Engaging Commercial Revenue Strategies
Prior research on institutional entrepreneurship emphasizes that the engagement of organizational transformation usually starts with the introduction of new practices to exploit fresh opportunities (Greenwood and Suddaby
2006; Maguire et al.
2004). In line with this aspect of institutional entrepreneurship, our analysis suggests that the incorporation of commercial processes within traditional NPOs involves the engagement of commercial revenue strategies. Institutional entrepreneurs perform two types of institutional work. The first type is to
build commercial revenue-generating mechanisms. On the one hand, the focus of institutional entrepreneurs is to introduce new profit-seeking business practices. One of our interviewees related the following:
We have opened several retail shops on the high street throughout as we see a business opportunity here. […]. We generate income by selling new and donated goods in our shops as well as recycling some donated goods. We have developed a separate commercial arm [that has staff with high street retail experience] to manage it like a commercial retail company. (CEO, General Purpose)
Another interviewee offered a different example of profit-seeking practice:
We have various commercial income-generating methods. For example, we operate a café and restaurant. […]. What we have done here is to establish a new trading company to handle this kind of activity. (Head of Finance, Others)
On the other hand, institutional entrepreneurs engage in the action of developing a revenue model for existing social products/services offerings. An interviewee from a theatre charity provided the following example:
One of our income streams is to provide training to teachers and practitioners. […]. We offered a 2–3 day intensive [training] course. They [the trainees] also have the opportunities to come into projects [theatre work] with us and learn from us. […]. Our CEO is in charge of this [training] program, and we all offer input into it. (Administrator, Art/Culture)
By engaging in both kinds of revenue-generating mechanisms, traditional NPOs can earn income from commercial practices in supporting their social mission (Arrow
2000; Sanders and McClellan
2014). The key differences are that the former approach emphasizes selling goods and services that do not relate to their charitable practices (i.e., operating retail stores and café restaurant), but the latter approach earns additional income from offering goods and services that relate to their charitable practices (i.e., theatre performing training). It is not surprising to find that traditional NPOs seek any commercial opportunities to generate revenue via this former approach (profit-seeking business practices separate from charitable practices), such movement has been explicitly mentioned in previous studies (Kerlin and Pollak
2011; Liu and Ko
2014; Maier et al.
2016). However, it is interesting to find that many traditional NPOs start to develop a revenue model by offering goods and services that relate to their charitable practices. This latter approach allows traditional NPOs to leverage their knowledge and expertise in providing social products/services and convert them into business opportunities.
In general, this form of institutional work focusses on introducing new practices that help to redirect organizations’ attention towards developing new organizational structures (e.g., commercial arm, trading company) and management practices (e.g., CEO’s direct charge) to cope with them (Greenwood and Suddaby
2006; Tracey et al.
2011). Thus, the building of commercial revenue-generating mechanisms not only means that traditional NPOs are less dependent on voluntary revenue sources but also drives the tendency to build new organizational forms to explore new revenue sources aggressively.
The second type of institutional work is to
establish a business partnership with for-profit organizations. This reflects the movements to establish cross-sector alliances between traditional NPOs with for-profit organizations (e.g., Liu et al.
2018; Sakarya et al.
2012). In these relationships, traditional NPOs can obtain financial support from for-profit organizations. Our analysis shows that institutional entrepreneurs focus on identifying opportunities to actively collaborate with for-profit organizations. An interviewee explained,
We are very partnership-focused. Almost all of the projects we do, we try to find partners (i.e. corporate partners …) to collaborate with and deliver them. As a result, we have developed a very sophisticated system [e.g., location, project types, brand image, etc.] to acquire and match partners on different projects. (Director, General Purpose)
The collaborative relationships between traditional NPOs and for-profit organizations have been well researched by scholars in the field (Austin and Seitanidi
2012a,
2012b). Recent research shows that such relationships not only offer potential revenue-generating opportunities for traditional NPOs but also, more importantly, enable them to develop a wide range of new business and management capabilities via the processes of collaboration (Ko and Liu
2015; Liu and Ko
2012). As a result these traditional NPOs become more capable of organizing and executing commercial practices.
Once the alliance is formed, the next important step is to manage the alliance relationship with for-profit organizations. This is not an easy task because traditional NPOs and for-profit organizations may face different demands from these alliance relationships and different ways to operate joint-activities (Liston-Heyes and Liu
2013; Liu and Ko
2011). Therefore, institutional entrepreneurs need to find ways to accommodate the needs of for-profit organizations in order to sustain the alliance relationship. An interviewee explained his situation:
Once you get some companies to support you, then that makes it easier, but it is also I think most of the relationships that have developed over the long term are because we have done business with them as well. Nevertheless, we have a corporate fundraising team [department] to manage our relationship with the companies and keep our eyes on the new companies [that we can partner with]. (CEO, Education/Youth)
Central to this form of institutional work is that institutional entrepreneurs need to think beyond the current institutional arrangements (Greenwood and Suddaby
2006) and realize the benefits in this kind of alliance relationship (Sakarya et al.
2012). Our analysis suggests that institutional entrepreneurs tend to develop systematic approaches to manage this cross-sector alliance relationship. These findings are in line with recent research on managing the relationship between traditional NPOs and for-profit organizations (e.g., Le Pennec and Raufflet
2018; Liu et al.
2018). As it is easier and more cost-effective to expand the current business partnership scope or start a new commercial arrangement with existing for-profit organization partners than find new ones (Al-Tabbaa et al.
2019), traditional NPOs should focus on developing long-term cross-sector alliance relationships. Together, the actions of forming and maintaining cross-sector alliance relationships represent traditional NPOs’ efforts to actively seek opportunities to generate revenue from collaborating with for-profit organizations.
Creating a Professionalized Organizational Form
In order to introduce new practices to obtain commercial income outlined in the previous section, institutional entrepreneurs need to consider new organizational structures and operating procedures because the existing arrangements prevent traditional NPOs from performing these practices effectively. As a result, field experts suggest that institutional entrepreneurs need to create a professionalized organizational form to cope with these newly developed commercial practices (Broadbridge and Parsons
2003; Hwang and Powell
2009). Through the theoretical lens of institutional entrepreneurship, our analysis identifies two types of institutional work. The first type involves constructing business-like working processes and supporting structures. In so doing, our analysis suggests that institutional entrepreneurs should apply three significant changes to the existing institutional arrangements.
First, institutional entrepreneurs can guide the staff’s behaviors and actions toward professionalization by establishing professional departments and associated operational guidelines. We use the term “professional department” to indicate the specific functional department (i.e., marketing department) within NPOs, which is mainly run by staff who have been trained and have the relevant skills (expertise) to perform job functions in the area of specialism. An interviewee explained that some business functions (such as fundraising) need to be professionally executed which can improve their operating effectiveness and efficiency:
We have a Corporate Fundraising Department. […]. We have dedicated individuals to handle community fundraising, membership subscriptions, and other corporate fundraising initiatives. […]. This movement [establishing corporate fundraising department] enhances the effectiveness of corporate fundraising and helps us to compete with others (i.e. for-profit and other nonprofit organizations). (Director of Resource, General Purpose)
To support the newly established professional department, an interviewee also pointed out the importance of associated operational guidelines to guide staff behaviors and actions:
After setting up a Business Development Department, we put together some staff dedicated to run this department. […]. They will spend time working very closely with Operations [Department], almost on a daily basis, helping them to develop their budgets, development plans, and talking to them about new business opportunities. It is very much a partnership arrangement between Operations and Business Development. (CEO, General Purpose)
Together, these movements allow traditional NPOs to compete with other organizations in acquiring commercial revenue in the marketplace. These findings are in line with prior literature on the benefits of traditional NPO professionalization (e.g., Broadbridge and Parsons
2003; Hwang and Powell
2009; Suarez
2010). The development of professional departments enhances the operational efficiency of traditional NPOs because staff from different departments can concentrate on specific tasks. As a result, institutional entrepreneurs can focus on optimizing the use of scarce resources for each task and ensure the quality of delivery across the organization (André and Pache
2016; Maier et al.
2016).
Second, by coordinating activities across different functional departments, institutional entrepreneurs are able to carry out new practices and avoid potential conflicts between charitable and commercial activities. The incorporation of commercial processes within traditional NPOs will lead to the creation of some business functions and practices (i.e., corporate fundraising) that are dramatically different from the traditional NPOs’ existing ones. Our analysis suggests that NPOs need to develop the ability to ensure cross-departmental coordination. One approach is to establish centralized control mechanisms to oversee the entire operation. An interviewee explained his situation:
We have a Strategy Group that meets on a regular basis and oversees the entire operation. It ensures that different parts of the operation in our new [organizational] structure can work well together. (Operation Manager, Health/Aid Relief)
Another approach is to achieve cross-functional departmental coordination via developing robust internal communication mechanisms (i.e., meetings) to ensure that information flows freely within the organization. One interviewee stated:
We organized a monthly meeting, and that is for all staff, led by the Chief Executive. At that point, we always talk about what we are doing next but, equally, it is an opportunity for all members to tell us what is coming up for them as well. So, it is a real sharing opportunity. […]. Anyone can ask any questions or share their ideas. (Commercial Director, Art/Culture)
Scholars have raised concerns that SEs’ operations are driven by the pursuit of efficiency and specialization (André and Pache
2016; Staessens et al.
2019). Such a pursuit may cause parts (some staff) of the SEs to not focus their attention on creating social impact and to abandon the organizations’ social missions. As a result, institutional entrepreneurs need to fine-tune the coordination processes to connect different specialized functional departments (André and Pache
2016; Battilana et al.
2015). Our findings reflect this aspect of organization transformation and point out traditional NPOs’ efforts to set up coordinating activities across different functional departments when incorporating commercial processes. These findings echo the observations from earlier works on hybrid business model development, which call attention to the importance of cross-departmental coordination for accommodating dual commercial and social foci (Cooney
2006; Pache and Santos
2013).
Third, organizational culture is delineated as the fundamental assumptions that people share about an organization’s values and beliefs that give meaning to the organizational membership, and that guide behavior (Tyler and Gnyawali
2009). We choose “entrepreneurial culture” as the label because our interviewees consistently referred to “opportunities-seeking” or “accepting failure/risk” as the fundamental assumptions for this value/belief system (Nicholls
2008; Tracey et al.
2011). Throughout the interviews, a consistent pattern emerged, showing that the interviewees viewed the installation of entrepreneurial culture as the foundation upon which traditional NPOs can effectively incorporate commercial processes:
In terms of culture change, even though the income-generation is the responsibility of a couple of us, everyone in the organization is very much aware of the fact that we need to be looking for opportunities, so most people have become more entrepreneurial. (CEO, General Purpose)
I am building a new culture here. It is a learning culture. It is a culture of quality, in terms of our provision. It is an open culture, and it is a culture where failure is acceptable, but we want to learn from failure. (CEO, Education/Youth)
The processes of transforming from traditional NPOs to SEs often encounter many challenges (Fitzgerald and Shepherd
2018; Maier et al.
2016). As each traditional NPO has a different history, charitable objective, and processes to carry out business operations, there is no “right” approach to accommodating commercial processes within social organizations. Instead, there will be a great deal of trial and error to find the most suitable approach (Ko and Liu
2015; Liu and Ko
2012). Entrepreneurial culture, from this perspective, embraces and emboldens such focus. Creating such a culture enables institutional entrepreneurs to instill new values and beliefs among the staff regarding the importance of finding new and creative ways to pursue commercial business opportunities that are most suitable for the conditions of specific traditional NPOs.
The second type of institutional work is developing capacity for managing business-like operations. In addition to constructing business-like working processes and supporting structures, our analysis found that institutional entrepreneurs also focus on ways to manage them effectively. One approach is to learn management techniques from other SEs. An interviewee explains how her organization is learning operational practices from other SEs:
One important area is to engage expertise outside of the organization to be able to support us to do that. We are part of a network called XXX [a social enterprise network body]. […]. We gather other social enterprises with similar business practices to exchange information and knowledge and hopefully will be able to build our capacity for growing the business. (Training and Development Manager, General Purpose)
She further provided an example of what her organization has learned about managing a cross-sector alliance:
We learn [from other SEs] on how to manage this relationship [the partnership between for-profit and traditional NPOs] and to work in a way that the corporation understands. […]. It is all about communication, getting things done very quickly, being quite flexible, and obviously understanding the cost of our activities and accepting that it is not just the fact that they are giving their staff [employee volunteer] to the project. (Training and Development Manager, General Purpose)
Through repeatedly engaging in fundraising and administrative tasks related to charitable activities, traditional NPOs develop a sophisticated knowledge-base in running social organizations (Bish and Becker
2016). However, such knowledge is context-specific and cannot be easily applied to operate hybrid organizations. As a result, traditional NPOs need to learn (acquire) a new set of knowledge. Our findings reveal that the mode of learning from external parties captures the acquisition of a new set of knowledge on how to perform specific operational activities that are important for the newly emerging organization form, which is novel to traditional NPOs (Ko and Liu
2015; Liu and Ko
2012).
Other than learning from others, institutional entrepreneurs can also “buy-in” new management knowledge by recruiting professional staff and organizing training programs for new skills development. In this aspect, knowledge is embedded in individuals’ experience in performing specific tasks (Akingbola
2006; Hwang and Powell
2009). Unsurprisingly, NPOs face challenges regarding (lack of) knowledgeability about conducting business operations in the new organization form (i.e., SEs). On the one hand, institutional entrepreneurs can resolve this challenge by designing recruiting practices to target individuals who already hold the suitable skills:
We need someone that feels very comfortable with technology, to be inquisitive and curious. We also need someone who has good financial skills. […]. Someone who can work at a very fast pace. (CEO, General Purpose)
On the other hand, institutional entrepreneurs can train existing staff to develop skills that are suitable for managing the new organization form. The emphasis here is to establish training programs to systematically teach and coach staff who, currently, lack knowledge about performing the new tasks demanded in the new organization form:
We are getting a lot more [training] in softer leadership skills, customer focus [thought processes], user involvement focus [thought processes], and others. […]. We are not only just to get people to think about how and why they do it [performing SE-related tasks] but how they can do it differently, how they view the outside world. […]. So, they are far more astute, I suppose in those leadership and business understandings. (Human Resource Director, General Purpose)
At a deeper level, the training represents adaptation and dissemination of information about how the organization should be operated that is very different from traditional NPOs’ existing strategy. Recent research on human resource management practices advocates that SEs should take into account their unique hybrid organization context when managing their workforce (Hsieh et al.
2018; Roumpi et al.
2019). Our findings echo this perspective by indicating the approaches that institutional entrepreneurs take to reconstruct their organization-specific human capital by recruiting external experts and training existing staff. Such practices are employed to ensure that staff within the newly emerging SEs have the capacity to manage this new organizational form and all related aspects.
Lastly, our analysis found that institutional entrepreneurs could encourage individual accountability to improve management efficiency. The core idea was to convey that each staff member has a specific role to play in the new organizational form and has the obligation to ensure that he or she fulfills the tasks demanded by the role. An interviewee stated:
We need to be much more accountable for our work. Our staff used to work in environments that are very hierarchical with very low levels of personal accountability. […]. So, I set up processes to monitor and evaluate individual staff’s practices. (CEO, Education/Youth)
He further explained the processes that he has put in place for the organization:
We have monitoring and evaluating structures, not only for finances but also in terms of practice. […]. We monitor and track the progress of our project completion and the overall quality assurance that the management structure is. We have adopted an international quality standard [ISO 9001]. We went through that last year, and that has gone all the way through all of our management processes in a very detailed way. […]. So the ISO 9001 stamp is something that we use in contracting to show that we are an organization of a certain level, and we can handle larger contracts. (CEO, Education/Youth)
The introduction of specific performance monitoring and evaluating mechanisms can encourage individual staff to be more accountable for their output. Although this does not suggest that traditional NPOs do not hold their staff accountable for their work, our observation nevertheless indicates that institutional entrepreneurs tend to give an individual staff member a higher level of accountability for delivering results to ensure that they are doing what is required of them in the new organization form. As the operational processes of the organization become more complex (i.e., interaction of social and commercial operations), institutional entrepreneurs need to introduce more management tools (e.g., performance indicators) in order to ensure levels of quality and efficient delivery of the social/commercial products/services (Liu and Ko,
2014; Roumpi et al.,
2019). This will, inevitably, lead to the organizational move of demanding that staff be accountable for their actions and performance.
Legitimating Socio-commercial Business Model
Drawing on the institutional entrepreneurship perspective, scholars have emphasized the importance of establishing legitimacy for organizational transformation (Greenwood et al.
2010; Maguire et al.
2004). This is because the essence of organizational transformation is to repurpose the use of resources supplied by the organizations’ stakeholder groups. As a result, institutional entrepreneurs need to address stakeholders’ concerns about institutional change in order to continue accessing the resources (Desa
2012; Maguire et al.
2004). Our analysis suggests that institutional entrepreneurs undertake two types of institutional work to legitimate the socio-commercial business model for the newly emerged SEs. We use the term ‘socio-commercial business model’ to describe an operational logic that accommodates commercial processes within social organizations (Fitzgerald and Shepherd
2018; Pache and Santos
2013).
The first type of institutional work is advocating the business-oriented strategic direction; it aims to address stakeholders’ concerns about the engagement of commercial revenue strategies. Traditional NPOs often face the challenges of losing some stakeholders’ support when attempting to raise funds via commercial revenue strategies. To illustrate, Herman and Rendina (
2001) suggest that traditional NPOs can lose the financial support from their donor(s) when they raise additional funds via commercial activities because these donors view such activities as not consistent with, or that they do not advance, the NPO’s social mission. To legitimate engaging in commercial revenue strategies, institutional entrepreneurs focus on communicating the reasons for adopting such strategies. An interviewee suggested:
We tell our donors and volunteers [stakeholders] honestly about our situations [lack of funding] and explain to them that we need more funds to support what we are doing in retailing [charity shops] and business partnership [corporate sponsorship]. […]. They usually understand why we are doing this [adopting trading practices and corporate partnership]. (Chief Executive, General Purpose)
She further explained the importance of communicating to stakeholders the institutional changes implemented from adopting commercial revenue strategies:
We have a breakfast meeting every month. We invite our stakeholders (i.e., donors, business partners, etc.) and our staff to join us. The team of executives will update everyone about what is going on, the good, the bad, the ugly, what we are focussing on, and what our key challenges might be. […]. I will then write a monthly bulletin to everyone [who is not in the meeting] to do exactly the same thing. (Chief Executive, General Purpose)
Our analysis revealed that institutional entrepreneurs regularly communicate both the positive aspects (the changes that stakeholders are likely to approve of) and the negative aspects (the changes that stakeholder are not likely to approve of). One of the critical challenges that traditional NPOs face when incorporating commercial processes and becoming “business-like” SEs is to justify their movements to the existing (e.g., donors, volunteers, etc.) and new (e.g., customers, business partners) stakeholders (Nicholls
2010; Yang and Wu
2016). This is often difficult as SEs face diverse and sometimes conflicting expectations and demands from stakeholder groups. Focussing on communicating the positive and negative aspects of organizational transformation instead of only disseminating the positive side of the change allows the newly formed SEs to gain the trust of stakeholders by demonstrating that they are not trying to hide anything from them. This is consistent with prior studies that highlight the important role that communication plays for NPOs to gain stakeholders’ approval to conduct commercial activities (Liston-Heyes and Liu
2013; Sanders
2015).
Furthermore, this approach also sets the stage for further negotiating with stakeholders about the upcoming changes that will be implemented by the institutional entrepreneurs:
We are always talking about what we are going to do next with our staff on a regular basis. Equally, we invite them to tell us what they think and feel about the changes we made. We want to make sure that everyone is on the same page. (Commercial Director, General Purpose)
In doing so, institutional entrepreneurs can shape stakeholders’ expectations about the new practices, which in turn establishes legitimacy. Nevertheless, they will inevitably face conflicts of interest from different stakeholders because different stakeholders will have different demands (Cooney
2006; Sanders
2015). For example, an interviewee suggested the following:
There is a potential for conflict because if customers [from retail store], beneficiaries [from care service], and donors [from fundraising activities] all wanted to pull on that resource at the same time. […] We would prioritize [their demands] between ourselves and deal with them accordingly. (Deputy CEO, General Purpose)
In the process of transforming from a social to a socio-commercial (hybrid) business model, traditional NPOs will face more diverse and conflicting demands from their stakeholder groups (Fitzgerald and Shepherd
2018). To overcome this challenge, our analysis suggests that institutional entrepreneurs need to take an active role in prioritizing their demands and deal with them one by one. This approach is in line with other scholars’ recommendations on how SEs should address the expectations of multiple stakeholder groups to establish organizational legitimacy (Ramus and Vaccaro
2017; Yang and Wu
2016). In general, our data reveal institutional entrepreneurs’ efforts to communicate future changes in order to manage the legitimacy of their socio-commercial business model.
The focus of the second type of institutional work is on maintaining social organization status. This type addresses stakeholders’ concerns on the creation of a professionalized organizational form. Before venturing into commercial practices, the primary sources of revenue for traditional NPOs are private donation and government funding. Still, SEs usually appreciate that the higher percentage of funding coming from these two sources of revenue increases their legitimacy profile (Froelich
1999). According to our analysis, the focus of institutional entrepreneurs is to communicate to stakeholders that the newly emerging SEs will continue to raise funds from these two sources of revenue. More importantly, institutional entrepreneurs demonstrate to stakeholders that this professionalized organizational form can obtain funds from these revenue sources more effectively and efficiently.
In particular, prior studies recognize that applying new technology to raise funds from nonprofit sources can both improve fundraising results and maintain legitimacy (e.g., Hackler and Saxton
2007; Saxton and Wang
2014). In line with these studies, an interviewee reported that his organization developed the use of IT-based consumer relationship management systems to manage its donors’ information:
We have recently taken ownership of our own box office and adopted a new [information technology] system such as CRM [customer relationship management] platform to manage it. This allows us to have a direct dial-up with our ticket buyers and donors. It has made a difference. (Financial Director, Art/Culture)
Another interviewee explained the use of digital space for engaging crowd-funding activities:
We have got a digital space put up, and we could do crowd-funding – somebody just the other week came up with an idea. For example, we can do some filming inside one of the old clinics and then show them the new clinic and we could crowd-fund for that and people could go in and explore the spaces, and they could see what they could crowd-fund for – £50 buys medicines or £100 buys a medical pack, or whatever.”(Fundraising Manager, Health/Aid Relief)
These pieces of evidence suggest that the possession of competence to integrate new technologies into traditional NPOs’ existing operating activities is important to improve the effectiveness of their fundraising practices (Raman
2016; Tung and Jordann
2017). This approach allows institutional entrepreneurs to show stakeholders that this professionalized organizational form is more capable of engaging with traditional fundraising practices with the adoption of new technologies, as two interviewees similarly explained:
I do not find it difficult to justify [to stakeholders] what we have done [creating a professionalized organizational form] because they can see that we are still the nonprofit [organization] that they knew.” (Financial Director, Art/Culture)
“I think that action speaks louder than words. […]. We are still the same organization [NPO] as before. But now, we are able to raise more funds for our work [social mission]. (Fundraising Manager, Health/Aid Relief)
Funding from the government represents an important source of income for traditional NPOs. Even though the government has cut direct funding support for traditional NPOs (Laforest
2013; Maier et al.
2016), it is starting to package some public services into different scales of deliverable public contracts. Our analysis suggests that institutional entrepreneurs view this as an important opportunity to show stakeholders that their professionalized organizational form is more capable of securing this type of government contract and legitimatizing this organizational transformation. An interviewee explained:
[…] what is happening is that the government is looking for and are asking people to tender for larger contracts, but there are fewer providers […]. The scale of the contract is very large. We will not be able to do it alone. So, we work with very specialist groups of people, so we can work together almost as an alliance and a partnership, to be able to put funding bids in together. (Head of Development, General Purpose)
The interviewee further indicated:
We are not able to do this [bid for this type of government contract] before the restructuring. […]. This helps to clear all the naysayers’ [stakeholders who criticize the professionalized organizational form] doubts about our restructuring. (Head of Development, General Purpose)
An essential element of securing public sector contracts is to demonstrate the organization’s capability to successfully deliver specific public services. SEs with more a professionalized organizational form than traditional NPOs are more capable of delivering such services because they can perform the tasks more effectively and use their connections with for-profit organizations to acquire more resources (e.g., knowledge, expertise, financial support, etc.) from them (Powell et al.
2019; Vickers et al.
2017). Therefore, SEs are more likely to develop a great public service proposal, which in turn improves the odds of winning the government contract bid. Through bidding for and securing the contracts from public sectors, institutional entrepreneurs demonstrate to stakeholders that the newly formed SEs still focus on the pursuit of social missions like other social organizations do. This, subsequently, legitimatizes institutional entrepreneurs’ efforts to create a more professionalized organizational form.