Thesis
Reference
Nonprofit Business Models: A Bourdieusian Perspective
COTTERLAZ-RANNARD, Gaëlle
Abstract
Despite the increased attention of researchers to the nonprofit sector (Lu, 2018), studies on nonprofit organizations (NPOs) business models remain limited. This thesis aims to propose a conceptualization of NPO business models in order to understand the mechanisms underlying the creation and capture of societal value: what are the fundamental mechanisms underlying NPO business models? To answer this central question, the thesis develops an innovative theoretical framework through Bourdieu's theory of forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1979, 1980, 1986) to understand and map out the specific nature of NPO business models. This thesis contributes to the literature on business models and the nonprofit sector by demonstrating the existence of distinct NPO business models characterized by differentiated mechanisms of value creation and capture. A central finding is that the sustainability of NPO business models is closely linked to their ability to accumulate and convert complementary forms of capital.
COTTERLAZ-RANNARD, Gaëlle. Nonprofit Business Models: A Bourdieusian Perspective. Thèse de doctorat : Univ. Genève, 2021, no. GSEM 91
URN : urn:nbn:ch:unige-1496926
DOI : 10.13097/archive-ouverte/unige:149692
Available at:
http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:149692
Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.
1 / 1
NONPROFIT BUSINESS MODELS: A BOURDIEUSIAN PERSPECTIVE
(Les modèles d’affaires des organisations à but non lucratif : une perspective Bourdieusienne)
THESIS
submitted to the Université de Genève, Suisse Université Savoie Mont-Blanc, France
by
Gaëlle COTTERLAZ-RANNARD
Under the direction of
Prof. Michel FERRARY, co-supervisor Prof. Rachel BOCQUET, co-supervisor
in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Docteur ès économie et management mention management
Jury members:
Prof. Thomas STRAUB, Chair, University of Geneva Prof. Michel FERRARY, co-supervisor, University of Geneva
Prof. Rachel BOCQUET, co-supervisor, IAE, University Savoie Mont-Blanc Prof. Franck AGGERI, Ecole des Mines, Paris Tech
Prof. Benoît DEMIL, IAE, University Savoie Mont-Blanc
Thesis no 91 Geneva, January 2021
2
La Faculté d’économie et de management, sur préavis du jury, a autorisé l’impression de la présente thèse, sans entendre, par-là, émettre aucune opinion sur les propositions qui s’y trouvent énoncées et qui n’engagent que la responsabilité de leur auteur.
Geneva, le 16 février 2021
Dean
Marcelo OLARREAGA
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my deepest thanks to all the people who accompanied me on this first
“expedition” into the world of research of which this thesis is the culmination of this work.
Over the past five years and a few months, my thesis directors, Professor Rachel Bocquet and Professor Michel Ferrary, have passed on to me, in their own ways, their expertise, rigor and experience. I am very grateful to them for their advice as well as the trust and support they gave me throughout my research. Thanks to them, I have developed certain qualities and skills that were not evident at the beginning of the thesis.
My thanks also go to the members of my jury, Professors Franck Aggeri, Benoît Demil and Thomas Straub, who took the time to guide me and evaluate my research. Their comments and advice have been invaluable for the reflections and ongoing development of my research.
I hope that I have lived up to their expectations.
As a co-supervisor, I am fortunate to have been able to count on the support of the members of my two research laboratories, the IREGE and the Institut de Management (GSEM), whom I thank for their encouragement and kindness in our exchanges. I would like to thank the former doctoral students who are now pursuing their careers in the academic world, in particular Rose Hiquet, who guided me during my first months as an assistant and doctoral student. Özgü Karakulak who always listened to me and advised me and with whom I shared my first international conference in Atlanta at the Academy of Management. Marie-Sklaerder Vie for sharing our office and motherhood during our PhD. Jean-Christophe Delfin for our exchanges and for our internal competition to know who will arrive first at the office (I must admit that I rarely won). Emilie Ruiz, Boris Bourgel and Caroline Mattelin for the support but also the timely laughter. In general, I would like to thank the administrative teams and all the PhD students of these two laboratories : Ursa Bernardic, Aida Darouichi, Ramesh Das Guru, Maxime De Kaenel, Kateryna Fomina, Sebastian Fuchs, Rose Hiquet, Özgü Karakulak, Antonia Krefeld-Schwalb, Desir Mporamazina, Sebastian Krakowski, Marie-Sklaerder Vie, Rebecca Eliott, Katherine Tatarinov, Jonathan Schad, Jeremy Orsat, Fereshteh Vahidi, Rim Bitar, Yelena Saltini, Angélique Breuillot, Camille Dumeignil, Karine Revet, Olga Untilov and all the others.
4
I would also like to thank all those who have supported me, especially Dotty, Wanda Bailey, Katherine Tatarinov and Rebecca Eliott, for their help in English, which is not (as many know) my preferred language. I thank my childhood friend Mélanie Chatenoud, who, despite her difficult moments, has always found the time and patience to listen to me in moments of loneliness and doubt.
The support of my parents, even if they did not always grasp the greatness and importance of this path for me, has always been important to me. Finally, a special mention to Manuel, my companion in “real” life, who has always supported me but also "pushed" me to go beyond and surpass my limits. I would also like to thank my children, Camille and Théo, who I hope did not suffer too much from the symbolic phrase "later on, mommy has a lot of work." They have been a lifeline for me during these five years. They have given me strength and helped me take breaks that allowed me to refocus on the simple, yet essential things in life.
Without them, I may have drowned during my thesis. I hope that they will be proud of their mother's path because they have greatly contributed to it in their own way.
From now on, I can only hope that the years to come will be as enriching and vibrant as those spent in my thesis.
Gaëlle Cotterlaz-Rannard January 2021
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS __________________________________________________ 3
GENERAL INTRODUCTION _______________________________________________ 7 1. Context and research interest _____________________________________________ 7 2. Research questions and theoretical framing _________________________________ 12 3. Research design ______________________________________________________ 17 4. Research contributions _________________________________________________ 24 5. Dissertation overview __________________________________________________ 26 CHAPTER 1. THE FOUR BLADES MODEL OF THE SOCIETAL VALUE CREATION AND CAPTURE IN THE NONPROFIT BUSINESS MODELS: A BOURDIEUSIAN PERSPECTIVE ___________________________________________________________ 31
1. Introduction _________________________________________________________ 35 2. Business model research: from economic to societal value _____________________ 38 3. A Bourdieusian perspective on the business models of nonprofit organizations _____ 44 4. The four blades model of the societal value creation and capture in the nonprofit business
models _____________________________________________________________ 51 5. Discussion and conclusion ______________________________________________ 63 CHAPTER 2. RESEARCH DESIGN _________________________________________ 67 1. From concept to data: the operationalization of variables ______________________ 69 2. Methodology and data access ____________________________________________ 75 3. Synthesis of the validity and reliability of the quantitative approach _____________ 81 CHAPTER 3. HOW DO NPOS GET FUNDING? A BUSINESS MODEL PERSPECTIVE BASED ON THE CONVERSION OF SYMBOLIC CAPITAL _____ 83
1. Introduction _________________________________________________________ 88 2. Literature review _____________________________________________________ 90 3. Bourdieu’s model of capital conversion ____________________________________ 91 4. Methodology ________________________________________________________ 94
6
5. Results ____________________________________________________________ 100 6. Discussion _________________________________________________________ 103 CHAPTER 4. IS RESEARCH ENOUGH FOR A UNIVERSITY TO GAIN PRESTIGIOUS STATUS. A BOURDIEUSIAN PERSPECTIVE ON THE BUSINESS MODELS OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS ______________________________ 109
1. Introduction ________________________________________________________ 114 2. Literature review ____________________________________________________ 116 3. A Bourdieusian perspective on the business models of nonprofit organizations ____ 120 4. Empirical methodology _______________________________________________ 127 5. Results ____________________________________________________________ 134 6. Discussion and conclusion _____________________________________________ 135 CHAPTER 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ____________________________ 139 1. Centrality of forms of capital and conversion dynamics ______________________ 141 2. Strategic or constrained choices _________________________________________ 144 3. Organizational consequences ___________________________________________ 147 4. Contributions _______________________________________________________ 148 5. Limitations and further research ________________________________________ 152 BIBLIOGRAPHY ________________________________________________________ 159 Appendix 1. MSF’s organigram (Chapter 1) ____________________________________ 176 Appendix 2. Interview guidelines (Chapter 3) ___________________________________ 177 Appendix 3. Variables definition (Chapter 3) ____________________________________ 178 Appendix 4. Descriptive statistics (Chapter 3) ___________________________________ 179 Appendix 5. Variables definition (Chapter 4) ____________________________________ 180 Appendix 6. Descriptive statistics (Chapter 4) ___________________________________ 181
7
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1. Context and research interest
1.1. A brief personal story
The choice to focus my research on the business models of nonprofit organizations (hereafter referred to as an NPOs) was driven by my professional background and therefore by my familiarity with the issues and challenges they face. As soon as I finished my Master’s degree, I had the opportunity to work for two local nongovernmental organizations (hereafter referred to as an NGOs), first in the local and regional development sector and then in the environment sector. This last experience in Chile as coordinator of a local NGO "Center for the Study of Wetlands" ([Centro de Estudios de Humedales] – CEH) was an important step, since it led me to better understand business models and partnerships between companies and NGOs, especially at the risk of instrumentalization of NGOs. The NGO, CEH, whose primary mission was the conservation of wetlands in the Atacama Desert (the driest desert in the world) and the high plateaus of the Andes, had very close relations with a multinational company in the mining sector for two main reasons. The first was because this NGO was created as a result of an agreement between this mining company and an NGO based in Santiago (Center for Development Studies - CED). The second reason was that the mining company financed the CEH at about 90%.
Through the financing of this company, numerous studies in partnership with hydrologists and geographers from the University of Chile have been executed on the themes of vulnerability and climate change, biodiversity, and ancestral agricultural practices in relation to the sustainable management of wetlands. Nevertheless, weaknesses linked to this partnership quickly became apparent. On the one hand, several studies on wetland water and groundwater management have not been carried out due to pressures from funders who had self-interests in these sectors, in particular a copper mining expansion project. On the other hand, following a sharp drop in the price of the red metal in 2015, the mining company chose to drastically reduce its funding to the CEH leading to its closure in 2017, despite its growing prominence in the
8
region and internationally (member of the RAMSAR network, partnerships with Spanish universities, etc.).
This first experience, which offered me the opportunity to see the difficulties NGOs face in carrying out their societal mission, was very striking and resulted in a desire to work on this subject with a more academic approach. As soon as I returned to France, I joined a research master's program where alliances between companies and NGOs was the subject of my research master thesis. When I decided to pursue doctoral studies under the shared supervision of the University of Geneva (Geneva School of Economics and Management – GSEM) and the University of Savoie Mont-Blanc (Institut de Recherche en Gestion et Economie – IREGE), I continued to focus my research on nonprofit organizations. My first surprise was to find that despite their growing importance in economics, nonprofit organizations are still under-studied in the field of strategic management.
1.2. Managerial and theoretical issues
Recent decades have been marked by a proliferation of nonprofit organizations at the local, national and international levels with a variety of categories (associations, nongovernmental organizations, universities, hospitals) and a diverse range of missions, such as human rights, education, environmental protection and poverty eradication (Salamon, 1999; Topaloglu, McDonald, & Hunt, 2018). By definition, a nonprofit organization furthers a societal cause, provides a public benefit and has tax-exempt status (Salamon, 1999). Beyond their essential role in dealing with societal issues, these organizations are an integral part of the local and global economic landscape. As an example, from 2005 to 2015, in the U.S., the number of NPOs registered with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rose from 1.41 million to 1.56 million, an increase of 10.4%.1 In 2015, they contributed an estimated $985.4 billion to the U.S.
economy, around 5.4% of the country’s gross domestic product. NPOs also employ 12.3 million people, or more than 10% of the total U.S. workforce, of which the average annual growth from 2000 to 2015 was 2.1%.2 For some scholars, this expansion has coincided with changes in the ideological, theoretical and practical tenets of governance based on market-biased neoliberal assumptions (Hulme & Edwards, 1997) and has been influenced by the challenges of
1 Giving USA Foundation. 2018. Giving USA 2018: The Annual Report on Philanthropy for the Year 2017.
Bloomington, IN: Giving USA Foundation.
2 The National Center for charitable statistics.
9
sustainable development. Behind this proliferation are the issues of management of these organizations (Lewis, 2005). As the financial resources for NPOs are limited and their growth is exponential, challenges related to their sustainability have arisen (Botetzagias & Koutiva, 2014; Frumkin & Kim, 2001; Topaloglu et al., 2018; Weerawardena & Mort, 2012).
One current issue is the increase in the competitiveness of NPOs to attract donations with increasing spending on fundraising (Chetkovich & Frumkin, 2003) coupled with a downturn in government support (Choi, 2016). For instance, in 2018, the NPO Terre des hommes Switzerland, which describes itself as the largest Swiss children's aid organization, was forced to lay off around 50 people at its headquarters in Lausanne due to a decrease in anticipated donations.3 The humanitarian NPO Geneva Call,4 which was considered by NGO advisor5 one of the 500 most important NPOs in the world, is no longer part of that Ivy League, partly due to a lack of public financial resources that have negatively impacted its missions by reducing them.
More recently, the current context, as it relates to the Covid-19 pandemic, makes the question of the sustainability and vulnerability of NPOs even more critical. In view of their dependence on private and institutional donations, the nonprofit sector could be particularly affected by the Covid-19 pandemic,6 whatever their size and sector. The higher education sector has been particularly affected. The revenue streams that allow nonprofit universities to function (tuition, research funding and those hefty endowments) have all been threatened by the financial crisis triggered by the coronavirus. In recent weeks, Harvard has faced a shrinking endowment and dwindling sources of revenue, which, despite ample resources, Hollister (Harvard University’s Chief Financial Officer) called challenging. Harvard University’s top three leaders cut their salaries by 25% in May.7 The example of Harvard University is not an exception. Johns Hopkins University, whose endowment tops $6 billion, disclosed in April that it would suspend contributions to employee retirement accounts, cut top leaders’ salaries and prepare for
3 https://www.letemps.ch/suisse/terre-hommes-va-devoir-licencier-50-collaborateurs
4 https://www.letemps.ch/monde/une-crise-profonde-menace-long-renom-lappel-geneve
5 NGO Advisor is a Geneva-based independent media organization committed to highlighting innovation, impact, and governance in the nonprofit sector.
6 During crises, donations tend to decrease, weakening the NPOs according to the report “Charitable Giving and the Great Recession (2012),” by Reich and Wimer. During the Great Recession of 2008 total charitable giving has reduced by 7.0% in 2008 and 6.2% in 2009.
7https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/04/13/nation/harvard-announces-hiring-salary-freezes-president-top- leaders-take-25-percent-pay-cut/
10
furloughs and layoffs. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology said they were facing $50 million in unexpected costs.8 These examples show the importance of reconsidering how NPOs can best pursue their societal mission given the managerial challenges this entails.
The growing importance of NPOs in modern society has led to an increase in scholarly attention paid to the nonprofit sector (Lu, 2018) but the issue of how to develop NPO “business models” remains under-studied (McDonald, Masselli, & Chanda, 2019). Much of the business literature on NPOs has focused on the unique features of nonprofits compared to the for-profit sector (Topaloglu et al., 2018). NPOs differ from for-profit organizations (FPOs) by nature and definition. While the aim of FPOs is to create economic value, NPOs aim to create societal value and maximize social impact to meet social needs (Moore, 2000). NPOs are not focused on generating profits but rather on serving a societal purpose (McDonald, 2007; Moore, 2000;
Sharp & Brock, 2012). Thus, success is measured in terms of the social impact NPOs are able to report to stakeholders, demonstrating progress toward their mission with a view to social recognition (Kleszczowski & Raulet-Croset, 2018). In some instances, recognition can be measured using criteria that evaluate the decline or decrease of the problem at the heart of the organization’s mission. For example, an NPO that fights epidemics would achieve recognition when the organization has accomplished its mission, i.e. the complete disappearance of the epidemic.
The business model concept was introduced in strategic management in the 90’s and became a mainstream concept in academia and business practices (Pedersen, Gwozdz, & Hvass, 2018). It constitutes a progressive research program in strategic management (Lecocq, Demil,
& Ventura, 2010) and provides a promising framework to understand the broader view of value (value creation and value capture) that guides a firm’s strategy (Demil, Lecocq, & Warnier, 2018; Freudenreich, Lüdeke-Freund, & Schaltegger, 2020; Massa, Tucci, & Afuah, 2017).
Traditional theories in strategic management, i.e. the positioning view (Porter, 1991) and the resource-based view (Barney, 1991), partly theorize value, however Massa et al. (2017) insist on the unique characteristics of the business model concept. First, business model research focuses on value creation (i.e., how does an organization create value) and value capture (i.e.
how does an organization deliver value and earn revenues) (Massa et al., 2017; Nickerson,
8 https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/georgetown-university-announces-budget-cuts-as-it-prepares- for-50-million-shortfall/2020/05/13/c49ed3ca-952c-11ea-82b4-c8db161ff6e5_story.html
11
Silverman, & Zenger, 2007), while the vast majority of strategy research has underemphasized the challenge of value creation. Secondly, the business model concept provides a holistic view of value creation; value creation is understood from the ecosystem, i.e. the organization as well as its stakeholders (Demil et al., 2018; Freudenreich et al., 2020; Massa et al., 2017). Thirdly, the business model concept takes into account multi-sourced competitive advantage (Massa et al., 2017). Competitive advantage can be explained in terms of resources and systems of activities from the supply-side and the demand-side. Based on the central analysis of the mechanisms of value creation and value capture (Lecocq et al., 2010), the business model concept enriches the traditional theories of strategic management, which have focused on the capture of value, overlooking the theorizing of value creation (Massa et al., 2017).
The literature on business models has evolved with regard to the nature of the values under consideration, materialized by the passage from so-called conventional business models focused on economic value, to sustainable business models for which both economic and societal values are considered. Historically, research on business model analyze the business model concept from the conventional perspective. Teece (2010: 172) describes the essence of the business model in “defining the manner by which the enterprise delivers value to customers, entices customers to pay for value, and converts those payments to profit.” Economic value is the dominant and homogeneous value from the customer and the focal firm (Laasch, 2018;
Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010; Pedersen et al., 2018; Schaltegger, Luedeke-Freund, & Hansen, 2016). However, this perspective has been challenging with the emergence of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Firms are no longer simply called upon to maximize their profits (i.e.
economic value) but must also provide societal benefits to their stakeholders (Laasch, 2018), leading to the shift from conventional to sustainable business models. The focus is no longer only on economic value, but also on societal value (encompassing social, environmental and governance issues); economic and societal values are combined into sustainable business models (Bocken et al., 2014; Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013).
The sustainable business model perspective has led to the development of business models that better capture the broad range of stakeholders and societal value (Pedersen et al., 2018). They are often viewed as an extension to the conventional business models (Yunus, Moingeon, & Lehmann-Ortega, 2010), whose societal activities would contribute to economic success and competitive advantage (Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013; Spieth, Schneider, Clauß,
& Eichenberg, 2019). From this perspective, the creation of societal value is embedded in the
12
business model insofar as it contributes to the economic growth of the organization (Cachon, 2020; Jensen, 2002). Dentchev et al. (2016) suggest that scholars have not yet fully understood how such business models work and how they create (societal) value without predominantly generating profit for FPOs. The mechanisms of value creation and capture, although predominant in business model research, remain implicit and scarcely explained (Demil, Lecocq, & Warnier, 2019; Lecocq et al., 2010; Lepak, Smith, & Taylor, 2007).
Research on conventional and sustainable business models provides useful contributions to better understand business models in the for-profit sector but it is still too limited to provide an understanding of NPO business models because of the specific characteristics of NPOs. When focusing on the unique needs of the nonprofit sector, the emphasis can no longer be on the pursuit of economic growth as is the case for the for-profit sector; the focus must be placed on societal value creation. Even if other readings of value (e.g.
valuation studies)9 raise the idea that economic value is inseperable from other values such as societal value, our position is that within the context of NPOs and FPOs, the various types of value can be dissociated from one another in considering the purpose of NPOs. NPO business models contrast with those of FPOs by reversing the relationship between ends and means. For FPOs, societal value is a means to reach the ultimate goal of creating and capturing economic value. NPO business models reverse this causality by prioritizing the societal goals and viewing economic value merely as a means to achieve this ultimate societal goal. Understanding this inversion requires a paradigm shift to design a theoretical framework that explains organizations ultimately driven by the creation of societal value.
2. Research questions and theoretical framing
This thesis aims to provide a deeper understanding of the business models of nonprofit organizations by shedding light on the mechanisms for creating and capturing societal value.
To address this issue, we adopt an interpretation of business model as formal conceptual representations (Massa et al., 2017) since we explore the general mechanisms of business models rather than providing a complete description of what the organization does. We address
9 Haywood et al. (2014: 73) state that valuation studies are an emerging field of research that focuses on the means and processes of value achievement, as well as their comparison and use (Helgesson & Muniesa, 2013). The study of value and evaluation is related to the study of socio-technical means of calculation and mediation (Callon, 1998;
Vatin, 2013).
13
the following general research question: What are the fundamental mechanisms underlying the business models of NPOs? To address this research question, this dissertation is positioned in the field of strategic management and contributes to the development of a more critical understanding. Strategy has become a central concept in management and a strong disciplinary orientation has developed to focus on specific decision processes and performance consequences anchored in two central questions: why some businesses are more successful than others, and how to make a business even more successful (Bowman, Singh, & Thomas, 2002).
However, an evolving stream of critical perspectives highlights a lack of reflexivity and self- assessment, leading to a decontextualization and a normative image of the strategic management of organizations (Greckhamer, 2010; Whipp, 1999). The research presented in this thesis has a specific context due to the nature of our research object, which implies a reading of organizations in a more realistic tradition. This tradition requires particular attention be paid to the complexity and interdependent nature of social reality to produce a multidimensional and relational analysis (Greckhamer, 2010; Ozbilgin, Tatli, & Nord, 2005). This dissertation is part of the critical reading of organizations, in which Bourdieu’s work is embedded, to understand the business models of nonprofit organizations through a paradigm shift to fully comprehend the central issue of societal value as an ultimate goal.
The general theoretical question “What are the fundamental mechanisms underlying the business models of NPOs?” is divided into three sub-questions, each of which will be examined in a chapter of the thesis (see. Table 1). The first sub-question addressed is “How do nonprofit organizations create and capture societal value in the business model?” In response to this question, we propose a theoretical model to understand societal value creation and capture mechanisms and their articulation within the business models of NPOs. In line with scholars that emphasize the significance of Bourdieu's work in management (e.g. Golsorkhi &
Huault, 2006), we propose that Bourdieu's theory of the forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1986, 1990, 1993) could be a step forward in understanding the business models of organizations that aim at creating societal value as the ultimate goal. This theory offers an original and sophisticated approach to the analysis of specific issues related to NPO business models. It moves beyond business benefits and recasts the concept of value creation, in that it emphasizes the societal purpose of NPOs and regards economic capital as a means to achieve societal missions. In summary, the strength of this theoretical framework is that it provides a critical reading of organizations and a novel approach to address the limitations of the extended business model
14
perspective. By proposing a systemic model based on the accumulation and conversion of different forms of capital (i.e. economic, social, cultural and symbolic) we seek to explain and clarify both mechanisms of societal value creation and capture at work within NPO business models.
Beyond its strength, this theoretical framework presents a theoretical challenge in the transposition from the individual analysis proposed by Bourdieu to organizational analysis. To overcome this obstacle, we were careful to define each form of capital at an organizational level (i.e. what does each form of capital mean for an organization) and to show how these forms of capital are accumulated and converted within organizations (i.e. how an organization can accumulate and convert different forms of capital). Finally, we needed to connect the Bourdieusian framework to the creation and capture of societal value (i.e. how do we move from the accumulation and conversion of forms of capital to societal value creation and capture). Central to this framework is an organization with a combination of economic capital (financial and material assets), social capital (network), cultural capital (knowledge) and symbolic capital (social recognition). Managing an organization means accumulating and converting each form of capital into another, which are the two key mechanisms that enable NPOs to create and capture societal value.
The second research sub-question is “Why and How do NPOs choose (or not) to obtain funding from FPOs?” This question is particularly interesting considering that literature on social alliances tends to privilege a positive and idealistic view of partnerships with FPOs (Seitanidi, 2010; Tomlinson, 2005) relegating the NPO’s perspective to the background (Burchell & Cook, 2013). Similarly, literature on business models prioritizes for-profit-oriented business models, despite recognition of NPOs as a specific class with distinctive features that should inform their models (Brehmer, Podoynitsyna, & Langerak, 2018). To address this research question, we focus on the central role of NPOs in social alliances by adopting an NPO- centered perspective in response to the literature on business models and social alliances that remain instrumental for-profit-oriented. Relying on Bourdieu’s theory of the forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1986) to conceptualize NPO business models in relation to external funding partners, we focus on the specific mechanism of conversion between two forms of capital, symbolic and economic, since these are the two forms essentially mobilized in the CSR field.
Following Bourdieu (1986, 1990) a field is understood as a social space or network. NPOs are playing an increasing role in defining the societal responsibilities of companies and are
15
therefore an essential actor in the debate on the field of CSR (Arenas, Lozano, & Albareda, 2009; Nijhof, de Bruijn, & Honders, 2008). Thus, we provide a detailed analysis of the distinct business models that NPOs use to convert their symbolic capital into economic capital. To address this research question, we propose to test empirically our conceptualization on international nongovernmental organizations to highlight the conversion mechanism at work in converting symbolic capital into economic capital.
The third research sub-question addresses “How do NPOs capture value to sustain their business models and achieve their societal purposes?” We propose to connect nonprofit and business model literature to provide a complete conceptualization of the business models of NPOs. The business model research remains generally focused on for-profit organizations and provides useful insights to understand the mechanisms of value creation and capture. However, we suggest that even if the sustainable business model perspective permits the extension of the economic value concept to societal value (Arend, 2013; Laasch, 2018), the conception of societal value remains instrumental. FPOs create societal value to the extent that it serves to accumulate economic value. This instrumental understanding of societal value creation has limitations for the analysis of NPO business models since NPOs raise different issues and require a reconsideration of the societal value concept as a final goal. Similarly, research on business models does not consider the distinctive features of nonprofit organizations enough: (i) societal value creation as ultimate goal; (ii) the dependence on donors;
and (iii) the complexity of stakeholders, i.e. donors can be different from beneficiaries (Foster, Kim, & Christiansen, 2009; Moore, 2000). To address this research question, we propose to test the accumulation and complementarity of forms of capital (economic, social and cultural) and their conversion into symbolic capital in relation to value capture in the academic field:
nonprofit American universities. This subclass of NPOs faces several important issues, including how to maintain global competitiveness and academic excellence and prestige (Crow
& Dabars, 2015), while ensuring their social and political functions in society (Teece, 2018b).
Despite the ongoing interest of strategy scholars in higher education issues, few studies address their organizational strategies for overcoming these challenges (Siegel and Leih, 2018). An understanding of their business models may be fundamental to provide insight into how universities can be better managed for their long-term survival (Siegel & Teece, 2015).
16
Table 1. Theoretical framework mobilized in the thesis RESEARCH QUESTION
What are the fundamental mechanisms underlying the business models of NPOs?
Business model literature
Theoretical Gap
Some scholars point out that the mechanisms of value creation and capture remain implicit and confused to the extent that the two mechanisms are not differentiated (Demil et al., 2019; Lecocq et al., 2010; Lepak et al., 2007); furthermore the integration of societal elements into the business model concept is in its infancy (Spieth et al., 2019).
Nonprofit literature
Most studies that focus on the business models of NPOs are centered on the revenue model (e.g. Foster et al., 2009), thus offering only a partial understanding of such business models.
Conceptual Framework
Based on Bourdieu’s theory of forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1986), we propose a new understanding of the NPO business models by examining the mechanisms underlying societal value creation and capture through the accumulation and conversion of forms of capital.
Research Questions
RQ (Chapter 1).
“How do nonprofit organizations create and capture societal value in the business model?”
RQ (Chapter 3).
Why and how do NPOs choose (or not) to obtain funding from FPOs?
RQ (Chapter 4).
How do NPOs
capture value to sustain their business models and achieve their societal purposes?
17
3. Research design
3.1. Epistemological positioning
Research design is part of an epistemological paradigm that brings the researcher to question the conception of knowledge, epistemic (i.e. the nature of the knowledge produced) and ontological (i.e. the nature of reality) hypotheses, as well as the validity of the knowledge produced (Allard-Poesi & Perret, 2014). The researcher is led to a critical reflection on how knowledge is generated but also on the methods used, which have led to the generation of knowledge. These questions highlight the profound implications in the choice of a dominant epistemological paradigm since it is based on founding assumptions about the nature and understanding of reality and knowledge. It is also important, however, to remember the complexity of this choice due to its philosophical nature.
Allard-Poesi & Perret (2014) identify two central orientations in the epistemology of management sciences. The realism orientation, which has long been considered the unique path for knowledge creation, defends the idea of the existence of a reality in itself independent of the researcher. The constructivism orientation is more recent than the realist orientation and was developed within the engineering sciences and the social and human sciences. Contrary to the realistic orientation, the constructivism orientation is based on an ontological hypothesis that questions the existence of a reality independent of the researcher (Avenier & Gavard-Perret, 2012). These two broad orientations regroup six paradigms, which are consistent with the foundations of one of the two orientations but adopt specific positions concerning the status and purpose of knowledge (see. Table 2).
18
Table 2. The Epistemological Orientations and Paradigms of the Management Sciences From Allard-Poesi et Perret (2014) et Avenier et Gavard-Perret (2012)
Orientations that structure the
different epistemological
positions
Realism Constructivism
This orientation defends the idea that the aim of science is to establish a valid knowledge of reality independent and external to the
researcher
This orientation posits that reality and/or the knowledge of reality is constructed, Reality does not possess its own essence, it is dependent on the contingencies that govern the modalities of its
existence.
Paradigms Positivism Scientific realism Critical realism Interpretivism Pragmatic constructivism
Constructivism
What is reality?
Reality is independent of the spirit and the descriptions made of it.
Reality in itself is independent of its observation
Access to reality through
"generating mechanisms."
Three levels of reality: the empirical, the actualized and the deep reality.
Social reality is constructed through the confrontation and sharing of their representations.
Reality is
inseparable from language, a language whose meanings and effects escape the intentions of the user.
Multiple socially constructed realities
What is knowledge?
Searching for causes and laws of phenomena observed independently of the context
Know and explain observable
phenomena
Revealing the generating
mechanisms to access the reality
Comprehensive approach aiming at an idiographic
knowledge
Relativistic view of knowledge.
Provide sense to the flow of experiences for intentional action
Understand the different constructions of
meaning in the studied phenomena
Validity of knowledge
Autonomy of scientific practice, i.e. independence of scientific activity from society
Performative dimension of the knowledge produced (questioning the researcher on the dimensions of the research project, the values
and purposes of the research) Validity based on
replication
Validity based on replication and
refutability
Successively tested in qualitative or
quantitative research in various
contexts
Communicative justification
Tested in action No broad generalization
19
In this research, we adopt the paradigm of critical realism whose origin as a philosophy of science is attributed to Bhaskar (1975, 2013, 2014). Critical realist scholars seek to overcome the dualism of objectivism or subjectivism by distinguishing between ontology (i.e. what is real) and epistemology (i.e. what we know). At the heart of critical realism is ontological realism, which asserts that much reality exists and functions independently of our consciousness or knowledge of it. In other words, the scientific object exists independently of human-produced knowledge. Critical realism is based on the hypothesis of epistemic relativism according to which knowledge is articulated from several points of view according to various influences, and is transformed by human action (Losch, 2009); knowledge is then context-dependent. As a result, our representation and interpretations have limitations, and the knowledge produced by researchers is considered subjective and does not therefore provide universal ways of analyzing the world.
Under critical realism, the foundational layer of reality and knowledge is associated with mechanisms that generate events/outcomes (see. Box 1). Understanding the organizational events/outcomes can be viewed as understanding the “generating mechanisms.” In other words, through the observation of the underlying mechanisms, it would be possible to access reality and knowledge (Volkoff & Strong, 2013). By going below the surface of the observable, the identification of generating mechanisms provides causal explanations for how and why events happen. In general terms, generating mechanisms have been variously described in the literature on critical realism as "the ways of acting of a thing" (Bhaskar, 1998 :38), "the causal powers and liabilities of objects or relations" (Sayer, 2010: 104) and "capacities for behaviour"
(Bygstad, 2010: 159).
Box 1. Level of reality in critical realism
From an ontological point of view, critical realism postulates the existence of a reality independent of its observation. It proposes a stratified view of the real in three levels embedded within one another: the "deep real," the "actualized real" and the "empirical real"
(Bhaskar, 2014). The first level, the "deep real," comprises the stable structures and rules, referred to as "generating mechanisms," which, depending on whether they are activated or not, generate facts and events. These facts and events constitute the second level; the
"actualized real." Finally, the last level, the "empirical real," is embedded in the "actualized real," and consists of the manifestations of these facts and events in the form of experiences and perceptions. This stratification thus proposes a definition of the real that is more complex than that of logical positivism.
20
In our research, we adopt the critical realism paradigm, since we observe the business models of NPOs from the generating mechanisms underlying the core concepts of business models, those of societal value creation and capture. As a result, in line with Bourdieu's tradition of social science realism, which is closely aligned with critical realism, we consider the complex nature of the socially reality, with its different levels of reality and multiple interpretations that make it difficult for the the researcher to grasp. We do not seek in this research to confirm
"laws" describing causal relations between objects, whose cause and consequences are directly observable. We aim to highlight generating mechanisms based on observable "indices" in the real world (Bhaskar, 2014).
3.2. The methodological choices
Critical realists are interested in mapping the ontological character of social reality: those realities that produce the facts and events that we experience and examine empirically (Gorski, 2013). In so doing, critical realists do not reject interpretability or statistical modeling as a whole but address causality critically without reducing the causality in which event A is always followed by event B. This requires a fine analysis that reflects the complexity and heterogeneity of the social world. Thus, critical realism requires multiple methodologies to try to understand a complex and multidimensional reality. This research, which is in line with critical realism, is not to identify and validate universal laws, but to highlight key mechanisms explaining a phenomena that is both specific and complex. We aimed to explore the business models of NPOs by proposing a conceptual framework imbued with sociology that makes it possible to account for and explain how organizations create and capture societal value.
As a first step, we opted for a conceptual approach to improve the knowledge on how to think about NPO business models (see. Chapter 1). Following Siggelkow's (2002) argument that illustrates how cases assist conceptual demonstration and contributions, we present the case of the NPO Doctors without Borders (MSF) as a guiding thread to strengthen our arguments and to illustrate our theoretical framework. We chose MSF because since its beginnings (1971), MSF's business model has been conceived in a dynamic of accumulation and conversion of forms of capital. The founders of MSF, eleven doctors and two journalists from the medical magazine Tonus mark the beginning of this dynamic. The medical expertise of MSF embodied by its doctors enabled the development of the first medical and humanitarian missions and the accumulation of cultural capital (i.e. knowledge, skills). The two journalists of the medical
21
journal Tonus, co-founders of MSF, ensured the dissemination of their actions within the medical community (i.e. conversion of cultural capital into symbolic capital) to attract volunteers (i.e. conversion of cultural capital into social capital) and membership fees (i.e.
conversion of cultural capital into economic capital) in order to then develop other missions (i.e. creation of societal value). To this end, we conducted interviews with collaborators from the MSF Switzerland operations center and MSF satellite organizations (which were created by MSF but whose functioning is independent). We also used secondary information (annual and financial reports and press articles) for data triangulation.
In a second step, our attention was focused on quantitative methodological approaches, despite the challenges this represented. From 1981, only 19% of the studies on NPOs propose quantitative studies (Laurett & Ferreira, 2018). We provide two empirical applications of our theoretical framework (Chapters 3 and 4) in view both of the various research questions and the heterogeneous nature of our research object (social realities). The first empirical study focuses on international NGOs and aims to test the existence of distinct NPO business models that address the specificities of socially responsible organizations, and take into account the way NPOs convert symbolic capital into economic capital through FPO partnerships within the social alliance context. The second empirical application focuses on private nonprofit American universities with the objective of studying the mechanism of accumulation of three forms of capital (economic, social and cultural), as well as the mechanism used to convert these three forms into symbolic capital, and how these NPOs capture value by converting their stock of symbolic capital into economic, social and cultural capital.
We chose to study these two sub-categories of NPOs for several reasons. On the one hand, we focused on NGOs with an international scope because they are confronted with a general reduction in public aid, and a growing competition for donors and grants. Such an environment that encourages them to seek more direct sources of funding from FPOs (Drumwright, Cunningham, & Berger, 2004; Irmak, Sen, & Bhattacharya, 2013; Seitanidi, 2008; van Tulder et al. 2016), is likely to generate new valuable insights for academics and practitioners. On the other hand, American nonprofit universities are the second class of NPOs in terms of representativeness and they face current challenges, specifically maintaining the status quo and seeking prestige while ensuring academic excellence and global competitiveness (Crow & Dabars, 2015). An understanding of their business models may be crucial to overcoming these challenges for their long-term survival (Siegel & Teece, 2015). Furthermore,
22
these two categories of NPOs refer to two distinct fields, the field of CSR for NGOs and the academic field for universities, following a reading of the field as an instrument of delimitation of structured spaces (Bourdieu, 1976). By investigating these two distinct but comparable fields, the ambition is also that of increasing generality by going beyond an analysis centered on a specific field.
To achieve our objective, we built two databases using secondary information available from multiple sources, due to the absence of already constructed databases whose measures would have been relevant in our study. We built a first database on NGOs with international scope, whose fields of intervention are social, environmental, humanitarian or educational, from a list of NGOs provided by the Integrated Civil Society Organizations System. This system, developed by the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) of the United Nations (UN), provides online registration of general profiles for NGOs. There are currently over 1384 NGOs with international scope associated with the United Nations which support its efforts to disseminate information on the priority issues on its agenda, including sustainable development, creating a safer and more secure world, helping countries in transition, empowering women and young people, and addressing poverty, among others. Since this system only provided general information (address, contacts, activities), we had to create an unique database with specific information extracted from NGOs’ annual and financial reports and Facebook pages. The information obtained allowed us to capture the stock of economic capital (at the end of 2015) and symbolic capital (early 2015) held by the 150 NGOs in our sample. To guarantee the quality of our sample, we conducted data triangulation with ranking data from NGO Advisor.Among the top 100 NGOs (as of 2015), 78 appear in our sample, including many of the best performing NGOs in terms of their impact, innovation, and governance. In the second empirical application, we focused on private nonprofit American universities. We constructed an original database using a list of American universities and colleges provided by the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO). This organization represents more than 1900 colleges and universities across the United States. This list allowed us to identify 205 private nonprofit American universities as well as their stock of economic capital (for the years 2016 and 2018). We enriched this information using other data sources. In particular, we collected the number of academic publications (i.e. cultural capital) from ISI Web of Science database, and the number of alumni (i.e. social capital) in LinkedIn. We also checked scores obtained in the rankings of US News and World Report (USNWR) to measure the stock of
23
symbolic capital. Finally, we gathered data from the Census Bureau to obtain a meso (instrumental) variable as the median household income by state.
Capturing the creation and capture mechanisms at work in NPO business models is a complicated exercise. It is all the more so in view of our Bourdieusian theoretical framework, which emphasizes the interdependence of such mechanisms. This is why we tested the proposed model in different stages and using different quantitative techniques.
In the first study on NGOs, the objective was to identify different business models of NGOs with a focus on the mechanism of economic capital accumulation and its conversion into symbolic capital. The aim was to implement a partial test of our theoretical model (see. Chapter 3) by focusing on the capacity of NGOs to create societal value by providing themselves with funds to carry out their societal mission. This partial test first required a phase of empirical exploration to characterize NGOs according to the structure of their economic capital (i.e.
funding from government, citizens and/or corporations). We use a quantitative procedure that takes a large number of subjects (or variables) and reduces them to a smaller number of clusters (or factors). Compared with factor analysis, we prefer a cluster analysis (k-means procedure) that is primiraly designed to use variables as criteria for agglomerating subjects (not variables) into clusters, based on their scores on a given set of variables. This procedure allows us to identify four distinct NPO business models. Second, we estimate a multinomial Probit model to assess the role of symbolic capital as an antecedent of the four NPO business models. The multinomial Probit model has well-known advantages over the popular logit or probit models since it relaxes the restrictive independence of irrelevant alternatives asumptions (Keane, 1992).
Specifically, we used the multinomial probit model because we determined several possible categories that the dependent variable can fall into. In our study, the observed outcomes are the four NPO business models.
In our second study of private nonprofit American universities, our goal was to go further by testing the full model. Similar to the first study, we implemented an exploratory approach using cluster analysis (k-means procedure) to identify different categories of nonprofit universities. However, our classification not only integrates the stock of economic capital but also takes into account the stocks of social and cultural capital. In order to test the complete model, two steps were then necessary. In the first step, we used a Tobit model with instrumental variables to assess the ability of the different universities’ categories to convert their economic,
24
social and cultural capital into symbolic capital. We opted for a Tobit model given the nature of the dependent variable, which is censored, corresponding to a score from 0 to 100. In addition, we introduced instrumental variables that make it possible to control for the endogeneity bias specific to the studied relationship (i.e. the different stocks of capital can also be linked to the stock of symbolic capital). In the second step, we ran regression models to examine the extent to which universities can capture value from their symbolic capital, and thus sustain their business models.
4. Research contributions
This research responds to the theoretical gap to explain and improve upon the business models of NPOs by analyzing business models as a formal conceptualization (Massa et al., 2017).
Adopting this perspective, we build a general model of NPO business models as a satisfactory way of simplifying their complex reality by explaining the two key underlying mechanisms of societal value creation and capture. We have already highlighted that the main perspectives explored in business model literature (i.e. conventional and sustainable) have useful contributions to better understand and characterize the business models of FPOs, but they still have limitations to explain the mechanisms of value creation and capture (Demil et al., 2019;
Laasch, 2018) in the nonprofit context because of the fact that for NPOs, a societal purpose is the ultimate goal. Therefore, the extension of the business model concept to understand NPO business models seems limited. Bourdieu's theory of forms of capital (Bourdieu, 1986) offers a new approach to understand NPO business models from a paradigm shift. The transposition of Bourdieu's theory to an organizational level offers a broader reading of the value concept, making explicit the mechanisms of societal value creation and capture from a clear typology of the different forms of capital and their dynamic (i.e. accumulation and conversion). From this perspective, we understand a nonprofit organization as a combination of economic (i.e. material asset and financial resources), social (i.e. network), cultural (i.e. knowledge) and symbolic capital (i.e. prestige, social recognition). The societal value creation and capture in the NPO business model can be found in their ability to accumulate and convert the four complementary forms of capital. This research contributes to the two main streams of research on business models and nonprofits.
Our research on business models provides a holistic view of the concept of value (Bocken et al., 2015) and it contributes to explain the mechanisms underlying societal value
25
creation and capture, mechanisms that are well established in business model research but rarely examined in detail (Freudenreich et al., 2020). Beyond the instrumental character often put forward in the literature on business models, our research provides a different reading of the concept of societal value creation as ultimate purpose. We depart from a transaction-oriented understanding of value creation and capture to introduce a systemic analysis that is anchored on the type of value.
We understand societal value creation as a systemic concept since it relies on the interdependence of the four forms of capital. In our model, the capability to accumulate and convert all four forms of capital appears to be a critical factor to create societal value and then to capture it. Furthermore, we propose a more refined analysis of societal value creation and capture in NPO business models, highlighting virtuous circles as well as the vicious circles of societal value creation and destruction. As noted by Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart (2010), circles are not part of the definition of a business model, but they are crucial elements in their operation. In the virtuous circles, we suggest that the accumulation and conversion of the four forms of capital are essential to the value creation process in the business models. The vicious circles underline the destruction of one form of capital and the inability of the organization to convert other forms of capital, all of which can explain why some organizations fail to create and capture long-term societal value in business models.
For literature on nonprofits, this research responds to the lack of knowledge that exists about NPO business models, despite theoretical and managerial advances that show the importance of better understanding the business models of such organizations (Peng & Liang, 2019; Smith, 2010; Weerawardena, McDonald, & Mort, 2010). We contribute to nonprofit research by building a theoretical framework that is well adapted to the study of NPO business models as a whole. By departing from a corporate–centric approach, we provide a more nuanced view of the core dimensions of business models: societal value creation and capture. Moreover, our critical view of social alliances acknowledges that such partnerships are not a risk-free strategy for NPOs (Le Ber & Branzei, 2010a) and that selecting the most appropriate partner represents a critical management decision (Burchell & Cook, 2013).
Our methodological contribution arises from the operationalization of the model and the measurement of the constructs. According to our review of the literature, management studies only suggest some ways to operationalize Bourdieu’s constructs. However, factually, empirical
26
operationalizations remain rare and those that exist can only be found at the individual level.
By operationalizing Bourdieu's model at the organizational level, this research presents a main methodological contribution through the operationalization of capital constructs, in particular the measurement of symbolic capital at the organizational level.
The managerial contributions of this work are for international NGOs and private nonprofit American universities. The first managerial contribution is related to decision support for NGOs that would be interested in diversifying their business models by partnering with businesses. In a context of “growing […] dialogue fatigue,” as NPOs “find themselves inundated with requests to engage in processes” (Burchell & Cook, 2013: 517), these organizations must figure out which corporate partners to consider. In addition, this research can be useful for FPOs to identify NGOs with diversified business models, whose ethical and moral values likely align with the firms’ political understanding of CSR.
Finally, this research offers managerial contributions to higher education. We explain how universities such as Harvard have maintained their prestige over time, shedding light on their business model. We point out that the sustainability of business models in higher education is due to the ability of nonprofit universities to accumulate and convert economic, social, and cultural capital into symbolic capital, enabling value capture (i.e. higher tuition costs, high selectiveness and the ability to attract the best graduate students). We support the idea that the accumulation of cultural, economic and social capital and the conversion of such capital into symbolic capital is required to become and remain a prestigious university. It could provide decision support to the governing bodies of universities (both the presidents and the boards) in efforts to accumulate social recognition and academic prestige and to consolidate other forms of capital. This is particularly relevant since universities are facing increasing competition in the education market, leading them to seek to accumulate symbolic capital.
5. Dissertation overview
This thesis is structured into three research papers (see. Figure 1) and two additional chapters.
The first one is to present and justify the methodological choices (Chapter 2) and the last one (Chapter 5) is to discuss and present the main theoretical, managerial and methodological contributions.
27
Chapter 1 provides a review of the literature covering the concept of business models, highlighting the extent to which business model research has provided useful contributions in understanding the business models of for-profit organizations based on economic growth.
However, the literature also has some limitations for understanding NPO business models for whom the priority and ultimate goal is not economic growth but societal value. To address this theoretical gap, we propose examining NPO business models by adopting the Bourdieusian theory of forms of capital. The transposition of this theory from sociology is relevant in that it allows us to highlight two key mechanisms of accumulation and conversion of complementary forms of capital while not limiting creation and capture to economic value only. By integrating the four different forms of capital through their accumulation and conversion, the application of this theory allows a novel understanding of NPO business models by analyzing them from a more systemic perspective.
Chapter 2 discusses the research design implemented in the thesis by focusing on the operationalization of the different constructs, in particular the variable relating to symbolic capital which is central in our Bourdieusian model. We then present the methodological choices for processing the empirical data before summarizing the validity and reliability of the quantitative approach.
Chapter 3 questions the implications for NPO business models as their funding sources evolve.
We offer a partial test of our model by seeking to understand why and how NPOs choose (or not) to partner with FPOs to obtain funding. The empirical test is based on a particular category of nonprofit, namely nongovernmental organizations with international scope. It reveals four distinct business models (public, civic, opportunistic, and diversified) depending on the way the NPO is able to convert its symbolic capital into economic capital. Results show that a high stock of symbolic capital gives organizations the power to choose and eventually diversify their funding sources, including partnering with select FPOs. By departing from a corporate-centric approach, this article provides a more nuanced view of value creation in partnerships with businesses. Our critical view of social alliances acknowledges that such partnerships are not a risk-free strategy for NPOs.
The aim of Chapter 4 is to test our theoretical model in its most complete version within the specific context of nonprofit American universities. This paper questions the sustainability of NPO business models according to the NPO’s ability to convert its accumulated economic,
28
cultural and social capital into symbolic capital, and then to convert its symbolic capital into more economic, social and cultural capital. This research suggests that the sustainability of NPO business models depends on the ability to accumulate and convert forms of capital, offering theoretical contributions on both mechanisms of societal value creation and capture and numerous managerial implications for nonprofit university presidents and boards in defining the appropriate strategies to sustain their business models.
The last Chapter has two main objectives, synthesis and opening. It provides an opportunity to propose a synthesis of the results, which are then discussed in the light of previous works at the crossroads of the literature on business models and nonprofit organizations. Finally, the discussion of the results will explore the theoretical, methodological and empirical contributions provided by our research, but also its limitations before opening up to the possibility of new research avenues.
