Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

NGOs, Institutions and Legitimacy: Empirical Findings and a Research Agenda

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Business Legitimacy

  • 248 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, we discuss the possibility to assess and communicate NGO performance. We argue that legitimacy is a crucial factor for performance. The aim of this research is to analyze conditions that influence NGO legitimacy. We base our work on empirical data. The data was gathered in interviews with NGO executives in childcare organizations in Chisinau, Moldova. The interviewees discussed conditions for the legitimacy and performance of their organizations and the analysis of their statements unveiled that the performance indicators are embedded in constellations of these conditions. Consequently, we suggest a constellation analysis for assessing NGO legitimacy and performance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arksey H, Knight P (1999) Approaches to interviewing. Interviewing for social scientists, 74–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakker RM, Cambré B, Korlaar L, Raab J (2011) Managing the project learning paradox: A set-theoretic approach toward project knowledge transfer. International journal of project management 29(5):494–503

    Google Scholar 

  • Banks N, Hulme D, Edwards M (2015) NGOs, states, and donors revisited: Still too close for comfort?. World Development 66:707–718

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag 17:99–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Baur D, Palazzo G (2011) The moral legitimacy of NGOs as partners of corporations. Business Ethics Quarterly 21(4):579–604

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt RS (1982) Toward a Structural Theory of Action. New York: Academia Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbin JM, Strauss A (1990) Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative sociology 13(1):3–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Deephouse DL (1996) Does Isomorphism Legitimate?. Academy of Management Journal 39(4):1024–1039

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhanani A, Connolly C (2015) Non-governmental organizational accountability: talking the talk and walking the walk? J Bus Ethics 129(3):613–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer JH, Singh H (1998) The relational view: cooperative strategies and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad Manag Rev 23:660–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards M, Hulme D (1996) Too close for comfort? The impact of official aid on nongovernmental organizations. World Dev 24(6):961–973

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiss PC (2007) A set-theoretic approach to organizational configurations. Acad Manag Rev 32(4):1180–1198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiss PC (2011) Building better causal theories: a fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Acad Manag J 54(2):393–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler A (1996) Assessing NGO performance: difficulties, dilemmas, and a way ahead. In: Edwards M, Hulme D (eds) Beyond the magic bullet: NGO performance and accountability in the post-cold war world. Kumarian, West Hartford, pp 169–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Gangadharan L (2006) Environmental compliance by firms in the manufacturing sector in Mexico. Ecological Economics 59(4):477–486

    Google Scholar 

  • Gehman J, Lianne M. Lefsrud, Fast S (2017) Social license to operate: Legitimacy by another name?. Canadian Public Administration 60(2):293–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasbergen P (1998) Co-operative environmental governance: public-private agreements as a policy strategy. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Gössling T, Buiter B (2017) Socially Responsible Investment Engagement. In: Ed Freeman, Johanna Kujalla and Sybille Sachs (eds.), Stakeholder Engagement: Clinical Research Cases. Springer, Berlin, pp 113–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Holloway R (1997) NGOs losing the moral high ground: corruption and misrepresentation. Discourse 1(2):9–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard-Grenville J, Nash J, Coglianese C (2008) Constructing the license to operate: Internal factors and their influence on corporate environmental decisions. Law & Policy 30(1):73–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Jamison Gromark K (2008) Global Governance?: A study of the relationship between NGOs, Human Rights and the UN

    Google Scholar 

  • Joutsevirta M, Kourula A (2015) The role of nongovernmental organizations in corporate social responsibility. In: Pedersen ERG (ed) Corporate social responsibility. Sage, Los Angeles, pp 267–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamat S (2004) The privatization of public interest: theorizing NGO discourse in a neoliberal era. Review of International Political Economy 11(1):155–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilduff M, Brass DJ (2010) Organizational social network research: Core ideas and key debates. The academy of management annals 4(1):317–357

    Google Scholar 

  • Kourula AE, Laasonen S (2010) Nongovernmental organizations in business and society, management, and international business research: review and implications from 1998 to 2007. Bus Soc 49(1):35–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie D (2004) The evolution and strategy of interconnected firms: a study of the Unisys alliance network. Acad Manag Proc 2004(1):E1–E6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavie D (2006) The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: an extension of the resource-based view. Acad Manag Rev 31(3):638–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leif T, Speth R (2006) Die fünfte Gewalt–Anatomie des Lobbyismus in Deutschland. Die fünfte Gewalt. Lobbyismus in Deutschland, 10–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, Nathan S. (2007) Powering the Planet, Engineering and Science 70 (No. 2):12–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Lister S (2000) Power in partnership? An analysis of an NGO’s relationships with its partners. Journal of International Development 12(2):227–239

    Google Scholar 

  • Matejek S, Gössling T (2014) Beyond legitimacy: A case study in BP’s “Green Lashing”. Journal of Business Ethics 120(4):571–584

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray I (2005) The nationalization of basic science: Overzealous attempts to “protect” scientific integrity will damage American science as a whole. CEI Onpoint, 100

    Google Scholar 

  • Oerlemans L, Gössling T, Jansen R (2007) Inside Networks – a relational account toward network relations. In: Gössling, T., Oerlemans, L., Jansen, R. (eds.) Inside Networks. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 3–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Penrose ET (1959) The theory of the growth of the firm. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1978) The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, Harper & Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Polishchuk L (2008) Misuse of institutions: patterns and causes. The Journal of Comparative Economic Studies 4:57–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Provan KG, Milward HB (1995) A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 40:1–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin CC (2006) Set Relations in Social Research: Evaluating Their Consistency and Coverage. Political Analysis 14(03):291–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Ragin CC (2008) Redesigning social inquiry: fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reimann KD (2005) Up to no good? Recent critics and critiques of NGOs. Political Science Faculty Publications. Paper 5

    Google Scholar 

  • Ren H, Gray B, Kim K (2009) Performance of International Joint Ventures: What Factors Really Make a Difference and How? Journal of Management 35(3):805–832

    Google Scholar 

  • Rihoux B (2006) Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Systematic Comparative Methods. International Sociology 21(5):679–706

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider CQ, Wagemann C (2006) Reducing complexity in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Remote and proximate factors and the consolidation of democracy. European Journal of Political Research 45(5):751–786

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider CQ, Wagemann C (2007) Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) und fuzzy sets. Barbara Budrich, Opladen

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider CQ, Wagemann C (2010) Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets. Comp Sociol 9(3):397–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh S, Darwish TK, Potočnik K (2016) Measuring organizational performance: a case for subjective measures. Br J Manag 27(1):214–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Speth R (2004) Die politischen Strategien der Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft (No. 96). Arbeitspapier

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman MC (1995) Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 20(3):571–610

    Google Scholar 

  • Suddaby R, Bitektine A, Haack P (2017) Legitimacy. Academy of Management Annals 11(1):451–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Tansey O (2007) Process tracing and elite interviewing: a case for non-probability sampling. PS Polit Sci Polit 40(4):765–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thiem A (2010) Set-relational fit and the formulation of transformational rules in fsQCA (No. 61). COMPASSS working paper, ETH Zürich, Zürich

    Google Scholar 

  • van Beurden P, Goessling T (2008) The worth of values. J Bus Ethics 82(2):407–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagemann, Claudius and Carsten Q. Schneider (2007) Standards of Good Practice in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Fuzzy Sets. Compasss Working Paper, WP2007-51

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner P (2002) Defending accountability in NGOs. Chic J Int Law 3(1):Article 17

    Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zadek S (2001) The civil corporation: the new economy of corporate citizenship. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Strategy Department, KEDGE Business School, Bordeaux, France

    Tobias Gössling

  2. GSEM, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

    Thomas Straub

Authors
  1. Tobias Gössling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Straub
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias Gössling .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Roskilde University , Roskilde, Denmark

    Jacob Dahl Rendtorff

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Gössling, T., Straub, T. (2019). NGOs, Institutions and Legitimacy: Empirical Findings and a Research Agenda. In: Rendtorff, J. (eds) Handbook of Business Legitimacy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68845-9_20-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68845-9_20-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68845-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68845-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation