category (expected and unexpected resources) we averaged all values indicating the extent to which partners received each resource, and then combined the average of both partners into one measure for each category. This step resulted in a value scale ranging from 2 to 10.

Using the observed distribution of aggregate scores as anchors (average receipt of expected resources 6.77; average receipt of unexpected resources 6.17) and following previous research (Kenny et al. 2006; Tambling et al. 2011), we calibrated the following: For both conditions (receipt of expected and unexpected resources) we allocated full membership (1) to scores equal to 10, full non-membership (0) to scores equal or lower to 3.5. The cross-over point was set at 6.75.

In 1993 three sisters opened a family restaurant and guest house in the tourist hub of Pkhara, Mount Annapurna, Nepal. While operating the guest house they discovered that many visiting female trekkers were uncomfortable with male trekking guides and porters. This opportunity led them to establish the 3 Sisters company to provide female trekking guide services to women. 3 Sisters employs 25 female guides and 40 female assistant guides and porters and has been widely recognized with awards from international travel and social change organizations. The SE EWN was established in 1999 to promote female education and empowerment in Nepal. Some recent EWN projects include female trekking guide training, health and sanitation awareness training, homestay program, microfinance to women self-help groups, grants to schools to buy books, science, technology and maths activities.

The cross-sector social collaboration between 3 Sisters and EWN leverages synergies between the two organizations. While EWN provides free empowerment training and trekking skills to girls aged 16+ and prepares them for employment opportunities in the adventure tourism industry, 3 Sisters acts as potential employer for those educated girls, and with a connectable understanding of social responsibility towards those girls and women in general: “These two are totally different organizations … but the two are working together, because 3 Sisters is always trying to develop women trekking guides, wanting to support women by women. The other side is how to get these women, and EWN provides training for the women,” (3 Sisters).

The foundation of the shared mission is a reciprocal understanding of specific values and perceptions that establish a mutual context of meaning: “I believe that it is definitively important in any partnership that before you start working together both should have an idea of who the partner is and how the partner ticks” (EWN). To enable people to correctly interpret each other’s perspectives, “generalized structures of expectations must constantly be taken into account” (Weber and Göbel 2006, p. 312). Accordingly, 3 Sisters report that as a result of such generalized structures of expectations, communication between them and EWN is facilitated: “Whatever we are doing, we communicate very well […] even though we do not need to communicate much […] it is very easy for us to communicate,” (3 Sisters). This facilitated communication, in turn, is perceived by the partners as indicating a successful reciprocal adoption of perspectives in a Schützerian (1967) notion. In turn, the adoption of perspectives leads to a reinforced institutionalisation of the shared cognitive order.

The outcomes from the cross-sector social collaboration have been delivered, as expected, to both partners. More precisely, female empowerment, education and skills development to EWN and skilled and motivated female employees as trekking guides to 3 Sisters. These expected outcomes not only contribute to the long-term aspirations of both organisations, but also suggest a utilitarian perspective. It becomes apparent that, just as in a restricted exchange (in the notion of Sahlins 1996), the dyadic relationship is primarily endured by mutual interest in the exchange of complementary resources.

FFT is a professional services company, based in the Netherlands, and specializes in the design and implementation of technological solutions into food value chains. The company provides on-site inspection, supervision, project management and monitoring services. Established in 1991, SJS supports economic, social and environmental development in the rural population in Indian Himalaya. The FFT and SJS collaboration, the Apple Project, is an initiative designed to empower small, rural farmers by improving apple production, storage, distribution and marketing. In addition to FFT and SJS, Apple Project stakeholders include the farmers and social investors.

A lasting cross-sector collaboration is foremost dependent on developing mutual understanding of each actor’s perception of roles, goals and motives. While many of the partners in the Apple Project can refer to a homogeneous system of meaning and relevance based on their similar occupational experiences, the women members of the producer collective act in a life-world that socio-culturally strongly deviates from the life-world of other groups: “They’re really excluded from the mainstream, the society and they’re really locked up in the farms,” (FFT). To obtain a mutual understanding of the other, namely to establish a reciprocity of perspectives, it was crucial for Apple Project partners to initially analyse and define institutionalized roles, motives and interests of the involved groups: “As a first step, those who initiated the Apple Project needed to understand what potential interest the farmers had to move up in the value chain [….] And, most of all, what is the willingness of individual farmers and farmer groups to participate in collective action by organizing themselves—and how can they be supported and guided in this?” (SJS). Put differently, the initial “lack of understanding of each other” (FFT), was played out in “struggles amongst some of these groups and there were distrust to be overcome and a lot of things,” (FFT).

Gaining mutual understanding of the other’s life-world in most cases results in a general cross-collaboration cognitive order (Weber and Göbel 2006, 2010). In the Apple Project this mutual understanding emerged from the above-mentioned analysis of institutionalized roles, motives and interests of the involved groups. It subsequently became apparent in a “shared vison on social, political and economic objectives as prime driver to participate in this approach,” (SJS). The new joint cognitive order constitutes the socio-cultural background of both the action motives and action strategies of each actor. To illustrate, all actors, explicitly including the farmers, perceive and treat each other as equal business partners. “That’s the first convention of us as a company […] You don’t treat them as a beneficiary, you don’t treat them as a target group. They become simple equal business partners […] to set up a viable business” (FFT). Over time, an Apple Project exchange system developed, characterised by fairness, reconciliation between interests and mutual obligations: “If you forget something and you hold up your hand and you feel awkward, but in this case they knew there was an obligation for repayment,” (FFT). In this way the Apple Project has established a ‘win–win approach’ that “look[s] for solutions that work for all partners, not just for the company,” (SJS).

The Apple Project exchange system is structurally hedged by a joint board of directors and secured processually by shared practices and governance protocols: “To be in place for maximum transparency, control and reporting to all stakeholders, including the farmers,” (SJS). This complex exchange system, described by Sahlins (1996) as a form of generalised reciprocity, includes multiple exchange partners and allows for the exchange of many goods and services the value of which is difficult to quantify. Examples of such goods and services might be the various forms of knowledge or the access to social capital (SJS). Ultimately the exchange via generalised reciprocity opens opportunities for unconditional giving and the subsequent unexpected receipt of resources.

In addition to receiving the expected resources, such as increasing farmers’ income and autonomy, both FFT and SJS explained how the Apple Project had produced several unexpected outcomes (Table 5), of which we present one example in more detail. Traditionally Apple farming in the Indian Himalaya is a male occupation and any apples that do not meet the required quality standard, such as bruised and windfall fruit, cannot be used in the value chain but can be claimed by the women. The founder of SJS reported that: “When we had a meeting with farmer groups of men, the women were looking from a distance … and one day, during our meeting, a few came over and asked, ‘can you have any solutions for these bruised and left-over fruits?’ And then we started to think. No one will restrict them to get these fruits, and then we started a juice factory,” (SJS). Today, the apple juice factory is owned and managed by women from the region and the drinks products are sold in retail and hospitality outlets across India. Interestingly, the women’s new juice business model is much more profitable than FFT’s traditional business model. “Then we did a feasibility about juice making and the most obvious one was the apple juice and the strange thing is that the whole business case of the juice making is much more attractive commercially than the long-term storage facility,” (FFT). Summarizing the Apple project, we conclude that the producer collectives have a new product, the juice, to sell. Most importantly, the underprivileged women are socially empowered and their families are financially supported; SJS successfully implemented and governed the apple project, and ‘over-accomplished’ its mission due to additional women empowerment; the business partner (FFT) increased its reputation as a socially responsible organisation, and finally, the social investor “over-reached” (SJS) its initial economic and social impact goals.

Reconnecting to the structure-action debate (Giddens 1984), the illustrative case studies elucidate how action is neither just a result of structure, nor does action stabilize the ‘quasi-given’ structure. Socio-cultural systems are, thus, according to Giddens (1991 p. 36) “simultaneously sturdy and fragile”. The Apple Project in particular portrays how action can also change structure. At outset, the partners SJS and FFT collaborate to support male apple farmer business development. As the women in the apple farming communities become more knowledgeable about business development they seek advice from SJS about how to develop a business from the bruised fruit. SJS broaden their perspective from supporting the male farmers to include supporting business development by women in the apple farming communities. SJS approach FFT to support the apple juice business venture and in doing so FFT gains a deeper understanding of female empowerment. The recursiveness between structure and action demonstrates that in a relationship action and structure reciprocally stabilize each other (Fig. 2, Loop 1). Further, that in relational reciprocity the motivation for each partner to act is causally aligned with processes of mutual recognition, attribution and interpretation (Weber and Göbel 2010) (Fig. 2, Loop 2). In the course of such interactive processes, that ‘double relationality’, partners endeavour via the explained idealizations to take the perspective of the other (Schütz 1967) in order to facilitate mutual reality-building that is associated with congruence between partners’ priorities and practices. Moreover, each partner’s motivations to act also change, consciously or unconsciously, in the wake of the extent of adoption of the other’s perspective. The motivations for action are thus not given beforehand but emerge through a recursive process of attribution. As illustrated in Fig. 2, the social-constructivist acts of mutually attributing and formulating motives (Loop 2) are rooted in the sociocultural symbolic structures (cognitive order) of the participating actors’ life-worlds (Loop 1). In the context of double relationality, these symbolic structures are continuously renewed through reciprocal processes of perception, attribution, and interpretation in the communicative behavior of the actors. During the individual acts of communication, namely a successful adoption of perspective, that is manifest in reciprocally compatible communication leads to changes in the symbolic structures of the corresponding life-worlds. In this way a cross-actor life-world with a largely commensurable structure of symbols may develop.