No abstract

Scaling is a critical organizational phase for social organizations: their upfront financial needs increase dramatically. This paper responds—on the basis of initial research on capacity, up-, and deep scaling strategies—to the need for integrated knowledge on financing processes within the context of social organizations’ impact scaling phase. An exploration of a market leader’s processes uncovered both strengths and struggles, which in turn enabled new levels of understanding related to the research question, “How can impact scaling agreements enable effective social impact?” The fact that the financial provider examined in this empirical study lacked alignment in its scaling approach, goals, and reporting processes over time hampered its effectiveness and sustainability. The findings from this qualitative inter-temporal content analysis enable the development of a model for impact scaling agreements. This shows ongoing flows between the provider and recipient of financial and nonfinancial resources and impact information, as well as decision-making and reporting processes. The outcome of researching the question “how can impact scaling agreements enable effective social impact?” was the identification of three success enhancers for effective social impact scaling agreements to enable social impact: (1) Financial provider alignment pre- and per-engagement in terms of expectations with regard to scaling approach and goals; (2) Scaling approach coherence in terms of understanding and acting upon the inter-relatedness and, in fact, mutual dependency between capacity, up-, and deep scaling; (3) Impact reporting alignment of the target group with the financial recipient and the financial provider. This research makes a twofold contribution to the literature. First, the pivotal role of internal alignment between mission, strategy, reporting, and decision-making processes is explored; second, the three scaling strategies of capacity, up-, and deep scaling are established as interrelated dimensions of the same phenomenon.

Securing financial sustainability through fundraising and other forms of financing is a critical issue for many nonprofit organizations. This article extends the benefits theory by adding beneficiary and organizational characteristics to it and examines how these characteristics affect revenue source composition. Based on a survey of International Nongovernmental Organizations (INGOs) with headquarters in Switzerland, the results quantitatively demonstrate a predictive relationship between programmatic and financial management: First, Swiss-based INGOs' revenue sources rely heavily on income-generating revenue sources. Second, the efficacy of the benefits theory of nonprofit finance is demonstrated outside of the organizational context of U.S. local/national nonprofits. Third, INGOs' organizational and beneficiary characteristics influence their revenue source composition. Fourth, the results demonstrate clear differences between revenue sources. Fifth, overall, the beneficiary field is the most influential of the proven characteristics in determining revenue source percentages.

Social organizations are faced with an increasing diversification of funders, financial sources, and financing instruments and a growing complexity of funding relationships. They still prioritize social impact over financial returns, but funding considerations significantly influence the way these organizations operate. Existing models to understand the sector do not include this essential component, thus limiting insights and decision-making premises on how to reach as many beneficiaries as possible. Based on previous quantitative and qualitative research, this article conceptualizes the organizational, programmatic, impact, and financing strategies of social organizations and their interrelatedness in a new framework. This could be perceived as a managerial compass illustrating the multiple dependencies social organizations are confronted with. The compass aims at reducing complexity, serving as a tool for social organizations for more effective financial management. The article closes with a call for more analysis on how social organizations manage their multiple bottom line.