Corporations and NGOs: When Accountability Leads to Co-optation

Abstract

Interactions between corporations and nonprofits are on the rise, frequently driven by a corporate interest in establishing credentials for corporate social responsibility (CSR). In this article, we show how increasing demands for accountability directed at both businesses and NGOs can have the unintended effect of compromising the autonomy of nonprofits and fostering their co-optation. Greater scrutiny of NGO spending driven by self-appointed watchdogs of the nonprofit sector and a prevalence of strategic notions of CSR advanced by corporate actors weaken the ability of civil society actors to change the business practices of their partners in the commercial sector. To counter this trend, we argue that corporations should embrace a political notion of CSR and should actively encourage NGOs to strengthen ''downward accountability'' mechanisms, even if this creates more tensions in corporate-NGO partnerships. Rather than seeing NGOs as tools in a competition for a comparative advantage in the market place, corporations should actively support NGO independence and critical capacity.

A new approach for measuring corporate reputation

“…Its reputational stance can help the organization obtain trust and credibility in society, which will assist in the achievement of its objectives and goals (Baur & Schmitz, 2011, Mahon & Wartick, 2003, Roper & Fill, 2012. The role of business in society has evolved over the years, from being mainly concerned with profit for shareholders to a stakeholder and community approach with a focus on corporate social responsibility (Covey & Brown, 2001, Steyn, 2003.…”

Lights and Shadows of Business-Nonprofit Partnerships: The Role of Nonprofit Learning and Empowerment in this Ethical Puzzle

“…On the one hand, we expect that the closer ties between nonprofits and firms that are needed to develop this process of learning will boost the nonprofit's identification with the firm and the risk of co-optation, in line with the reasoning provided by Baur and Schmitz [9]. In addition, learning about management techniques will probably improve the professionalization and formalization of the nonprofit and therefore the existence of conflicts between paid employees and volunteers, as Kreutzer and Jäger [10] note, lowering personnel's identification with the values and social mission of the nonprofit.…”

“…The first potential risk refers to the possibility of co-optation, understood as a process of alignment of the nonprofit's interests with those of the corporation that may compromise the organizational identity, independence and legitimacy of the former [9]. The second downside is associated with the possible loss of personnel's commitment to the social mission of the nonprofit.…”

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: International NGOs and the Dual Pressures of Donors and Host Governments

“…NGOs build a menu of strategies that allow them to create positive experiences for local officials and shape the regulatory environment in beneficial ways. In an act of reverse co-optation (Najam 2000;Baur and Schmitz 2012), organizations invite government officials to conferences and workshops, hire retired government officials with connections to sitting bureaucrats, or publicly shame government agencies that impose harsher regulations. In turn, bureaucrats modify civil society regulations.…”