Collaboration in social
movement organizations:
Stockholm Stadsmission’s work for the circular economy Caoimhe Sweetman de Clar and Mariia Smushkova
Stockholm Business School
Bachelor’s Degree Thesis 15 HE Credits Subject: Business Administration
Bachelor’s program in Global Management (180 credits) Spring term 2020
Supervisor: Anselm Schneider
Abstract
The purpose of this thesis is to study how social movement organizations challenge institutions such as inequality and consumption, adopting collaborative approaches. The study analyzes the collaborative practices of Stockholm Stadsmission — a social movement organization — within the empirical context of the circular economy.
Through qualitative research based on information obtained by conducting seven semi-structured interviews with managers of the organization and text analysis of the organization’s documents, the study identifies six main factors that enable social movement organizations to challenge institutions through collaboration. These factors are: reputation and societal perception, building and maintaining relationships, rules and contracts, common goals and mutual benefits, communication, as well as self-interests, competition, and exclusion. The thesis сontributes to social movement organization research as well as to circular economy research.
Keywords: social movement organizations, social movement theory, circular economy, collaboration, Stockholm Stadsmission, inequality, consumption, social sustainability, environmental sustainability.
Table of content
1. Introduction ……….... 4
2. Literature review ……….……...… 6
2.1. Social movement theory ………..… 6
2.2. Social movement organizations ………....….….. 9
2.3. Collaboration ……….…. 10
3. Research design ………...………...…..…. 11
3.1. Empirical context ………...…. 11
3.2. Method and data collection ………... 16
3.3. Quality criteria ……… 17
4. Presentation of findings ………... 17
4.1. Strategic orientation towards collaboration ………... 18
4.1.1. Strategic orientation towards collaboration: SMOs ………...….. 19
4.1.2. Strategic orientation towards collaboration: external actors ………...…. 20
4.1.3. Collaboration on a national scale ………... 21
4.2. Reputation and societal perception ………...… 23
4.3. Buildings and maintaining relationships ……….… 25
4.4. Rules and contracts ………..… 26
4.5. Common goals and mutual benefits ………... 27
4.6. Communication ……….….. 28
4.7. Self-interests, competition, and exclusion ………..…. 29
5. Discussion ………..…. 32
5.1. Contribution to social movement organization research ………..… 32
5.1.1. Exclusion dynamics ………...…… 37
5.1.2. Requisite variety ………..….. 38
5.2. Contribution to circular economy research ……….……. 39
5.2.1. The social side of the circular economy ………...………. 39
5.2.1. Collaboration in the circular economy ……….…. 40
6. Conclusion ………..……. 41
7. Limitations of research ………....……… 42
8. References ………..………. 43
9. Appendices ………..……… 49
Appendix 1. Stockholm Stadsmission collaboration models with companies …….... 49
Appendix 2. List of Stockholm Stadsmission’s ‘partner’ companies ……….… 50
Appendix 3. List of Stockholm Stadsmission’s ‘friend’ companies ………..…. 51
Appendix 4. Stockholm Stadsmission units for people living in homelessness …... 52
Appendix 5. List of the reports analyzed ………...……. 53
Appendix 6. Summary list of the participants ………...….. 56
Appendix 7. Semi-structured interview guide ………....…. 56
1. Introduction
Sustainable development is one of the main topics of the current global agenda. Public and private actors on local, national, and global levels are searching for efficient solutions that tackle environmental, social, and economic challenges (Mensah and Ricart Casadevall, 2019; Bali Swain and Yang-Wallentin, 2020). The contemporary economic model is predominantly linear, meaning it relies on the take-make-dispose flow when raw materials are used to make a product, and waste is thrown away after the product’s lifecycle. The majority of current industries are based on a model of consuming raw materials, then discarding waste and old or broken products. This model has numerous negative consequences such as water, air, and soil pollution caused by non-recyclable and non-compostable waste, as well as toxic emissions; production processes often rely on toxic input and fossil fuels, adding to this pollution (European Commission, 2017;
Michelini, 2017; Sariatli, 2017).
The circular economy (СE) is a model created as a way to solve the challenges of resource depletion, pollution, and waste, which has been receiving increasing attention since the 1970s (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013), through numerous studies as well as implementation efforts on behalf of private and public institutions, including the European Union (European Commission, 2020). The circular economy is grounded on the concept of loop models (McDonough and Braungart, 2002), which promote reducing, reusing, recycling, recovering, sharing, and regenerating, through a transition to renewable energy, superior design of materials and products, and cross-sector collaboration, among others.
Notably, one of the objectives of the model is to reduce consumption, limiting both energy consumption and resource consumption (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). By reducing the negative impacts of the current linear economic model, the circular economy would benefit both the environment and society, addressing both social sustainability and environmental sustainability. The model not only creates natural benefits but social and economic benefits as well, hence contributing to the reduction of poverty and inequality (ibid.). However, there is still a need to better understand the circular economy (ibid.) and how it can impact social and environmental sustainability and create institutional change, we therefore intend to study the circular economy through the perspective of social movement theory.
Inequality is a major issue humanity is facing (Jencks, 2002; Piketty and Saez, 2014;
Dorling, 2015; Lansley, 2015; Stiglitz, 2015; Atkinson, 2016). In the world of today, inequality is created and perpetuated by institutionalized practices (Amis, Munir, and Mair, 2017). It is widely spread and established in society when the eight wealthiest individuals own the same amount as the poorest 3.5 billion, or half of the world's population (Oxfam, 2017). Similarly, linear consumption has been established in our economy since the industrial revolution (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013), and consumerism is now ubiquitous and rooted in our society (Miles, 1998).
Inequality and consumption have come to be institutions, that is to say, a “more or less taken-for-granted repetitive social behavior that is underpinned by normative systems and cognitive understandings that give meaning to social exchange and thus enable self-reproducing social order” (Greenwood et al., 2008, pp. 4-5). The circular economy model consists of a system where inequality and consumption are minimized and no longer institutionalized. We study the circular economy through social movements, as the purpose of social movements is to challenge institutions, such as these.
Early research on institutions did not consider purposive action aimed at institutional change, only recently have researchers started to explore this phenomenon. In particular, research on social movements defines them as collective forces to drive change and challenge institutions, such as inequality and consumption (Davis et. al., 2005, p.2). Many social movements, especially if they prevail for a certain length of time, develop some form or characteristics of an organization. They are thus often defined as “social movement organizations” (Davis et al, 2005, p.189). This definition can be applied to some non-governmental organizations (NGOs), such as Stockholm Stadsmission, a Swedish organization that works towards the circular economy and inequality reduction (Stockholms Stadsmission, 2020).
The majority definitions of a social movement share three criteria: “a network of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organizations, engaged in a political or cultural conflict, on the basis of a shared collective identity” (Diani, 1992, p.8).
However, other research shows that social movements do not have to take a conflicting and disruptive approach but can reach their goal through non-сonfrontation and collaboration.
A lack of studies on collaborative social movements has been pointed out by a number of researchers (O’Mahony and Bechky, 2008; Bakker et al., 2013; van Wijk et al., 2013).
Hence, we intend to conduct a study on social movement organizations with collaborative approaches, thus contributing to the field of social movement theory. Social movement organizations have the capability to create institutional change, hence, we study how institutions such as consumption and inequality can be challenged through collaboration.
The circular economy is a favorable context in which to study how the institutions of inequality and consumption are challenged: our study, therefore, addresses how social movement organizations challenge institutions by collaborating within the empirical context of the circular economy. Accordingly, the study conducted in this thesis aims to answer the following question: “How do social movement organizations challenge institutions through collaboration?”
2. Literature review
In the first subsection of our literature, we give an overview of social movement theory and its various approaches, our main focus being the differentiation between confrontational and collaborative approaches, highlighting the lack of studies on collaboration within social movements that challenge institutions from the outside. We have specifically chosen to conduct our study on social movements organizations, which we define in our second subsection. In our third subsection, we define the concept of collaboration and discuss certain models of collaboration.
2.1. Social movement theory
With this paper, we intend to contribute to the field of social movement theory. Social movements are defined as “an organized effort by a significant number of people to change (or resist change in) some major aspect or aspects of society” (Scott and Marshall, 2009).
Accordingly, social movement theory studies social change, with a focus on contestation and collective mobilization processes (Schneiberg and Lounsbury, 2017).
The study of social movements increased significantly in the 1960s and has since then become an established field of studies, which is unsurprising considering the important
role social movements play in our society, aided by the spread of globalization, and even leading to some mention of a “movement society” (Neidhardt and Rucht, 2002). The study of social movements evolved from the European approach to analyze social movements through Marxism, to Neil Smelser’s structural-functionalist approach (social movements as a consequence of “over-rapid social transformation”), to American scholars linking social movements to crisis behavior, and so forth. Currently, the main approaches to studying social movements include the new social movements, collective behavior, resource mobilization, and political process (Della Porta and Diani, 2006; McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald, 2008).
The new social movements emerged with a focus on human rights and environmental protection issues. Unlike the prior movements which were focused mainly on issues of labor and nation, the social aspect of changes in culture and identity is seen by the new social movements as more important than the economic or political aspects. The main contributions of the new social movement theory are its emphasis on identity, culture, and the role of the civic sphere (Pichardo, 1997).
Collective behavior theory is a confrontational approach that examines the responses to social change that occur outside of formal institutions and well-institutionalized processes (McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald, 2008). The various tactics of collective behavior include oppositional conflict, confrontational demonstrations, protests, strikes, riots, occupations, and sabotage often involving a large number of participants. Collective behavior perceives social movements as irrational, largely reactive phenomena (Smithey, 2009; Lofland, 2017).
The resource mobilization approach argues that collective actions are rational and derive from a calculation of the costs and benefits. Accordingly, money, labor, knowledge, as well as solidarity and legitimacy are necessary resources that enable movements to advance their cause effectively. Typically, social movements acquire their resources from a combination of internal and external sources, consequently simultaneously managing numerous exchange interactions and relationships (Edwards and McCarthy, 2004).
The political process or political opportunity perspective also sees social movements as rational entities but focuses on the political and institutional environment in which movements emerge and operate, arguing this environment influences the development and potential impact of the movement. The primary attention of this approach is paid to the relationship between institutional political actors and social protest movements (Meyer, 2004).
Curtis and Zurcher (1974) study social movements' relationship with their environments in particular, hostile versus reinforcing environments, the first being an environment of criticism, countermovements, and organizational operations, the second being favorable, receptive, and supportive. Schneiberg and Lounsbury (2017, p.3) study social movements in relation to the institution they are challenging: movements that challenge the institution from the outside or movements within the institution. They consider two approaches:
movements that act from “within institutions", that is to say, movements that are a part of the institution they are challenging and challenge them from the inside with “collective mobilization” as their institutional process, in which one of the approaches that can be used is collaboration; versus social movements “from outside institutions: challenger/dominance approaches” in which the most recurring concepts are contestation, confrontation, and disruption. Their classification brings to light the fact that the majority of studies analyzing social movements that challenge an institution from the outside seem to address only those that take on confrontational approaches.
Therefore, more research is necessary when it comes to social movements from outside the institution adopting collaborative approaches. In fact, there are various calls for further studies on collaborative social movements: O’Mahony and Bechky (2008) write that although it is common for social movements to involve confrontation, collaboration and creation of allies are also crucial to a significant number of social movements. They call for further studies of such cases. Similarly, Van Wijk (2013) also points out the lack of studies on collaborative social movements.
Bakker et al (2013) write about the relationship between social movements and organizations, specifically corporations, and civil society. They too claim that traditional
social movement theory puts excessive emphasis on contestation, contention, and disruption, rather than collaboration. They argue that this tendency can prove to be unsuitable considering, for instance, how the private and voluntary sector organizations are becoming less and less separate fields, the same as market and non-profit models are becoming less distinct. Thus, the typical model of social movements that implies confrontation can be seen as outdated or not altogether comprehensive.
Considering this lack of research, we have chosen to study collaboration within the field of social movements. Fine and Jacobs (2014) also argue that strong collaboration benefits social movements, as they are based on relationships between various organizations and individuals, which collaborate (through coalitions and alliances) towards the same vision or goal to make changes and challenge institutions. Social movements can benefit from collaboration, yet collaboration has not been researched enough in relation to this field of studies.
2.2. Social movement organizations
Social movements and organizations have been drawn attention to as closely interconnected research areas: Davis et. al (2008) illustrate three regards in which social movements and organizations are interlinked. Firstly, organizations as the targets of social movements, be that through sabotage or through collaboration. Secondly, organizations as the sites of social movements. Thirdly, organizations as actors in social movements, as collaborators with the social movements. Furthermore, both social movements and organizations can be considered forms of coordinated social action, and social movements are often represented by formal organizations (Davis et al., 2008). As a result, the concept of social movement organizations (SMOs) is implemented and can be explained as “social movements that endure for any length of time take on an organizational framework, morphing into social movement organizations.” (Davis et al, 2005, p.189). McCarthy and Zald, (1997, p.1218) also study social movements organizations and define them as “a complex, or formal, organization which identifies its goals with the preferences of a social movement or a countermovement and attempts to implement those goals.” Social movement organizations differ from other complex organizations in two of their main characteristics. First, they have goals aimed at changing society and its members. Second,
they have an incentive structure in which purposive and solidary incentives predominate (Zald and Ash, 1966, p.329). Incentives are used by social movement organizations to induce individuals to contribute to their activity (Clark and Wilson, 1961).
2.3. Collaboration
We intend to study social movement organizations that use collaborative approaches, it is thus relevant to include an overview of some of the main research on collaboration, defining the concept and its advantages and introducing certain influential models of collaboration.
Collaboration is defined by Thomson, Perry, and Miller (2009, p.25) as “a process in which autonomous or semi-autonomous actors interact through formal and informal negotiation, jointly creating rules and structures governing their relationships and ways to act or decide on the issues that brought them together; it is a process involving shared norms and mutually beneficial interactions.” Effective collaboration can have a number of advantages for both сollaborating parties. These can include profit increase, cost reduction, improved decision making, and innovation due to the sharing of expertise, knowledge, best practices, and ideas. It allows for merging financial and human resources in order to tackle complex problems (Hansen and Nohria, 2004).
Wood and Gray (1991) develop one of the earlier models of collaboration with their
‘preconditions-process-outcome’ model, in which preconditions are conditions that motivate stakeholders to participate in collaboration, the process shows how collaboration is practically undertaken, and outcomes state the desired results of collaboration activities.
They stated that the process phase was not sufficiently developed in collaboration research.
Years later, Thomson and Perry (2006) identify five key dimensions in collaboration processes: governance, administration, mutuality, norms, and organizational autonomy.
Governance implies making joint decisions about rules and regulations of the collaborative effort, while administration allows moving from governance to action supporting clarity of responsibilities and clear communication. Mutuality involves interdependencies in relationships, information sharing, and working through differences to achieve joint benefits from the outcomes of collaboration. Norms include trust and reciprocity, which
take time to build but can reduce collaboration complexity and costs. Finally, the organizational autonomy dimension addresses the implicit tension between organizational self-interests and the collective interests of the group.
3. Research design 3.1. Empirical context
Within our empirical context, we aim to analyze the circular economy and how it can be better understood through social movement theory. We intend to study a social movement organisation that contributes to the circular economy. Unlike the majority of social movement studies that focus on contestation and disruption, our thesis aims to research the collaborative actions of our chosen social movement organization which challenges institutions by collaborating with a wide range of public and private organizations as well as individuals. Stockholm Stadsmission as a social movement organization that challenges institutions such as inequality and consumption by contributing to the circular economy.
The European Union has declared circular economy as a top priority, focusing on achieving more efficient use of resources and waste reduction through research and innovation, for waste to become a resource, products to be better-designed, products to transition to services, and owning to be replaced by sharing to as great an extent as possible (European Commission, 2017). Geissdoerfer et al. (2017) study the relationship between sustainability and the circular economy. They consider the most commonly accepted definition of sustainability to be “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”
(Brundtland, 1987, p.41) and the most widely accepted definition of the circular economy
“an industrial economy that is restorative or regenerative by intention and design” (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013, p.15). Based on these contributions, they give their own definition of CE as “a regenerative system in which resource input and waste, emission, and energy leakage are minimised by slowing, closing, and narrowing material and energy loops. This can be achieved through long-lasting design, maintenance, repair, reuse, remanufacturing, refurbishing, and recycling” (Geissdoerfer, 2017, p.759).
Current sustainability problems of resource depletion, waste, and pollution, as well as economic and social inequalities, are deeply institutionalized in our society - the circular economy model addresses these challenges and aims to contribute to solving them. We have chosen to study an organization that promotes the circular economy and challenges the institutions of inequality and consumption. Our research object, Stockholm Stadsmission (Stockholm City Mission) is a complex organization with a broad scope of activities and a long history. It was founded in 1853 as a part of the Swedish Evangelical Lutheran Church with the aim to put the Christian faith into practical action providing urgent and long-term support for people in vulnerable life situations. The organization’s vision is to create “A more humane society for all” (“Ett mänskligare samhälle för alla”), where everyone has access to housing, education, and work. From the beginning of its history, Stockholm Stadsmission worked to indicate flaws in the social system in order to generate improvements and positive social change with a focus on reducing poverty and inequality (Stockholms Stadsmission, 2020).
Today Stockholm Stadsmission is independent from church, municipality, and state, a not-for-profit social organization which conducts activities for people in homelessness and abuse, children, youth and the elderly, besides operating a number of second-hand stores, a sustainable fashion brand ReMake, two social supermarkets Matmissionen (The Food Mission), a newspaper MISSION:STHLM, as well as a cafe, restaurant and a bakery at Grillska Huset. The organization has over 550 full-time employees and nearly 400 volunteers. Stockholm Stadsmission has three sources of income: revenue from business operations (second-hand and ReMake stores, social supermarkets, cafe, etc.), donations from companies (see Appendix 1) and individuals, and state donations. Even though many things changed for the past 160 years and Stockholm became a richer society overall, new groups of vulnerable people continue to arise, such as paperless people and children and youth suffering from mental illness (ibid.).
In Sweden, despite it once being one of the most equal countries in the world, economic inequality has rapidly increased since 1980 and continues rising. As a result, the social distance between the top 10 percent, and the rest of the population is growing radically as they generally live drastically different lives (Therborn, 2019). The number of homeless
people in Sweden doubled between 1993 and 2017, largely due to structural causes (Knutagård et al., 2019). The structural causes of homelessness include trends in unemployment and poverty, the housing market, the structure of the economy, and large-scale social policies (Main, 1998). Unlike other Nordic countries, Sweden does not have a national homelessness strategy. The housing market is highly deregulated and the main problem for homelessness and housing exclusion is the lack of affordable housing (Knutagård et al., 2019). Apart from the housing market entry barriers, economically disadvantaged households struggle with getting access to high-quality food and/or having a diverse diet. According to the National Board of Health and Welfare, almost 1 percent of the Swedish population is considered to be living in serious material poverty , while 9 1 percent live in relative poverty, i.e. living on less than 60 percent of the median income (Socialstyrelsen, 2020). The European Union statistics agency states that this group lives at risk to end up in poverty and social exclusion (Darvas, 2019). People living in relative poverty do not starve but go hungry on a regular basis because they do not have enough money. Meanwhile, food waste is one of the biggest global concerns, with around one-third of all food produced for human consumption is thrown away (Morone et al., 2019). In 2016, approximately 1.3 million tonnes of food waste was generated in Sweden, including food waste in production. On average, 129 kg of food waste was generated per person, which includes both separately sorted food waste and food waste that is thrown together with other waste in the residual waste (Livsmedelsverket, 2020).
Stockholm Stadsmission aims to reduce economic and social inequality as well as unsustainable consumption, which are widely spread in society and deeply institutionalized. As previously stated in the literature review section, social movement organizations have two key characteristics: goals aimed at changing society and an incentive structure in which purposive and solidary incentives predominate (Zald and Ash, 1966, p.329). As per Zald and Ash’s (1966) definition, Stockholm Stadsmission goals are aimed at changing society as they base their work on the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030 (Stockholms Stadsmission, 2020). Stockholm Stadsmission’s incentive structure is both purposive and solidary: their purpose, as
1“‘Severely materially deprived’: people unable to afford at least four of the following: 1. rent, mortgage or utility bills, 2. adequate home heating, 3. a reserve against unexpected expenses, 4. regular meat or proteins,
previously stated, is to create “a more humane society for all”, and it is this purpose that all contributing individuals at the organization work towards. By being a part of or collaborating with Stockholm Stadsmission, individuals and organizations can contribute in working towards SDGs as well as a more humane society. Stockholm Stadsmission counts on solidarity to induce individuals and organizations to contribute to their mission and activities. Thus, we regard Stockholm Stadsmission as a social movement organization (SMO), considering their efforts to transform society and challenge the societal institution of inequality by working with homelessness and labor integration, and the institution of consumption by working with food waste and second-hand products, hence promoting a circular economy model.
Due to the wide range of Stockholm Stadsmission’s departments and activities, we limited our study to focus primarily on the organization’s operations at Matmissionen and the units that work with people living in homelessness. Matmissionen manages food industry donations that otherwise would have been thrown away. The food is further distributed to social supermarkets and other operations of the SMO. Matmissionen has three objectives:
reducing food waste, facilitating access to high-quality food for people living in relative poverty, and offering job training for people who want to approach the labor market (Stockholms Stadsmission, 2020). Reducing food waste through redistribution of surplus food is part of the EU Circular Economy Action Plan (European Commission, 2020).
Matmissionen currently redistributes almost two tonnes of food per week. In 2017, PwC evaluated that Matmissionen saved society 14 069 500 SEK, by reducing CO2 emissions, incorporating 5 people into the job market (181 000 SEK per person per year are saved with their work training program), and redistributing 565 tons of food (PwC, 2017).
Homelessness operations (see Appendix 4) contribute to raising living standards and reducing poverty, contributing to the social aspect of the circular economy.
Stockholm Stadsmission’s collaboration encompasses actors on national, municipal, and organizational levels. They also rely on the collaboration of volunteers within the organization to contribute to their work. In 2018 around 380 volunteers worked over 175 000 hours in Stockholm (Stockholms Stadsmission, 2020). We describe below their various collaborations on each level.
On a national level, Stockholm Stadsmission collaborates with other Stadsmissions across Sweden, in Gothenburg, Skåne, Uppsala, Linköping, Västerås, Kalmar, Eskilstuna, Örebro, and Umeå. On a national level (Sveriges Stadsmissioner) the three main partner organizations are a department store chain Åhlens, a national lottery Svenska Postkodlotteriet, and the country’s largest real estate agent Fastighetsbyrån. These companies contribute economically to joint projects between the different Stadsmissions, as well as to the individual city missions.
On a municipal level, Stockholm Stadsmission has three different types of collaborations for their work in Stockholm: friend companies, partner companies, and main partners (see Appendix 1). This classification is based on the level of participation of the companies, particularly their economic contribution; the benefits the collaborating companies receive from Stockholm Stadsmission also vary depending on their category. Stockholm Stadsmission has five main partners, of which two, a real estate company Wallenstam and national lottery Svenska Postkodlotteriet, support the whole organization and the other three, an insurance company Brandkontoret, an electricity company Godel, and an investment fund GodFond collaborate with homelessness units Nattjouren and BoKlara.
The organization also collaborates with 14 ‘partner’ companies and 17 ‘friend’ companies, for detailed lists please refer to Appendices 2 and 3 (Stockholm Stadsmission, 2020).
On an organizational level, all the units within Stockholm Stadsmission collaborate with each other. As in all departments at Stockholm Stadsmission, the two departments that our study focuses on - food waste, work integration, and homeless operations - base their work on a collaborative approach. The food waste unit, Matmissionen, was founded in 2015 in collaboration with Axfood and over 10 other different organizations in the food industry opening the first social supermarket in Nordic countries. They are financed both by their own sales and by donations from partner companies and other donors. The food they collect is delivered to 17 different social organizations that redistribute food to the needy, as well as to the two Matmissionen stores in Stockholm. They also collaborate with the Swedish Public Employment Service (Arbetsförmedlingen), training up to 25 people in their food banks and food stores, to aid them in entering or reentering the work market.
Homelessness operations have existed since the very beginning of the organization’s
history. Today there are more than 10 different units across the city (see Appendix 4) which all collaborate with each other and with numerous organizations, particularly real estate companies that partner with Stockholm Stadsmission, as well as non-governmental organizations, the city’s municipality, the church, and local police departments.
3.2. Method and data collection
The research is designed as a case study of a single object of interest and qualitative methods were used to generate a detailed examination of the case (Bryman and Bell, 2011). Case studies are used to study the research object within its context (Hartley, 2004).
We study the organization of Stockholm Stadsmission in its context, focusing on the collaboration with other organizations around it. Hartley (2004) states that case studies are most useful when studying the behavior of organizations taking into consideration the forces within or outside of it. We consider a single case study as the most suitable option for our research, due to the clear advantage of studying an organization in its context when it comes to analyzing its collaborative behavior, as well as considering how varied and complex the work of our selected organization is. This study adopted a constructivist perspective, as it considers the individuals creating their social and organizational environment on the basis of their perceptions, making it suitable for qualitative research.
Constructivism views social phenomena and their meaning as something that social actors continuously produce and designate (Bryman and Bell, 2011, p.22).
We began our research with text analysis of annual reports produced by Stockholm Stadsmission in collaboration with academic and business partners (16 reports, 531 pages in total, see Appendix 5) as well as internet web-pages of collaborating partners and the organization itself. Consequently, we conducted seven semi-structured personal interviews with the organization’s personnel. The interviews ranged from 30 to 50 minutes and were conducted via phone-call and video conference platforms (see Appendix 6). All interviews were recorded and later fully transcribed. Individuals to interview have been chosen according to the positions they hold inside the organization, departments they work in, and their collaborative engagement with other companies around Stockholm Stadsmission. We interviewed managers from the organizational departments that work with food waste reduction, work integration, and people living in poverty and homelessness, as well as
managers from the marketing and communications department. All study participants are engaged in collaborative work inside the organization. As the interviews were semi-structured, we created an interview guide with seven more general questions to start a discussion (see Appendix 7). Thus, we were able to follow the discussion and ask more specific further questions about the organization’s operations and its collaboration practices (Bryman and Bell, 2011). In order to analyze information stated in the organization’s documents and obtained from the interviews, we performed data coding and category construction to identify common themes in the organization's documents and the responses of the study participants (Bowen, 2009; Alshenqeeti, 2014). We aimed to find common patterns in the interviewees’ responses that would allow us to make further analytical generalizations (Flyvbjerg, 2006).
3.3. Quality criteria
In order to assure research quality, the study is determined to follow four main trustworthiness criteria: credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability. In other words, to be honest, and transparent about its methods and challenges, to audit data with an account to its complexity and specificity allowing a reader to see a detailed picture and make their own conclusions (Tracy, 2010; Bryman & Bell, 2011).
A crucial principle of research ethics for this study is informed consent when all study participants are given as much information as required in order to decide whether they agree to take part in the study or not (Bryman & Bell, 2011). We requested permission for interviews voice recording as well as assured all participants that their responses would remain confidential and anonymous. Furthermore, by the participants' request, we also anonymized all the names of the companies and other sensitive data.
4. Presentation of findings
The aim of our research is to identify how social movement organisations can challenge institutions through collaboration. Using the information we obtained from the interviews and document analysis, we present our findings below. We identify six common themes in relation to the success and challenges of the collaborative practices of an SMO. These themes are: (1) reputation and societal perception, (2) building and maintaining
relationships, (3) rules and contracts, (4) common goals and mutual benefits, (5) communication, and (6) self-interests, competition, and exclusion.
It is important to identify why certain SMOs adopt collaborative approaches and what drives other organizations and companies to collaborate with SMOs. Therefore, in the first subsection of the findings, we describe the strategic orientation of the various actors towards collaboration.
4.1. Strategic orientation towards collaboration
In this subsection we introduce the general strategic orientation of the SMO, based on their mission statement, focusing on their strategic orientation towards collaboration, and specifically collaboration for challenging institutions. We then also analyze the collaborative strategic orientation towards collaboration of the actors that collaborate with the SMO, and finally, we analyze strategic orientation towards collaboration based on the need for collaboration on a national scale.
We hereby present the mission statement of our studied SMO: describing each of the three goals of the mission to be achieved through collaboration: to challenge, to complete, and to involve (through collaboration). The first goal is to challenge: the SMO intends to challenge societal institutions by providing alternative solutions as well as influencing these institutions towards positive change. “Challenging implicates to model innovative social operations and, as opinion leaders, to indicate flaws in society and influence decision-makers” (Report #16: Stockholm Stadsmission’s Values, p.4). To complete this goal the SMO collaborates with actors within the institutions they challenge.
The second goal is to utilize the SMO’s wide area of operations and reach out to a large number of actors to which they can propose and contribute to implementing solutions to social challenges. “Complementing implicates, on the basis of the organization’s values, presenting options within areas where many actors operate. Complex social challenges require a variety of efforts, therefore, a broad area of operations is a strength” (Report #16:
Stockholm Stadsmission’s Values, p.4). The SMO collaborates to gain said area of operations and access to numerous actors.
Their third goal consists of encouraging the collaborative efforts of individuals in society to contribute to their cause. “Involving implies engaging citizens to be donors, members, and volunteers for an objective to have a more humane city” (Report #16: Stockholm Stadsmission’s Values, p.4).
The SMO explains the role of collaboration in their mission statement: collaboration is necessary for building a better society; the organization collaborates while maintaining a certain degree of independence, this strategic orientation enabling them to create change.
They state: “To achieve social foreclosure, increased collaboration between all sectors of society is required. Therefore, we willingly collaborate but also protect the organization’s independence. We want to be able to be “bothersome” and fearless to create change”
(Report #16: Stockholm Stadsmission’s Values, p.7)
4.1.1. Strategic orientation towards collaboration: SMOs
The first topic we study is the strategic orientation towards collaboration on behalf of the social movement organization (SMO) collaborating with other public and private actors.
As the studied SMO expresses in the first goal of their mission statement, they challenge institutions while collaborating; collaboration with the actors around them in certain cases thus means to ally with an opponent; collaboration requires putting disagreements aside and relying on each other.
During one of our interviews, an interviewee addressed the fact that the SMO works with the actors they are trying to challenge and change while at the same time collaborating with them. “In our mission statement we say that we want to complete the structures of society but we also want to challenge them. (...) In many respects, like for homelessness, our closest partner is the state essentially, so we are both working with them, working to complete them, and to some sense to challenge them” (Interviewee #1). The interviewee then proceeded to explain how the SMO, in order to reduce food waste (thus, challenging the institution of linear consumption and waste), collaborates with the actors that in fact produce the food waste, and contribute to the institution of consumption.
Another interviewee suggested that collaborating with your opponents can be valuable.
“You get stronger if you collaborate with people that you are friends with, but if you're not friends, then you really have to collaborate because then you have to convince them to come on your right side” (Interviewee #6).
The SMO chooses a collaborative approach to increase their power to achieve their goals to solve more problems and reach a larger number of people. One of the interviewees confirms that, in the case of working with homeless people, collaboration permits helping a larger proportion of the people in need. “[We are]a big organization but we’re really small at the same time: we can’t do everything in [our organization] because there are so many homeless people in [the city]” (Interviewee #5).
Another interviewee justifies the benefit of a collaborative approach from a financial perspective: collaborating with others is less expensive than working independently. “You need to have this collaboration, otherwise you can’t manage, it’s too expensive”
(Interviewee #3).
4.1.2. Strategic orientation towards collaboration: external actors
We address here the strategic orientation towards collaboration of other actors which take the decision to collaborate with an SMO for different strategic reasons: to gain and expand means and expertise to solve sustainability problems, to contribute to their image and corporate social responsibility (СSR) strategy, as well as to increase the benefits that SMOs create for the whole of society, which are subsequently also valuable to the collaborating actors.
One of the interviewees expressed how companies can collaborate financially with an SMO, so they can better contribute to solving societal problems. “We work with really big private companies that want to do something good in society but they’re not social workers so they don’t know how to do it. They can help us by giving us the money and then we can do social work” (Interviewee #5).
Other companies realize it can be beneficial to help solve social and environmental problems, which can potentially affect them too, by collaborating with SMOs that work
towards solving them. “I think, when it comes to companies, they have more or less the same kind of thinking: that if they give something to [the SMO] we can take care of what could be a problem for them otherwise” (Interviewee #3).
Another interviewee gave an insight into how companies want to have a sustainable image and promote themselves as socially and ethically responsible, and how they can achieve this through collaborating with an SMO. “It's becoming more and more important for them [companies] to show other people or maybe people they want to work with, that they have a strong CSR strategy” (Interviewee #4). Moreover, this notion was further confirmed by one of the analyzed reports: to gain trust in their sustainability efforts, industries should work towards sustainability within their value chain, collaborating with actors within their value chain. In particular, food companies can contribute to limiting food waste, or real estate firms can contribute to reducing homelessness. “[A new project of the SMO] has a high potential due to a close collaboration with construction and real estate industries. (...) In order for the [real estate and construction] industries’ sustainability work to have credibility, they must embrace measures against homelessness” (Report #3: Homeless 2019, p.34). One of our interviewees also referred to the benefits of a strong sustainability policy: they recognize collaboration for sustainability as being financially beneficial for companies. “For a lot of companies in the private sector it's about showing their employees that they are taking responsibility for social and environmental sustainability, and that's very important. And some of them also really believe that if you do good sustainability, it actually makes your company more effective and well-being. You gain money in that, your stock is getting up” (Interviewee #6).
4.1.3. Collaboration on a national scale
The studied SMO claims that there is a societal need for a national scale of collaboration for both environmental and social sustainability. The current lack of such a system is thus another reason to collaborate, as stated by our interviewees and in the reports.
Regarding food waste, they argue that if smaller local food distribution organizations would collaborate on a national level, this would give higher productivity and effectiveness, leading to greater social and environmental benefits. “A large number of
social organizations in [the country]work with food redistribution, most of them, however, small-scale and locally. There is a need to develop resource-effective distribution solutions to possibilitate large volumes of food waste reaching a large number of people in need of free or cheap food. Therefore, the aim of this project is to promote the concept and business model for a national logistics system for redistribution of food waste” (Report #1:
Logistics system business model for food excess, 2018, p.11).
In various homelessness reports the SMO also expresses that collaborating with different political, social, and private actors could create a more effective social housing model —
nationally. “We need a national homelessness strategy which includes structured, predictable, and public supported housing for economically and socially vulnerable households. That is why we now take the initiative to — in collaboration with politicians, civil society, real estate companies, and other stakeholders — develop a [national] model for social housing” (Report #3: Homeless 2019, p.5). In particular, in one of their reports on the SMO’s key homelessness project, they call for a system consisting of a wide variety of collaborations encompassing various different fields. “Access to a home must be integrated with medical, psychological, and psychosocial interventions based on individual needs [of a homeless person] and requires a wide collaboration between municipalities, county councils, employment services, landlords, voluntary organizations, etc” (Report
#11: Homeless 2010, p.23).
One of our interviewees pointed out that the scope of societal problems is so broad and complex, that there is no one solution that can be implemented by a single SMO. These decisions have to be made on a higher level by policymakers. “We are a small organization and we have so many homeless people (...) and it’s more of a political decision [made by politicians] to decide how we want to work and deal with people being homeless in [the country]” (Interviewee #5).
Another interviewee confirmed this point of view, adding that the organization is currently contributing to building national regulations for social and environmental issues, yet ideally other actors should also step up to this role. “We as an organization (...) should not be the main actor, building national regulations for homelessness or for food waste, for
example. But since no one has done that yet, we see it as our... a part of our DNA to help to build those regulations or systems” (Interviewee #7).
In one of their reports, the SMO claims in fact that reducing homelessness would require the involvement of various different types of policymakers, which in turn would need to collaborate amongst themselves. “Homelessness entails various policy areas such as health care policies, housing policies, integration policies, and many different municipal operations. In order to solve this issue, collaboration is required, which in practice is very difficult to achieve” (Report #11: Homeless 2010, p.15).
For the collaboration to work on a national scale it is not only organizations and policymakers that have to be involved: the SMO calls for more collaboration on behalf of individuals in society, proposing to engage them to participate in their work. “[The SMO]
aims to increase community participation, involving volunteers, and educating people to work for a more humane society” (Report #12: Impact report 2019, p.2).
After illustrating the strategic orientation of the SMO, its collaborating actors, and the need for a national scale of collaboration, we proceed to illustrate how the SMO collaborates, by identifying six main aspects that contribute to the success of a collaboration.
4.2. Reputation and societal perception
All the interviewees in different ways stated that a good reputation and societal perception of a social movement organization are core factors to attract and maintain collaborations.
Our interviews indicate that essential themes are: marketing and campaigning skills, a long history, knowledge, and awareness about them in society, as well as a high level of expertise of personnel.
As repeatedly mentioned by our participants, being renowned in society contributes to the success of collaborations. “The good thing about being employed in [the SMO] is that we are known everywhere so it is easy for us to come on speaking terms with others because of that. “I’m coming from [the SMO], do you know us?” —“Yes!” And then you can start to say, “Well, we need this” or “Can you help us out with that?” (Interviewee #3).
Another factor that can be important in terms of reputation, as many of our interviewees mention, is the long history of the social movement organization and how that generates a certain degree of awareness and belief in their reliability. “We have a good reputation. And people know us. And they know we do good. And we've been here for more than one hundred and sixty years” (Interviewee #6).
The SMO’s ability to portray themselves (through communication, marketing, and campaigns) and the knowledge that is present in society about the organization are fundamental for trust to be built. “If you work at a company, a [local]company, then you have heard about [the SMO]at some time in your life. (...) We've been an organization that is more than a hundred sixty years old. So I think that gives a big deal of trust. (...) The way we talk and the knowledge about us in this society are two very important things”
(Interviewee #4).
Confidence in the honesty, honourability, and integrity of the SMO contribute to their ability to gain numerous collaborations. “I think they [collaboration partners] know that we are, how should I say, honorable. They know we do what we say, we don’t put money away for buying wrong things, because their money goes back to the people that we help (...) There is nothing behind our backs or deep down. I think it’s because of that [they collaborate with us] and because we are known” (Interviewee #3).
One of the reasons why a company would partner with SMOs for a particular project is their higher level of professionalism and expertise in certain areas. “By coincidence, [the SMO] and [Food Company A] were simultaneously looking at the model of social supermarkets and thinking about it as a possible way forward. (...) So, what happened was [Company A] called [the SMO] because they asked themselves the question, “Do we have kind of the legitimacy or the mandate to say we know how to help people in poverty?” And they thought that “No, maybe we don’t, so we will call people who are experts on that’’
(Interviewee #1).
4.3. Building and maintaining relationships
Another factor for the success of a collaboration mentioned by the interviewees is the process of building a strong relationship. “If you are going to collaborate, you have to build a good relationship. (...) That would be the keyword, actually, ‘relationship’, to make it work. And if you have a good relationship, then you can kind of develop from that”
(Interviewee #6).
Although the interviewee believes building a strong relationship is crucial, they also recognize it comes with drawbacks, such as the time that must be dedicated to the process.
“Collaboration takes time because you have to invest in relationships, and sometimes you want to go to the task immediately. So that's one kind of a challenge” (Interviewee #6).
Another interviewee also confirms a strong relationship is beneficial, specifically in terms of the larger organizations they collaborate with.They focus on the aspect of trust, which is one of the contributing factors to such a well-functioning and long-lasting collaboration.
“The big partners trust us in any way we work, it’s really special working with them. We don’t need to treat them in a special way because they trust us so much. (...) I mean, one of them has been telling us that our collaboration is going to stay until we do not exist anymore (...) If we have a close relationship with our partner companies, we have an even closer partnership or a relationship with our main partners” (Interview #4).
4.4. Rules and contracts
When it comes to structuring collaboration, it is important for an agreement between the two parties to be made. Depending on the organization the agreement can have different degrees of formality, and contacts vary accordingly. Different types of collaborations can be more or less official. “We collaborate with other NGOs in different kinds of questions and topics, and of course, you need some kind of base, some sort of paper. (...) When we work with the [municipality] then we have a real paper, and we have lawyers, etc. (...) But some of them [collaborations] are more light” (Interviewee #6).
Partner companies for instance have more formal contracts, as one of our interviewees explained. It is essential that both sides take part in the agreement, and it is officialized
only when both parties approve. “I would say that every partner company to us has an agreement with us, and it’s something we try to work out together with them from the beginning, and we try to keep it on a three-year basis. So we make a license of agreement together with them, and after when we are satisfied with it from both sides then they’re signed and sealed” (Interviewee #4).
In order to solve certain societal problems, the studied SMO advocates the need for a more formalized collaboration on a national level. Increased formality in national collaborations has been effective in neighboring countries. “A lot of collaboration between nonprofit social actors is taking place today on a local level, but more formalized collaboration on a national level is needed to create a national [food waste]logistics system, such as has been seen, for example, in Norway” (Report #1: Logistics system business model for food excess, 2018, p.45).
One of our interviewees discussed the advantages and downsides of having formalized rules and contracts: “I think, also what makes us a fast pace organization is that we are able to adapt quickly (...) definitely, it [having defined set of rules] would be beneficial but it can also to some extent hinder the innovation if you want to try out new things”
(Interviewee #7). The interviewee explained how the organization’s collaborations benefit from having basic common rules that still allow for developments or alterations which permit future flexibility; he also points out that having a foundation of common rules for all collaborations is also important in terms of transparency: “We have a basic common set of rules that would apply to each of those collaborations, which is really good for us when it comes to sort of platform of collaboration, but then also the flexibility to add things or subtract things; but also [rules are good] from a transparency perspective: everything we do we want to be or we need to be really transparent” (Interviewee #7). He emphasizes the importance of flexibility, adaptation, and innovation for an SMO, in terms of completely prioritizing their mission; setting rules and contracts should allow for this to the greatest extent possible. “We, therefore, in a collaboration need to be able to be as flexible as possible when it comes to adapting [operations]. What we should not, cannot be flexible with is the end result that we want to achieve (...) [The SMO]must be able to be as flexible as possible so that we can try things and be innovative all the way” (Interviewee #7).
4.5. Common goals and mutual benefits
Having a common goal to work towards can be beneficial to the success of the collaboration, as much as mutuality and reciprocity: the collaboration has to go both ways in order to maximize the success. One interviewee states: “I think you should focus on [common goals and mutual benefits] at the beginning of a collaboration and really root in those, so that you have common goals and you also see what each party would benefit from through this collaboration. If that is clearly understood, then you have a lot of gain from the collaboration” (Interviewee #7).
The fact that the presence of a common goal contributes to the success of a collaboration is a recurring topic mentioned throughout the interviews. “We’re working together for helping people: that’s why it’s working. Everyone who is working in different places has the same goal. (...) [The SMO] or [the municipality] cannot do everything by themselves, and this is not our problem, it is [the whole city's] problem.” (Interviewee #2).
Mutual benefits is another main factor, both actors have to benefit from the collaboration.
“It's a win-win. We should not believe that companies and private sectors just want to do this for being good, just because they are kind and nice. It has to be a win-win because that's the context our society gives us” (Interviewee #4). A common topic throughout our interviews was learning as an important mutual benefit. In the case of businesses collaborating with SMOs for example: “We want to challenge the way regular businesses look at social work and also learn from them. (...) In terms of process efficiency and building structures that can make our organization more effective, that is what we can learn from the business sector. (...) So that is also one way to see why we choose to collaborate, it is both from a learning perspective as well as challenging perspective” (Interviewee #7).
One of the reports describes a new project being developed by the SMO and its collaborators, aimed at reducing homelessness and poverty in the region. They emphasize that their collaborators also have a genuine interest in creating social benefits (common goal), as well as the fact that all parties involved would benefit from the collaboration (mutual benefits). “We want to offer cost-effective solutions in collaboration with stakeholders that are passionate about creating social benefits for the local community, [the
SMO]’s target groups, and for their own business. (...) We cooperate with architects, consultants, contractors, landowners, and others” (Report #3: Homeless 2019, p.10).
Yet in some collaborations, benefits are perceived differently: companies collaborating with an SMO have different understandings of their motives, some see themselves as mere donors providing the SMO with aid, in a one-sided collaboration, others in the same position understand the benefits of collaborating for a common cause. “[The question is],
“Who is helping who?” Some of them [food companies]recognize food waste as a problem that they are very much responsible for and responsible for solving, while others namely express that they are the ones being nice to us, “We are giving you free food”. So, we collaborate with all of them but, I believe, the view of the collaboration itself differs very much from company to company” (Interviewee #1).
4.6. Communication
Communication is another important factor for the success of a collaboration. Nonetheless, a few participants recognized that communication with different collaborators can prove to be a challenge. In one of their reports, the studied SMO claims that effective communication and dialogue is key for a national system of food redistribution to be as productive as possible. “The development of the [national food waste] system primarily requires increased dialogue and collaboration between all the users of the system. For example, focus on establishing effective communication channels in connection with donations” (Report #1: Logistics system business model for food excess, 2018, p.45).
One of our interviewees recognized the value of communication, stating that the studied SMO could benefit from improving its communication. “I would say communication is something that we need to be better at” (Interviewee #4). Another participant also confirmed that communication is something the organization is trying to improve on, as a lack of effective communication can be problematic. “The problem is sometimes communication, and when you don’t realize what the other people’s work involves. (...) What we are trying to do is that we try to build knowledge so that we get an understanding of each other's work situation” (Interviewee #2). Another interviewee confirms the wide variety of actors they work with and the great differences between their fields. “The public
sector, civic sector, and business sector, we come from completely different ways of looking at and perceiving things, how we are set up to work” (Interviewee #7).
Difficulties can arise when insufficient communication leads to overestimating the mutual level of understanding, which could in turn lead to certain miscomprehension. “It's also a challenge to understand your different needs and the context. Because when you want to solve a problem together, you sometimes believe that you are more in agreement than you are” (Interviewee #6).
Another interviewee stated that a lack of knowledge on the organizations an SMO collaborates with can be problematic. This can be avoided through better communication.
“When you collaborate with a field, or an area, or a sector you don't really know so much about (...), you don't know where the questions or problems might be” (Interviewee #6).
A different perspective we were given was that communication can be a useful tool for showing investment in a collaboration: the more communication, the higher the level of engagement or investment in the collaboration. “If we communicate together, that will kind of show us the depth of their engagement in us and that we really value a partnership with the company” (Interviewee #4).
4.7. Self-interests, competition, and exclusion
Sometimes common interests of SMOs and their collaborators are not fully aligned with the parties' own interests. This can cause a conflict of interests, competition, and exclusion of other potential collaborations.
Thus, one of the study participants acknowledged that for some companies to collaborate with an SMO, their social responsibility has to be compatible with their financial obligations of running a business. “You have to collaborate with someone like us to be able to contribute to social sustainability, but you still have to make it commercial, to run your own business” (Interviewee #6).
Another issue is the necessity of finding a balance between aiding the vulnerable groups in society and looking after the needs of regular clients. The following example refers to the organizations that collaborate with the SMO by providing apartments where the SMO can
accommodate participants of their homelessness reduction programs. “The [property owners] (...) not only want to help the homeless people but they also have obligations to the other people living there, they want everybody in the houses to have a good life”
(Interviewee #5).
Competition was a topic addressed in different ways by our interviewees. One of our interviewees pointed out that a common goal can reduce competition, in this case between different homelessness operations of the SMO and the municipality: “We are doing the same thing, all of us want to help people going from homeless to being not homeless, so I don’t think there is competition” (Interviewee #5). Another interviewee explored the topic of competition from the perspective of SMOs attracting collaborators: “From our marketing, branding and collaborating perspective we need to stay on our toes to be attractive when it comes to collaborations, otherwise, our competitors would take those collaborations from us, so definitely we do have competition” (Interviewee #7).
Other interviewees viewed competition as not necessarily negative, but can be constructive and a source of motivation. “It's not like we have a competition, but actually I would hope we did a little bit because I really believe that if you strive for being the best (...) аnd if you compare yourself with someone else, you can also get inspiration, (...) I think it helps us to be better and it helps them to be better” (Interviewee #6). “We want to be a challenger (...), so we actually want to compete, because we think competition is good when it comes to bringing out the best in the organizations, always looking for innovation, so in that sense, we also seek competition. (...) So, that’s our way to sort of innovate the sector”
(Interviewee #7).
One interviewee described their experience having a major industry player as a close partner of the SMO, stating that this kind of collaboration has both advantages and disadvantages. “[Food company A], I would say, is a deeper collaboration in the sense that they help us shape the business model and help us gain legitimacy with other food companies. It really helps when you (...) have one of [the country's] biggest food companies as a partner. I believe that has been a better collaboration in the sense that it helped us get other ones as well” (Interviewee #1). They explained that having an important company as a collaborator benefits the image of the SMO. “From the start, we
