Influences of Venture Philanthropy on Nonprofits’ Funding: The Current State of Practices, Challenges, and Lessons

How does a board of directors influence within‐ and cross‐sector nonprofit collaboration?

“…In other words, nonprofit‐business collaboration may not necessarily result from boards with high human capital. Because boards with high human capital are better aware of challenges in nonprofit‐business collaboration (Austin, ; Onishi, ), they may make more conservative decisions for the organization based on attentive assessment of conditions and risk factors; they may rather decide to concentrate on their own organizations by taking advantage of their board capacity. On the other hand, boards with low human capital may be more likely to turn to collaboration, because they lack internal board capacity to achieve organizational goals.…”

“…This study also did not distinguish various forms of nonprofit collaboration. Research suggests various degrees and forms of nonprofit collaboration such as cooperation and coordination in within‐sector collaboration (Keast et al, ), licensing, endorsement, venture philanthropy, impact investing, social enterprise, and corporate accelerator in nonprofit‐business collaboration (Onishi, ; Rondinelli & London, ), and infrastructural support and consultative services in nonprofit‐government collaboration (Coston, ; Najam, ). The role of board capital might differ in different degrees and forms of collaboration.…”

Nonprofit organizationsbusiness co-creation as a consequence of relational norms: Can improve it with a business-like approach?

“…The scale of professionalization with 2 items was based on Maier et al (2016). Regarding the formative constructs, the scale of corporate governance structure was adopted from Alexander and Weiner (1998) and included 7 items, whereas the 3 items scale of venture philanthropy was based on Onishi (2015). We considered both constructs formative because NPOs have not necessary to adopt simultaneously all the corporate governance structures and/or venture philanthropy instruments.…”

Nonprofit organizations in between the nonprofit and market spheres: Shifting goals, governance and management?

“…-Performance measurement as a trade-off to performing the core-activities, thereby negatively affecting the self-image of nonprofit care workers (Baines, Charlesworth, Turner, et al, 2014) -Tension over organizational leadership in volunteer-based NPOs between volunteers and managerial professionals (Kreutzer & Jäger, 2011) (Onishi, 2015) -Market orientation contributes to the fulfillment of financial and social goals (Wood, Bhuian, & Kiecker, 2000) -Venture philanthropy leads to an increased presence of managerial knowledge and professionals, causing tensions in organizational decision-making processes (Onishi, 2015) -Market orientation contributes to fundraising activities (Kara, Spillan, & DeShields, 2004) Social enterprise (organization that seeks to solve a social problem through a market-based approach) -Risk of mission drift, in the form of cherry picking and commodification of clients (Hustinx & De Waele, 2015) -Tactical mimicry (Dey & Teasdale, 2016) -Business-and market risk (Cooney, 2006) -Social entrepreneurship bias (Andersson & Self, 2015) -Unhealthy work-life balance (Dempsey & Sanders, 2010) -Un(der)paid labor (Dempsey & Sanders, 2010) On the level of organizational income, one critique is that increased exposure to market competition constitutes a risk, as NPOs become more susceptible to fluctuating business cycles (Cooney, 2006;Toepler, 2006). Furthermore, the effect of commercial income on public funding and private grants remains ambiguous to date (Young, 1998), as support exists for the argument that commercial revenue can (a) substitute for decreasing donative revenue (Guo, 2006;McKay et al, 2015) and (b) be complementary to donative revenue (Child, 2010;Kerlin & Pollak, 2011).…”