Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) becoming business-like is a contested issue. Some understand the adoption of business-like practices by NPOs as a case of adopting rational myths through institutional isomorphism and thus potentially dangerous for NPOs’ ability to fulfill their unique societal roles. Others are more optimistic, arguing that technical rationality is possible in the adoption of business-like practices, and that such practices can therefore support NPOs in fulfilling a wide range of societal roles. Drawing on survey data of NPOs in Flanders, we examine the relationship between the extent to which NPOs use business-like practices, and the extent to which they engage in various societal roles. We find that business-like practices are weakly related to NPOs’ societal roles. All roles are positively related to nonprofit managerialism and unrelated to NPOs’ reliance on commercial funding. Our results suggest that a certain optimism regarding the rational use of business-like approaches is justified.
AnderssonF. O.SelfW. (2015). The social-entrepreneurship advantage: An experimental study of social entrepreneurship and perceptions of nonprofit effectiveness. Voluntas, 26, 2718–2732.
2.
BackmanE. V.SmithS. R. (2000). Healthy organizations, unhealthy communities?Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 10, 355–373.
3.
BainesD.CharlesworthS.TurnerD.O’NeillL. (2014). Lean social care and worker identity: The role of outcomes, supervision and mission. Critical Social Policy, 34, 433–453.
4.
BainesD.CunninghamI.FraserH. (2011). Constrained by managerialism: Caring as participation in the voluntary social services. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 32, 329–352.
5.
BeatonE. E.DeJordyR.FosterP. (2020). The lived experience of managerialization: Understanding values conflict in non-profits through a pragmatic institutionalism. Journal of Management Studies, 58(6), 1471–1506.
6.
BertottiM.HardenA.RentonA.SheridanK. (2012). The contribution of a social enterprise to the building of social capital in a disadvantaged urban area of London. Community Development Journal, 47, 168–183.
7.
CarréB.SuykensB.VerschuereB. (2021). Balancing legitimacy in a context of nonprofit-business hybridity: The case of the Flemish wellbeing and social economy sector. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 2021(5), 944–963.
8.
ConsidineM.O’SullivanS.NguyenP. (2014). Governance, boards of directors and the impact of contracting on not-for-profit organizations: An Australian study. Social Policy & Administration, 48, 169–187.
9.
DartR. (2004a). Being “business-like” in a nonprofit organization: A grounded and inductive typology. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 290–310.
10.
DartR. (2004b). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 14, 411–424.
11.
DeesJ. G.AndersonB. B. (2017). Sector-bending: Blurring the lines between nonprofit and for-profit. In FrumkinP.ImberJ. B. (Eds.), In search of the nonprofit sector (pp. 51–72). Routledge.
12.
DeyP.TeasdaleS. (2016). The tactical mimicry of social enterprise strategies: Acting “as if” in the everyday life of third sector organizations. Organization, 23, 485–504.
13.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.
14.
EikenberryA. M. (2009). Refusing the market: A democratic discourse for voluntary and nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 582–596.
15.
EikenberryA. M.KluverJ. D. (2004). The marketization of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk?Public Administration Review, 64, 132–140.
16.
EizenbergE. (2012). Actually existing commons: Three moments of space of community gardens in New York City. Antipode, 44, 764–782.
17.
EnjolrasB. (2002). The commercialization of voluntary sport organizations in Norway. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31, 352–376.
18.
EnticottG.BoyneG. A.WalkerR. M. (2009). The use of multiple informants in public administration research: Data aggregation using organizational echelons. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(2), 229–253.
19.
FischerR. L.WilskerA.YoungD. R. (2011). Exploring the revenue mix of nonprofit organizations: Does it relate to publicness?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 662–681.
20.
FrumkinP. (2009). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primer. Harvard University Press.
21.
GalaskiewiczJ.BielefeldW.DowellM. (2006). Networks and organizational growth: A study of community based nonprofits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 51, 337–380.
22.
GalletW. (2016). Marketized employment services The impact on Christian-based service providers and their clients. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29, 426–440.
23.
GuoB. (2006). Charity for profit? Exploring factors associated with the commercialization of human service nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 123–138.
24.
HallP. D. (1990). Conflicting managerial cultures in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 1, 153–165.
25.
HayesA. F.CaiL. (2007). Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 709–722.
26.
Hersberger-LanglohS. E.StühlingerS.von SchnurbeinG. (2020). Institutional isomorphism and nonprofit managerialism: For better or worse?Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 31, 461–480.
27.
HorvathA.BrandtnerC.PowellW. W. (2018). Serve or conserve: Mission, strategy, and multi-level nonprofit change during the great recession. Voluntas, 29, 976–993.
28.
HustinxL. E.De WaeleE. (2015). Managing hybridity in a changing welfare mix: Everyday practices in an entrepreneurial nonprofit in Belgium. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(5), 1666–1689.
29.
HvenmarkJ. (2013). Business as usual? On managerialization and the adoption of the balanced scorecard in a democratically governed civil society organization. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 35, 223–247.
30.
HvenmarkJ. (2016). Ideology, practice, and process? A review of the concept of managerialism in civil society studies. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27, 2833–2859.
31.
HwangH.PowellW. W. (2009). The rationalization of charity: The influences of professionalism in the nonprofit sector. Administrative Science Quarterly, 54, 268–298.
32.
IrvineH.LazarevskiK.DolnicarS. (2009). Strings attached: New public management, competitive grant funding and social capital. Financial Accountability & Management, 25, 225–252.
33.
IvanovaE.NeumayrM. (2017). The multi-functionality of professional and business associations in a transitional context: Empirical evidence from Russia. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 8, 45–70.
34.
KeeversL.TreleavenL.SykesC.DarcyM. (2012). Made to measure: Taming practices with results-based accountability. Organization Studies, 33, 97–120.
35.
KerlinJ. A.PollakT. H. (2011). Nonprofit commercial revenue: A replacement for declining government grants and private contributions?American Review of Public Administration, 41(6), 686–704. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074010387293
36.
KimM. (2017). Characteristics of civically engaged nonprofit arts organizations: The results of a national survey. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46, 175–198.
37.
KingD. (2017). Becoming business-like: Governing the nonprofit professional. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46, 241–260.
38.
KnutsenW. L. (2012). Adapted institutional logics of contemporary nonprofit organizations. Administration & Society, 44, 985–1013.
39.
KreutzerK.JagerU. (2011). Volunteering versus managerialism: Conflict over organizational identity in voluntary associations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 634–661.
40.
KumarH.DownwardP.HodgkinsonI.ManoliA. E. (2019). Means as well as ends: Some critical insights for UK sport policy on the impact of facility ownership and configuration on sports participation. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 11, 415–432.
41.
Levine DanielJ.KimM. (2018). The scale of mission-embeddedness as a nonprofit revenue classification tool: Different earned revenue types, different performance effects. Administration & Society, 50, 947–972.
42.
LindbergE.FarkasG. M. (2016). Much Ado about nothing? A multilevel analysis of the relationship between voluntary associations’ characteristics and their members’ generalized trust. Journal of Civil Society, 12, 33–56.
43.
LuJ. (2018a). Fear the government? A meta-analysis of the impact of government funding on nonprofit advocacy engagement. The American Review of Public Administration, 48(3), 203–218.
44.
LuJ. (2018b). Organizational antecedents of nonprofit engagement in policy advocacy: A meta-analytical review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47, 177–203.
45.
MaierF.MeyerM. (2011). Managerialism and beyond: Discourses of civil society organization and their governance implications. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22, 731–756.
46.
MaierF.MeyerM.SteinbereithnerM. (2016). Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: A systematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45, 64–86.
47.
McKayS.MoroD.TeasdaleS.CliffordD. (2015). The marketisation of charities in England and Wales. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(1), 336–354.
48.
MeleV. P.BelardinelliP. (2019). Mixed methods in public administration research: Selecting, sequencing, and connecting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 29(2), 334–347.
49.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
50.
MoultonS.EckerdA. (2012). Preserving the publicness of the nonprofit sector: Resources, roles, and public values. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 656–685.
51.
PaulyR.VerschuereB.De RynckF.VoetsJ. (2020). Changing neo-corporatist institutions? Examining the relationship between government and civil society organizations in Belgium. Public Management Review, 23(8), 1117–1138.
52.
PowellW. W.ColyvasJ. A. (2008). Microfoundations of institutional theory. In GreenwoodR.OliverC.SuddabyR. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism (pp. 276–298). SAGE.
53.
PutnamR. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community (AC03045016). Simon & Schuster.
54.
ShirinashihamaY. (2019). The positive and negative consequences of “managerialization”: Evidence from Japanese nonprofit elderly care service providers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48, 309–333.
55.
SilvermanR. M.PattersonK. L. (2011). The effects of perceived funding trends on non-profit advocacy: A national survey of non-profit advocacy organizations in the United States. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 24(5), 435–451.
56.
SivesindK. H.PospíšilováT.FričP. (2013). Does volunteering cause trust? A comparison of the Czech Republic and Norway. European Societies, 15, 106–130.
57.
SkocpolT. (2013). Diminished democracy: From membership to management in American civic life. University of Oklahoma Press.
58.
SuárezD. F.HustedK.CasasA. (2018). Community foundations as advocates: Social change discourse in the philanthropic sector. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 7, 206–232.
59.
SuárezD. F.HustedK.CasasA. (2018). Community foundations as advocates: Social change discourse in the philanthropic sector. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 7(3), 206–232.
60.
SuykensB.De RynckF.VerschuereB. (2019a). Examining the influence of organizational characteristics on nonprofit commercialization. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 30(2), 339–351.
61.
SuykensB.De RynckF.VerschuereB. (2019b). Nonprofit organizations in between the nonprofit and market spheres: Shifting goals, governance and management?Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 29, 623–636.
62.
SuykensB.De RynckF.VerschuereB. (2020). Examining the extent and coherence of nonprofit hybridization toward the market in a post-corporatist welfare state. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(5), 909–930.
63.
SuykensB.GeorgeB.De RynckF.VerschuereB. (2020). Determinants of non-profit commercialism. Resource deficits, institutional pressures or organizational contingencies?Public Management Review, 23(10), 1456–1478.
64.
SuykensB.MeyfroodtK.DesmidtS.VerschuereB. (2021). Does performance-based accountability impact how non-profit directors perceive organizational performance?Insights from rational planning. Public management review, 1–28.
65.
TatarchevskiyT. (2011). The “popular” culture of internet activism. New Media & Society, 13, 297–313.
66.
TeasdaleS. (2010). How can social enterprise address disadvantage? Evidence from an inner city community. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 22, 89–107.
67.
Tello-RozasS. (2016). Inclusive innovations through social and solidarity economy initiatives: A process analysis of a Peruvian case study. Voluntas, 27, 61–85.
68.
ToeplerS. (2006). Caveat venditor? Museum merchandising, nonprofit commercialization, and the case of the metropolitan museum in New York. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 17(2), 95–109.
69.
VacekováG.ValentinovV.NemecJ. (2017). Rethinking nonprofit commercialization: The case of the Czech Republic. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28, 2103–2123.
70.
WilskerA. L.YoungD. R. (2010). How does program composition affect the revenues of nonprofit organizations? Investigating a benefits theory of nonprofit finance. Public Finance Review, 38, 193–216.
71.
WillemsJ.WaldnerC. J.DereY. I.MatsuoY.HögyK. (2017). The role of formal third-party endorsements and informal self-proclaiming signals in nonprofit reputation building. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 46(5), 1092–1105.
72.
ZhangZ.GuoC. (2021). No advocacy without representation? Nonprofit representational mix and nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 32(2), 219–239.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
