Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 413–423

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Sport Management Review

jo ur n al ho mep ag e: www .e lsev ier . c om / lo cate /s m r

The FTSE-British Olympic Association Initiative:A resource dependence perspective

Stephen Morrow *, Leigh Robinson 1

School of Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 7 May 2012

Received in revised form 23 January 2013

Accepted 23 January 2013

Keywords:

Cross sector partnerships

Resource dependence theory

Olympic National Governing Bodies

A B S T R A C T

The Financial Times Stock Exchange (FTSE)-British Olympic Association (BOA) Initiative, a

partnership scheme initiated in 2007 between a number of FTSE 100 companies and

Olympic National Governing Bodies (NGBs) in the UK, seeks to improve the effectiveness of

the Olympic NGBs delivery and subsequent performance through the provision of support

in-kind from the corporate partner. The paper uses resource dependency theory to analyse

the partnerships within the Initiative, focusing primarily on the operation and benefits of

those partnerships from the perspective of the Olympic NGBs. Despite being the less

powerful party in the partnership, the NGBs are able to use the partnerships to acquire

critical resources. While the benefits received by the companies are softer and more social

in nature, nevertheless they demonstrate mutual dependency between the partners. This

knowledge provides an incentive for NGBs to engage in co-optation and constraint

activities as a way to strengthen the dependency relationships and protect their position.

� 2013 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by

Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Context

Not-for-profit organisations have become increasingly prominent in recent years, not simply as delivery systems forparticular activities (including sport), but also as major economic forces in their own right (Haugh & Kitson, 2007; Salamonet al., 1999) and as important political actors (Coalter, 2007; Jamali & Keshishian, 2009; Meyer, Boli, Thomas, & Ramirez,1997). The not-for-profit operating environment has also become increasingly complex and susceptible to pressure fromvarious external and internal sources (Auld & Cuskelly, 2011). Limited resources, coupled with higher expectations in termsof service and accountability, have forced not-for-profit organisations to focus on becoming more professionalised, moreefficient and more outward looking (Callen, Klein, & Tinkelman, 2003; Hodge & Piccolo, 2005; Speckbacher, 2003).

At the same time for-profit business organisations have become increasingly powerful; power which arises from theirsize, their influence over suppliers, distributors and employees and the impact their corporate and product strategy andpricing have on their customers (Jamali & Keshishian, 2009). Increased power and influence has also resulted in increasedscrutiny of corporate behaviour from stakeholders, regulators, government agencies, activists and the media. This hascontributed to many of these organisations accepting that their obligations to society extend beyond mere profit-makingactivities (Pava & Krausz, 1997) and that they have a responsibility to act in ways that positively contributes to theirstakeholders and to their communities (Sagawa & Segal, 2000).

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 01786 466495.

E-mail addresses: s.h.morrow@stir.ac.uk, stephenmorrow5@gmail.com (S. Morrow), leigh.robinson@stir.ac.uk (L. Robinson).1 Tel.: +44 01786 466281.

1441-3523/$ – see front matter � 2013 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2013.01.002

S. Morrow, L. Robinson / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 413–423414

One consequence of the environmental factors and pressures faced by organisations in both sectors has been an increasein the number of partnerships between the corporate and the not-for-profit sector. These are voluntary arrangementsbetween organisations involving the exchange or sharing of the distinct products, resources or services of each partner,where a company and not-for-profit organisation recognise that their needs can be met by the other and where the outcomessurpass those of either sector working alone (Googins & Rochlin, 2000; Jamali, 2003; Jamali & Keshishian, 2009; Sagawa &Segal, 2000).

The FTSE-BOA Initiative is a partnership scheme initiated in 2007 between a number of FTSE 100 companies (the 100largest companies listed on the London Stock Exchange by market value) including Marks & Spencer and Skandia and selectOlympic National Governing Bodies (NGBs) in the UK including The British Canoe Union and Pentathlon GB. The partnershipseeks to improve the effectiveness of the not-for-profit Olympic NGBs’ delivery and subsequent performance, with the BOAacting as a broker organisation; helping the partners to develop shared goals and mutual understanding. The objective of theFTSE-BOA Initiative is to help UK Olympic NGBs to develop into world class, autonomous organisations and to supportsustainable delivery of success in 2012 and beyond, both at elite level, and in building participation.

The institutional environment within which Olympic NGBs find themselves is multi-faceted. The BOA is the primaryorganisation responsible for promoting the Olympic movement throughout the United Kingdom and hence it works closelywith Olympic NGBs. However, the BOA is independent and receives no public funding from the lottery or government, beingreliant on income generated from fundraising and events. The Olympic NGBs do receive public funding from nationalsporting agencies like UK Sport and Sport England, agencies which themselves are funded directly by government. NGBs areaccountable to these agencies for performance against agreed delivery plans and against various targets set out therein.While public funding is vital for the NGBs, in itself it does not allow them to access all of the resources they need to surviveand to thrive. As a result, NGBs seek to generate income from various sources including sponsorship, events andmembership. The FTSE-BOA partnership scheme is a further opportunity through which Olympic NGBs get facilitated accessto critical resources, tangible or intangible.

The partnerships were intended to be a ‘support in-kind’ partnership leading to a knowledge transfer of sound businessprinciples and practice. The principal aim of this paper is to examine the role of the FTSE-BOA Initiative as a means ofresource acquisition for Olympic NGBs. This paper focuses on revealing how resource dependency theory (RDT) can provideinsight into the working of partnerships and into the behaviour of individual partners. First, it makes a unique contribution inusing RDT as a framework to analyse resource acquisition within Olympic organisations. Second, it suggests that animbalance of benefits becomes a minor consideration in partnerships where one party holds significantly more power thanthe other. Finally, it proposes strategies that can be adopted by less powerful organisation to protect the partnership. Thepaper is structured as follows: the first section presents a brief literature review, introducing RDT before going on to examineliterature concerned with partnerships between for profit and not-for-profit organisations. Thereafter the research questionsand the methodological approach adopted are described. In the next section the results of the empirical study of thepartnerships in the Initiative and the analysis thereof are provided together, structured around the five research questions.

2. Literature review and research questions

2.1. Resource dependence

RDT was introduced by Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) to explain how an organisation’s strategy, structure and survival arecontingent on resources and dependency relationships with external institutions in its environment. Resources can betangible (physical and financial) or intangible (corporate reputation, employees’ knowledge, experience and skills, and theircommitment and loyalty). Because organisations do not control all the material and financial resources they need to survivethey are obliged to develop other strategies to gain access to these critical resources and to manage uncertainties within theirenvironment. Resource dependency theorists represent the links among organisations as a set of power relations based on anexchange of resources (Ulrich & Barney, 1984). Organisations are viewed as coalitions, altering their structure and patterns ofbehaviour to create relationships or interdependencies with others to gain access to and maintain needed external resources,and/or bring in individuals with resources needed by the organisation; in other words developing network resourcescapacity (Hall et al., 2003; Wicker & Breuer, 2011). This leads to the first research question: what factors encourage OlympicNGBs to engage in partnership working? This is of interest as predictably the unequal distribution of valued resources leadsto asymmetric exchange and power relations between organisations and arguably it is the less resource rich organisationthat will be the less powerful partner, in this case the Olympic NGBs. At this point the second research question also emergesand this research seeks to understand what is required for effective partnership working. Knowledge of this will contributeto understanding of how successful coalitions can be created to develop relationships and interdependencies.

RDT is thus concerned with power, dependence, autonomy and constraint. In an important development, Casciaro andPiskorski (2005) sought to reformulate RDT, in particular criticising the original construct of interdependence in RDT for alack of discrimination between power imbalance (the power differential between two organisations) and mutualdependence (the sum of dependencies between the two organisations). Based on a study of inter-industry mergers andacquisitions among US public companies, they suggested that while mutual dependence is a key driver of mergers andacquisition, power imbalance acted as a barrier to their formation. They also suggested that RDT can provide predictionsabout the type of actions organisations may take in response to resource dependencies, in cognisance both of power balance

S. Morrow, L. Robinson / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 413–423 415

(or imbalance) and the degree of mutual dependence between organisations. These actions can be classified in two broadcategories: power use operations (how an organisation utilises the power that it derives from the existing power-dependence structure); and power restructuring operations(how an organisation seeks to alter its power-dependencestructure) (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005). Furthermore, power restructuring operations can be unilateral or bilateral. Unilateralrestructuring operations aim at changing the power-dependence structure by acting on elements outside the relationshiplike developing alternative providers of the resource of interest or forming new coalitions and are thus limited by theenvironment within which an organisation operates. Bilateral restructuring operations focus directly on the constrainingparty in the relationship (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005). These can take two forms: co-optation, where the less powerful actorseeks to encourage the more powerful actor not to exercise its power by offering it a valuable and compensatory resourcesuch as information, friendship or status (Emerson, 1962); or constraint absorption, through which the dependent actorgains direct control of the resources that create the dependencies (e.g. through mergers or acquisitions) (Pfeffer & Salancik,1978). Casciaro and Piskorski (2005) emphasised that there is a difference between what an organisation should do to absorbits constraints, and what it can actually do. Hence, while mutual dependence creates both the encouragement and the abilityto absorb constraint successfully, in contrast where there is power imbalance, the dependent organisation is likely to bemore motivated but less able to absorb constraint.

2.2. Partnerships, not-for-profit organisations and RDT

While an idealised view of not-for-profit organisations would characterise them as collections of committed individuals,working together in pursuit of particular social or ethical goals, untroubled by issues of resource acquisition, the reality isquite different (Froelich, 1999). Not for profit organisations, including many sports organisations or bodies, exist in worldswhere the flow of resources and income is uncertain and in which they rely on a variety of activities and resource providers tosupport their work.

The emphasis in RDT is on the external pressures fashioned by those who control scarce resources (Oliver, 1991), which asa consequence s limit the choices available to organisations. In the case of not-for-profit organisations, given the scarcity anduncertainty associated with traditional funding sources, increasingly support and resources are drawn not just from somedimension of government, but, also from fundraising and commercial support (Verbruggen, Christiaens, & Milis, 2010).Consistent with RDT, not-for-profit organisations seek to modify the locus of their dependence and develop alternativesources of key inputs, either by engaging in commercial activity or by engaging with commercial organisations (Froelich,1999; Mutch, 2009). Thus, this research sets out to investigate the extent to which the FTSE-BOA partnership enabledOlympic NGBs to acquire critical resources.

Cross sector partnerships between businesses and not-for-profit organisations have become increasingly prevalent inrecent years (Arya & Salk, 2006; Austin, 2000; Jamali & Keshishian, 2009; Mutch, 2009; Sagawa & Segal, 2000). Partnershipsare seen as an effective mechanism for capitalising on individual strengths and weaknesses in pursuit of shared objectives,enabling the partners to benefit from different sets of competencies and skills. While not-for-profit organisations havespecialist knowledge of what is required in their field and are mission driven (Jamali, 2003), business organisations cancontribute managerial efficiency, technical expertise and access to finance (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992).

The motivations for establishing partnerships differ for each type of organisation. For not-for-profit organisations, factorslike increased competition for limited funding and resources and escalating social needs are pre-eminent drivers (Melaville& Blank, 1993). On the business side, motivations for partnering with not-for-profits include increased legitimacy (Inkpen,2002), positive reputation effects (Oliver, 1990) and increased status and recognition (Stuart, 2000). The evolution ofcorporate social responsibility (CSR) from primarily a charitable or philanthropic perspective to a more strategic outlook(Freeman, 1984; Morrow, 2003) has resulted in it being increasingly common for corporations to enter into partnershipswith sport organisations, providing either financial or in-kind support. At the same time cross sector partnerships do notsucceed by chance, requiring appropriate attention to be given to elements including partner choice, alignment of values,identification of management responsibilities and effective communication (Jamali & Keshishian, 2009). The importance ofrelationship elements mean that network perspectives can be informative in understanding the creation and management ofpartnerships. While economic or resource motivations remain central to alliance formation, the extent to which anindividual or an organisation is embedded in a particular social network and is thus able to take advantage of socialconnections, has been shown to influence alliance formation and behaviour (Gulati, 1998). Hence, even soft factors like inter-personal relationships such as those between chief executives of partner firms have been shown to contribute to effectivepartnerships and to be used to manage uncertainty arising from resource dependence (Jamali & Keshishian, 2009; Westphal,Boivie, & Chng, 2006).

Concomitant with this, however, concerns have been raised about the risk of power imbalances and fairness of exchangesin these partnerships, given that it is corporate power that provides the rationale for the partnership in the first place (Parker& Selsky, 2004; Seitanidi & Ryan, 2007; Webb & Mohr, 1998). A number of empirical studies have identified powerimbalances in corporate/not-for-profit partnerships, with the not-for-profit partner generally holding the weaker position(Austin, 2000; Berger, Cunningham, & Drumwright, 2004; Martinez, 2003). Seeking to understand not just the outcomes butthe role that power plays in shaping the outcomes of the partnership, Mutch (2009) used a case study approach to explorethe relationship between power, dependency and perceived organisational justice in the context of CSR. Her preliminaryfindings suggested that power was the ability to translate one’s perception of justice into reality. The companies had the

S. Morrow, L. Robinson / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 413–423416

more powerful positions in the study and hence were better placed to define the processes and justice outcomes of theexchanges. By contrast the weaker positions held by the not-for-profit organisations, resulted in a greater appreciation ofthe partnership outcomes and greater toleration for dissatisfaction within the partnership. In terms of the dependency of therelationship, the greater the dependency the more satisfied the not-for-profit organisation was with its outcomes. From thisdiscussion, the final two research questions emerge and the research seeks to understand how the distribution of powerimpacts on the effectiveness of the partnerships and, as a consequence, the strategies that the partners developed to managedependency relationships.2.3. Research questions

A number of research questions emerge from the literature review:

RQ 1: W

hat factors encourage Olympic NGBs to engage in partnership working? RQ 2: W hat is required for effective partnership working? RQ 3: T o what extent does the FTSE-BOA partnership enable Olympic NGBs to acquire critical resources? RQ 4: H ow does the distribution of power impact on the effectiveness of the partnerships? RQ 5: H ow do partners develop strategies to manage dependency relationships?

3. Method

The research setting consists of 12 separate and distinct partnerships within one scheme, with the BOA acting as a link-pin organisation, endeavouring to facilitate effective partnership working. To provide the detail necessary to answer theresearch questions within this multiple partner setting, a qualitative research approach was considered the best approach tothis study, allowing an explorative approach to inquiry (Silverman, 2011). Interviews were held with individuals involved ineach of the twelve FTSE-BOA partnerships to ensure as in-depth and as rich a source of data as possible. The partnershipsinvolved in the research are set out in Table 1.

Interviews were held with the people responsible for the operation and management of each partnership. In addition,interviews were held with individuals that the interviewees felt could offer supplementary information about a partnership.In cognisance of the research questions identified in Section 2.3, interviewees were asked about the rationale forinvolvement in the Initiative, the selection of partners, the working arrangements of the partnership, expectations, benefitsand costs, partner perceptions, lessons learned and recommendations for the future. While all interviews covered the samebroad areas, a semi-structured approach was adopted, allowing the interviewees to take the interview in directions theyconsidered appropriate.

In total, 42 semi-structured interviews were conducted between June and August 2010, lasting between 25 and 98 min.Thematic interpretational content analysis was used to analyse the data, allowing knowledge to be generated via theemergence and interpretation of themes from the interview transcripts. Manual content analysis was used to ensure that theresearchers were not distanced from the data (Davis & Meyer, 2009). The analysis of the interview data followed a five stepapproach. First, the interviews were taped and transcribed and sent to the interviewees to be checked for accuracy. Thisprocess of member checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was carried out in order to enhance the validity of the analysis.

Once these had been returned, using the research questions, the second stage of the analysis involved each interviewbeing read independently by at least two members of the research team, with each individual seeking to develop apreliminary analysis of key points and themes. Third, the research team, as a whole, then discussed the initial individualanalysis in order to develop an agreed set of codes, which were then used for a subsequent analysis of the transcripts. Wheredifferences were apparent in the initial analyses, the research team came to a consensus, through discussion, as to how tocode the data. Finally, a review of the coding results was carried out to ensure consistency and to consider ‘outliers’. Codingfocused on the rationale for the partnership, expectations, tangible benefits, perceived benefits, balance of benefits betweenpartners, costs, critical success factors and issues for each partnership. While the results and discussion are informed byinterviews involving parties in all 12 partnerships, quotations from the interviews have been used selectively to provide asclear an understanding as possible of the complexities of the collaboration across various aspects and the challenges posedfor the partnerships.

4. Results and discussion

In this section the results from the partnership interviews are presented and discussed by separately addressing eachresearch questions (#1 rationale and motivation, #2 partnership arrangements, #3 resource acquisition, #4 power andeffectiveness and #5 managing dependencies).

4.1. Rationale and motivation

While the rationale for involvement in the Initiative is specific to each partner, nevertheless there is consistency in themotives set out by the partners involved. In the case of the Olympic NGBs objectives specified are concentrated on skill and

Table 1

Partnerships and List of Interviewees.

Partnership Partners Interviewees

1. Archery GB CEO

Standard Life Investment Marketing Director

2. Badminton England CEO

Commercial Director

Home Retail Group Community Affairs and Workplace

Manager

Head of Corporate Affairs

3. British Biathlon Chair

CEO

Skandia Operations Manager

4. British Canoe Union Chief Executive

Rolls-Royce Community Relations Manager

5. British Curling Chair

Royal Bank of Scotland Manager of Media Relations

6. British Judo Association CEO

Marketing Manager

G4S Director of External Relations

Marketing Manager

7. British Rowing Explore Rowing Programme Manager

CEO

President

Astra Zeneca Head of Primary Care Marketing

Brand Manager

8. British Triathlon Federation CEO

Director of Operations

Corus Director of Construction

Marketing Manager for Core Construction Solutions

9. British Volleyball CEO

Chair

Land Securities Marketing Manager

Vertex Director of Community Relations

Director of Operations

10. British Wrestling Association Chair

CEO

Administrator

Astra Zeneca Corporate Strategy Director

11. England Hockey Board CEO

Director of Business and Finance

Centrica Director of Corporate Reputation & Internal Communications

CRM Project Manager

12. Pentathlon GB CEO

Vice-Chairman

Marks & Spencer Head of Marketing Communications Planning

S. Morrow, L. Robinson / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 413–423 417

knowledge acquisition in areas like corporate governance, finance and human resource management as well as networking.In contrast, softer outcomes are identified by the FTSE companies including staff development, association and involvementwith Olympic sport and the consequent enhanced public opinion and profile. The latter rationales are particularly relevant tothe companies included in the research as none are part of the Olympic sponsorship programme and these partnershipsprovided a unique opportunity to be associated with an Olympic organisation.

Partner selection was driven by perceptions of goodness of fit between the Olympic NGBs and the FTSE companies and byexpectations of anticipated synergistic benefits. While it was common that individuals on both sides had preconceivednotions of goodness of fit, these were then interrogated through a series of exploratory meetings. Goodness of fit discussionsfocused on alignment between corporate and NGB agendas and objectives and on cultural fit between the organisations, aswell as on more pragmatic considerations such as geographical proximity. For example two reasons were identified by Rolls-Royce for its decision to enter into a partnership with the British Canoe Union (BCU):

We are pleased to support BOA’s partnership scheme and happy to be working with the BCU, as a near neighbour in theEast Midlands. This partnership gives our employees the opportunity to stretch their skills and expertise in a differentenvironment, which benefits both organisations. We’re particularly pleased to be supporting BCU’s participation agendaand helping people from all walks of life and communities to take part in canoeing (interview with Rolls-Royce).

In addition, the Initiative provides an opportunity for partnerships to develop through a life cycle. For example, onegoverning body, the British Wrestling Association (BWA), has gone through a process of modernising its governance andoperating structure, supported by AstraZeneca and the BOA, as a precursor to developing a full partnership under the FTSE-BOA Initiative. Alternatively, British Volleyball is now on to its second partnership, the first partnership having come to an

S. Morrow, L. Robinson / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 413–423418

end as the specific objectives of each partner had been realised. This highlights the different levels of involvement, behaviourand intervention methods available to the BOA management under the Initiative.

4.2. Partnership arrangements

The research shows that the operation of the partnerships is complex and that the partnerships have evolved at differentrates. The arrangements surrounding communication and interaction between the partnerships are diverse and idiosyncratic,reflecting what appears to ‘work best’ for both organisations. Moreover the markedly different size, operational and governancestructures, and maturity of different Olympic NGBs results in each partnership having a distinct structure and form. Indeed, thisis a fundamental advantage of the Initiative in that it has the flexibility to be able to engage and provide benefit to organisationsof all size and complexity and does not require any balance in resources and structure between the partners; reflected inpartnerships between organisations as diverse as Pentathlon GB and Marks & Spencer and British Biathlon and Skandia.

Notwithstanding the differences between the partnerships, the interview evidence enables us to make some observationson the Initiative overall. In the first instance, a number of factors were identified as contributing to effective partnershipworking as follows:

� M

atching of NGB resource need (skills, expertise) with availability in the FTSE company; � D elivery of a tangible outcome from the partnership; � A n internal, preferably senior, champion within each partner; � G ood communication within the partnership; � C lear understanding of the benefits of the partnership to both partners; � R ealistic expectations of what the partnership can achieve and how.

The identification of these factors reinforce the arguments in the literature that the different competencies and skillsprovided by the corporate and not-for-profit partners can provide a platform on which to pursue properly communicatedand agreed shared objectives (Jamali, 2003; Osborne & Gaebler, 1992). An example of this is the partnership between BritishRowing and AstraZeneca, which is based on the gaps in skills that the previously known Amateur Rowing Association (ARA)had in marketing. The partnership involving AstraZeneca’s marketing department led to a project of market segmentation forpotential rowers, a rebranding of the ARA to British Rowing and launch of Explore Rowing programme aimed at increasingparticipation. The projects have been described by an AZ interviewee:

The first thing that we did . . . was a piece of market research to look at perception. . .we found that rowing is seen as avery elitist sport, not in terms of class but in terms of ability. . .. Then [we] looked at the image specifically of ARA andthe Amateur Rowing Association is a very grand-sounding name. If you look at their logo it was laurel wreaths aroundsort of very posh writing, ARA, and this whole thing tied into this spirit of elitism. So we did a workshop, which ourbranding agency gave for free, which usually costs about £15,000, a two-day workshop where they sat down with afew of us and a good group of people from the ARA and said what is it that we want to stand for and went through all,essentially, the basic steps you do when you’re trying to build a brand in marketing and what we came out of that atthe end was a really clear brand image. Off the back of that we developed a new logo and then ultimately a new nameand so ARA and GB Rowing now are unified under a single logo of British Rowing (AstraZeneca interviewee).

Another good example of seeking to ensure effective partnership working is the formal partnership charter betweenBritish Volleyball and Vortex, which details the partnership objectives, desired benefits, scope of services, governance,assumptions and risks. The charter enables a shared understanding of what each partner wants to achieve as well as acting asa guide for monitoring the partnership’s performance.

The research also shows that the partnerships require significant time and resource to be effective. In part this reflects theway in which the Initiative was set up, with a focus on in-kind assistance rather than financial contribution. For example, thepartnership between British Curling and Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) was described as ‘‘time consuming’’ and ‘‘very resourcerich’’, requiring individuals to be committed to satisfying needs, filling skills gaps and delivering expectations. An RBSrepresentative describes the level of commitment required:

If you are going into the Initiative, you need to do so with a willingness to invest time and effort in it; that doesn’t meanmoney. It does mean that you need to recognise that if you want to do it properly there are fairly heavy time demandson it (RBS interviewee).

It is clear that significant time needs to be invested in the partnerships in order to make these of worth for both partners,which is arguably a greater resource commitment than simply making a financial contribution.

4.3. Resource acquisition

Inevitably different benefits are perceived to have arisen from different partnerships. Tables 2 and 3 provide an indicationof the resources that were exchanged in these partnerships, accompanied by an illustrative example of each kind. The

Table 2

Benefits to the Olympic NGBs.

Benefits Olympic NGBs Example

Access to expertise and time All NGBs Marketing support re the World Cup

2008 (Pentathlon GB)

Missing skills Archery GB, Badminton England, British Canoe Union,

British Curling, British Rowing, British Triathlon,

British Wrestling.

Decision making and project management

skills re hosting major event, London

World Cup (British Triathlon)

Improved policies and procedures Archery GB, Badminton England, British Wrestling,

English Hockey

New/improved board level governance –

people specification, responsibilities,

committee structure (Archery GB)

Sounding board Pentathlon GB, British Curling, British Wrestling, British

Triathlon

This partnership with Corus is described as a

more akin to a support-based relationship;

operating like an advisory group (British

Triathlon)

External advisor on Board Pentathlon GB, British Curling RBS official appointed as a full-time member

of the board; position integrated into his RBS

commitments and responsibilities (British

Curling)

Access to other agencies British Biathlon, British Rowing, British Volleyball Contact with potential sponsors and assistance

with events (British Volleyball)

S. Morrow, L. Robinson / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 413–423 419

benefits to the Olympic NGBs, highlighted in Table 2, as arising out the partnerships, include access to human capital and tospecialist knowledge and skills. These types of benefit are very similar to the resource needs identified by Olympic NGBs astheir motivation for engaging in the Initiative in the first instance.

The existence of the Initiative and the willingness of the not-for-profit Olympic NGBs to become involved therein is itselfconsistent with RDT. Seeking to lessen their dependence on the government funding (UK Sport/Sport England), it is to beexpected that Olympic NGB would engage with the FTSE companies through facilitated access to critical resources (Froelich,1999; Mutch, 2009).

The stated benefits for the FTSE 100 partners are less obvious than those set out in Table 2 and tend to be more intangiblein nature (see Table 3). Nevertheless again benefits like personnel development and Olympic association are consistent withthe rationale espoused by FTSE company representatives for getting involved in the partnerships.

The focus on in-kind assistance rather than financial contribution within the FTSE-BOA Initiative, essentially positions theFTSE companies involvement as being a form of CSR. The motivation for organisations to engage in CSR is discussed in theliterature in various contexts, including sport (see, for example, Babiak & Wolfe, 2009; Hamil & Morrow, 2011; Sheth &Babiak, 2009). For some of these organisations, the willingness to be involved is driven solely or largely by the normativemotivation of corporate executives; a desire to do good. But at the same time, other corporate partners have an instrumentalmotivation; not necessarily in this case concerned with direct or indirect financial benefits, but rather softer outcomes suchas motivating staff. In the words of one FTSE company official ‘‘the FTSE-BOA Initiative [is what] I would call smart, corporatesocial responsibility as opposed to dumb corporate social responsibility’’ (Corus interviewee).

4.4. Power and effectiveness

Within any individual partnership and the individual framework of objectives agreed to guide it, dependencies arisebetween the parties; characterised as a set of power relations, based on an exchange of resources (whether tangible orintangible in nature). From the evidence available for these partnerships it is immediately apparent that the benefits received byeach partner are not balanced: in each case the Olympic NGB gains considerably more than the corporate partner.

Ostensibly such asymmetric economic exchanges can result in inter-organisational power differentials. In customer–supplier relationships, where the dependencies are unbalanced it has been suggested that there is no incentive for the less

Table 3

Benefits to the FTSE-100 companies.

Benefits FTSE-100 companies Example

Personnel development Rolls-Royce, AstraZeneca, Vertex, Centrica,

Skandia

Allows employees to develop their skills and expertise

supporting canoeing participation programmes aimed

at all sections of society (Rolls-Royce)

Corporate social responsibility Home Retail Group, Skandia, Corus, Vertex,

Marks & Spencer, RBS

Seen as a real and tangible way of helping sport,

developing young people and improving lives,

in contrast to more instrumental-type CSR (Corus)

Association with the 2012 Olympics Corus, Standard Life, Rolls-Royce, RBS Various

Access to athletes Standard Life, G4S, Marks & Spencer High performance athletes invited to give motivational

presentations to staff (Standard Life)

Staff motivation G4S, AstraZeneca, Centrica, Skandia Promotion of judo amongst employees (G4S)

S. Morrow, L. Robinson / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 413–423420

dependent firm to enter into closer relationships (Izqyuierdo & Cillan, 2004). When interpreting power and dependency inthe FTSE-BOA partnerships, however, it is essential not to lose sight of the distinct or untypical nature of these partnerships(i.e. that the Initiative was established specifically to improve the operations of one partner, the Olympic NGB). Intuitively,therefore, it is to be expected that this partner will be the major beneficiary, as the partnership has been driven by what theNGB is perceived to need in terms of the critical resources that it requires. Moreover the resource needs and benefits of theOlympic NGBs tend to be more tangible in nature and hence it is easier to identify whether particular outcomes have beenachieved. By contrast, many of the benefits identified by the corporate partners are intangible in nature and thus moredifficult to quantify or to demonstrate actual benefit. For example, the impact of the association with the Olympic movementis open to subjective assessment, making it hard to demonstrate actual benefits, as is the assessment of the impact of thepartnership on staff motivation.

However, according to Mutch (2009), power within a partnership is facilitated by being able to measure the contributionsor value you are making to the other partner’s activity, something which is challenging for not-for-profit organisations. Inthese partnerships, the fact that the FTSE partners can show demonstrable contributions of value, which are recognised bythe NGBs suggests that they hold the balance of power. More generally the interview evidence indicates widespreadacceptance from the Olympic NGBs that power within the partnership clearly rests with the corporate partner and that thisimpacts upon the Olympic NGBs behaviour and autonomy, as the following quotes illustrate:

. . . [while] we have had a substantial amount of staff time from Standard Life . . . I think it’s been more . . . on their termsrather than ours. . . . I don’t mean it as a negative comment as they have done a great amount of work for us but I guess Ifeel we are the junior partner in this partnership (GB Archery interviewee).I think we must tread very carefully, we can’t always be demanding of [Marks & Spencer] . . . I think you can ask but notdemand anything to be quite honest. So we’ve got board members who are . . . almost saying ‘‘tell them we want this’’,‘‘tell them we want that’’ and that’s not the way to treat it. I think we’d lose them very quickly if we weren’t careful(Modern Pentathlon interviewee).

It is also clearly the case that the Olympic NGBs need the partnerships more than the FTSE companies as this is perhapsthe only way in which they can acquire critical resources. Put simply, any help to achieve their objectives is likely to bewelcomed and increase the likelihood of the Olympic NGBs being more satisfied with the partnership. This counterintuitiveview, that in fact it is the weaker party which gains more in a partnership like this, is consistent with power-dependencytheory (Mutch, 2009): i.e. the less powerful or more dependent partner, in this case the Olympic NGB, by attaching moreimportance to the partnership actually gains more relative to its needs.

This need not be problematic. While power imbalance or asymmetry is usually seen to act as an obstacle to allianceformation (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005; Gulati, 1998) or leads to decreases in relationship continuity (Anderson & Weitz,1989), within this particular Initiative, ostensibly there is little evidence that power and power relations are prime concernsfor the corporate partners, with little indication of disquiet being expressed by the corporate partners in particular over theskewed distribution of benefits. Paradoxically, in part at least, this can be explained by the explicit and unarguable imbalancein power that exists between the partners in the first place. Companies like Marks & Spencer are so well developed asbusiness organisations that any possible direct benefits to them could be considered nugatory, and as such their expectationsare modest – particularly of an organisation with the resources of Pentathlon GB. In fact, as discussed in Section 4.3, theinterview evidence suggests that the primary motivation is often a much broader ambition around helping sport or givingsomething back to society. For example:

We [Centrica] weren’t expecting anything more [than a contribution to CSR and PR], we just had to find a good personto put into the organisation. In fact we were just giving [employee X] as time. So it would have been wrong to haveexpected the world from [English Hockey] (Centrica interviewee).I think we [Marks & Spencer] went into this with our eyes open really and we didn’t really want anything out of therelationship. . . . it’s a non-commercial arrangement . . . it’s quite a small little sport so we’re not expecting to get lots ofpublicity, coverage for our brand through pentathlon. I think to be honest you’d choose a different sport if you aregoing to do that and frankly we wouldn’t need the extra publicity; we’ve got our own marketing department (Marks &Spencer interviewee).I think for someone in AstraZeneca, if they see this and they see that [we are] supporting a sport and supportingsomething that’s linked to London 2012, it just makes you view the company a little more differently and probably abit more positively (AstraZeneca interviewee).[this is] enabling sponsorship . . . consistent with Tata’s [formerly known as Corus] vision with regard to the role of anindustrial company in social development. . . . a lot of our principal goals are about leaving a legacy for sport, looking atmaking it more financially viable going forward (Corus interviewee).

4.5. Managing dependencies

Mutual dependence is central to RDT and to alliance formation and survival (Casciaro & Piskorski, 2005; Gulati, 1998; Xia,2010). While the dependence of the Olympic NGBs on its corporate partners is clear, the characterisation of the partnershipas smart CSR emphasises the resource exchange benefits for the FTSE companies. In addition, the intangible benefit of being

S. Morrow, L. Robinson / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 413–423 421

associated with an Olympic organisation in a ‘home’ Olympics environment should not be downplayed. Hence we have anacceptance from both partners of their dependency on each other to achieve their aims and objectives, irrespective ofwhether one partner benefits more than another. For example, take the partnership between British Triathlon Federation(BTF) and Corus:

At the end, it wouldn’t have been possible without them (BTF interviewee on Corus).There are elements of what BTF do, which are core to what we [Corus] do as a business and certainly what we do as ateam. So there really isn’t an option to us to necessarily walk away because we need them to do things, which to be fair,are unique to a sport governing body (Corus interviewee on BTF).Another is the partnership between British Canoe Union (BCU) and Rolls-Royce.You are working in partnership, you are working jointly. It is not about BCU asking for something, Rolls-Roycedelivering it. It is about a bit of give and take and make sure it works for both parties (British Canoe Union interviewee).

Notwithstanding these observations about the untypical nature of the partnerships in the Initiative, there remains a greatdeal that RDT can assist with in understanding behaviour and actions taken within the partnerships in cognisance of existingdependencies and power balance. For example, the dissolution of British Volleyball’s initial partnership with Land Securitiesand its replacement with a partnership with Vertex was an example of power restructuring, where the emphasis was onforming a new and more effective coalition. The objectives of the new partnership have been specified in considerable detail,accompanied by a Charter which contains particular benefits and outcomes to be expected from the partnership on bothsides.

Over time in any kind of dependency relationship there is a risk that the more powerful partner becomes unconvinced bythe putative benefits of the partnership, however limited those may be. This is highlighted by the following quote from aFTSE partner, discussing ways in which the partnership initiative could be improved:

You need to sit down and really work out what the priorities to [be addressed are] and by when. In terms of makingsure they [both partners] fully understand what it is that both parties want to get out of this so there are no grey areasin this. To be very clear, very open and very honest, with both parties so it is a true partnership rather than one leadingthe other. I think that sporting bodies do look to the FTSE partner to lead the process, and I don’t think that should bethe case, I think it should be a joint partnership where both parties must get something out of this as they both moveforward (G4S interviewee).

Recognition of the importance of establishing clearer aims and objectives for the work of the two organisations issomething which has taken place in a number of partnerships, including the partnership between British Judo Association(BJA) and G4S. In the inception stage, the BJA sought to use the resources and strengths of G4S – resources not found in theBJA – to develop and strengthen its organisational culture and structure, as well as helping it to develop corporate contacts.G4S was motivated by a desire to give something back to sport; to help BJA become an autonomous world-class organisation;to use sport to improve its brand recognition; and internally, for employee relations. While the partnership startedpromisingly it went through a period of decline. A number of explanations were put forward for this, some of which suggestthat the continuing benefits to the partners were not as apparent as they had been and that this impacted on its commitmentto the partnership. Factors identified by the BJA included a diminution in drive from G4S; a reliance on subsidiary companiesand personnel which weakened corporate interest and enthusiasm; and a lessening of interest in the partnership once thecompany had become known in Olympic/sporting circles to its business advantage. The lack of buy in from those outsidehead office was also cited by G4S, described by one representative as ‘losing interest due to delegation’. While the evidencesuggests that the partnership was brought back on track through the intervention of the broker, the BOA, given the power-dependency within the partnership, co-optation would have been a rational response from the NGB. This form of bilateralrestructuring would have seen the less powerful actor (BJA) take the initiative in encouraging the more power actor (G4S) notto exercise its power (the power of exit in the form of terminating the partnership) by reemphasising to it the benefits to bederived from a continued association with it. At the same time, however, this example also demonstrates the greater risksassociated with more instrumentally motivated CSR, namely that the benefit sought by the corporate (business recognition)was time limited and hence the onus was on the NGB to keep ahead by trying to identify new and different resources orbenefits for the corporate partner.

While co-optation as a form of bilateral restructuring has been and could be used in the context of this partnership, theopportunities for constraint absorption with its focus on the dependent actor gaining control of the resources that create thedependencies are less immediately apparent. Certainly complete constraint absorption, achieved through activities likemergers and takeovers is inappropriate given the nature of these partnerships, but partial absorption of the type seen in jointventures is possible (Hillman, Wither, & Collins, 2009).

One example of partial absorption is through board membership as happened with the appointment of a senior officialfrom RBS to fill a directorship at British Curling, a role which was integrated into the member of staff’s commitments andresponsibilities. Consistent with the expectations of Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) and subsequent evidence (Hillman et al.,2009; Simmons, 2012), there is support in this study of the benefits directors can bring to organisations such as, in this case,British Curling: facilitating the flow of two way information, advice and counsel and preferential access to resources. The useof inter-locking directorships as a way of managing resource dependencies is something other NGBs may wish to consider infuture.

S. Morrow, L. Robinson / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 413–423422

An organisation’s social networks of prior ties can influence the creation of partnerships or alliances and can thus act as amechanism to strategically manage resource dependencies (Gulati, 1998). For example, Westphal et al. (2006) found thatCEOs are more likely to reconstitute friendship ties with other executives when the other executive represented resource-rich providers. This research also provided evidence of how informal ties could be used strategically to manage resourcedependencies; effectively another form of constraint absorption. In particular, the inception of the partnership betweenPentathlon GB and Marks & Spencer arose initially out of a friendship between senior individuals in both organisations, theresource benefits of which were not lost on Pentathlon GB:

I think we’re very fortunate because being a very small sport trying to get a big brand like that, I think we’re very luckybut I have contacts within [Marks & Spencer] right at the top (Pentathlon GB interviewee).

5. Conclusion

By their very nature and the nature of the resource-constrained environment in which they operate, Olympic NGBs areneedy organisations. As such their willingness to enter into partnership with major commercial companies is a rationalstrategy through which to acquire resources critical to their survival and prosperity. This provides further support for theexplanatory power of RDT as developed by Pfeffer and Salancik (1978). The Initiative’s focus on support in-kind means thatinevitably over time the NGBs strengthen their resource base through the acquisition of skills, competences and advice thatwere not otherwise available to them. On the other hand, while the companies hold the balance of power in the relationships,there is a clear dependency on the NGB partners, in terms of delivering the desired softer benefits such as CSR, contributing toa public good in terms of making a difference to the UK’s Olympic effort and providing an association with London 2012.Thus, the research adds to knowledge of how organisations develop network resources capability (Hall et al., 2003; Wicker &Breuer, 2011). Perhaps more importantly, this research provides evidence to suggest that contrary to the arguments ofCasciaro and Piskorski (2005) power imbalance do not act as a barrier to partnership creation. This result may be due to theperceived strength of the intangible benefits to the companies (see below), however, this dependency on the less powerfulpartner needs further exploration. While the focus of this paper has been on the Olympic NGB partners, the implications formajor companies in terms of what drives their engagement is an area that would benefit from future research.

Moving beyond power relations, the research contributes to our understanding of partnerships by providing evidencethat each partner does not need to benefit equally. In addition, the intangible nature of the benefits to the companiessuggests that, contrary to Mutch (2009) it is may not be necessary to be able to measure the contributions or value thatpartners are making. It appears that it is enough that there is a perception of benefits. In line with the work by Inkpen (2002);Oliver (1990) and Stuart (2000), the research also suggests that intangible benefits may be of greater importance to a morepowerful partner than tangible benefits. This merits further research as it may provide an explanation as to why much morepowerful organisations seek to become involved with considerably less powerful organisations for reasons that may not besimply CSR-related.

From a practical perspective, that such intangible benefits are perceived to be of value to these organisations suggests thatsimilar partnership arrangements could be built around subsequent Olympics or other mega-events like the CommonwealthGames, providing the opportunity for NGBs to further strengthen their resource base, despite the imbalance in benefitsevident in this research.

The research has demonstrated effective partnership working depends on several key people-centred elements, notably ashared understanding of the skills and competences of both parties, good communication and the presence of engaged andcommitted individuals on both sides. Shared and realistic expectations are also vital, particularly given the powerimbalances that exist in the partnerships that make up this Initiative. Knowledge of what each partner expects mitigatessome of the power imbalance by clarifying and making transparent the outcomes of the partnership. Consequently, thepower and possible benefit imbalance is acknowledged prior to the establishment of the partnership.

One logical outcome of the resource transfer which arises out of the partnership process is that the resource dependentorganisation becomes less dependent over time. But at the same time it remains the case that both sides of the partnershipcan continue to secure benefits through an effective and well managed partnership. One important area on which thoseconcerned with the developments of this Initiative and/or its constituent partnerships and similar partnership initiativesshould focus on is mutual dependency of the partners. It is essential that the dependency between partners is both visibleand well understood by all concerned. What this research has demonstrated is that restructuring operations like co-optationand partial constraint are potentially useful approaches for NGBs to use to strengthen the dependency of individualrelationships, to protect their position and to secure a continuation of these valuable partnerships.

References

Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1989). Determinants of continuity in conventional industrial channel dyads. Marketing Science, 8(4), 310–323.Arya, B., & Salk, J. (2006). Cross sector alliance learning and effectiveness of voluntary codes of corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(2), 211–

234.Auld, C., & Cuskelly, G. (2011). Managing sport in the non-profit sector. In L. Trenberth & D. Hassan (Eds.), Managing sport business (pp. 79–96). Abingdon:

Routledge.Austin, J. (2000). The collaboration challenge: How non-profits and businesses succeed through strategic alliances. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

S. Morrow, L. Robinson / Sport Management Review 16 (2013) 413–423 423

Babiak, K., & Wolfe, R. (2009). Determinants of corporate social responsibility in professional sport: External and internal factors. Journal of Sport Management,23(6), 717–742.

Berger, I., Cunningham, P., & Drumwright, M. (2004). Social alliances: Company/non-profit collaboration. California Management Review, 47(1), 58–90.Callen, J. L., Klein, A., & Tinkelman, D. (2003). Board composition, committees and organizational efficiency: The case of non-profits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector

Quarterly, 32(4), 493–520.Casciaro, T., & Piskorski, M. J. (2005). Power imbalance, mutual dependence, and constraint absorption: A closer look at resource dependency theory.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(2), 167–199.Coalter, F. (2007). A wider social role for sport? Abingdon: Routledge.Davis, N. W., & Meyer, B. B. (2009). Qualitative data analysis: A procedural comparison. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21(1), 116–124.Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 27(1), 31–40.Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.Froelich, K. A. (1999). Diversification of revenue strategies: Evolving resource dependence in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,

28(3), 246–268.Googins, B., & Rochlin, S. A. (2000). Creating the partnership society: Understanding the rhetoric and reality of cross-sectoral partnerships. Business and Society

Review, 105(1), 127–144.Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 293–317.Hall, M. H., Andrukow, A., Barr, C., Brock, K., de Wit, M., & Embuldeniya, D. (2003). The capacity to serve: A qualitative study of the challenges facing Canada’s non-profit

and voluntary organizations. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Centre for Philanthropy.Hamil, S., & Morrow, S. (2011). Corporate social responsibility in the Scottish Premier League: Context and motivation. European Sport Management Quarterly,

11(2), 143–170.Haugh, H., & Kitson, M. (2007). The third way and the third sector: New Labour’s economic policy and the social economy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(6),

973–994.Hillman, A. J., Wither, M. C., & Collins, B. J. (2009). Resource dependence theory: A review. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1404–1427.Hodge, M. M., & Piccolo, R. F. (2005). Funding source, board involvement techniques, and financial vulnerability in non-profit organizations. A test of resource

dependence. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 16(2), 171–190.Inkpen, A. C. (2002). Strategic alliances. In M. A. Hitt, R. E. Freeman, & J. S. Harrison (Eds.), The Blackwell book of strategic management (pp. 409–432). Cornwall:

Blackwell Publishing.Izqyuierdo, C. C., & Cillan, J. G. (2004). The interaction of dependence and trust in long-term industrial relationships. European Journal of Marketing, 38(8), 974–994.Jamali, D. (2003). NGOs in development: Opportunities and challenges. Labor and Management in Development Journal, 4(2), 2–18.Jamali, D., & Keshishian, T. (2009). Uneasy alliances: Lessons learned from partnerships between businesses and NGOs in the context of CSR. Journal of Business

Ethics, 84(2), 277–295.Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Martinez, C. V. (2003). Social alliances for fundraising: How Spanish nonprofits are hedging the risks. Journal of Business Ethics, 47(3), 209–222.Melaville, A., & Blank, M. (1993). Together we can: A guide for crafting a pro-family system of education and human services. Washington: US Department of Education.Meyer, J., Boli, J., Thomas, G., & Ramirez, F. O. (1997). World society and the nation state. American Journal of Sociology, 103(1), 144–181.Morrow, S. (2003). The people’s game? Football, finance and society Basingstoke: Palgrave.Mutch, N. (2009). Does power imbalance matter in corporate-nonprofit partnerships? Preliminary findings. Paper presented at the ANZMAC conference.Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of inter-organizational relationships: Integration and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 241–265.Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.Parker, B., & Selsky, J. (2004). Interface dynamics in cause-based partnerships. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(3), 458–488.Pava, M. L., & Krausz, J. (1997). Corporate social responsibility and financial performance: The paradox of social cost. Westport, QT: Quorum.Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of organizations. New York: Harper and Row.Sagawa, S., & Segal, E. (2000). Common interest, common good: Creating value through business and social sector partnerships. California Management Review,

42(2), 105–122.Salamon, L. M., Anheier, H. K., List, R., Toepler, S., Sokolowski, S. W., & Associates, (1999). Global civic society: Dimensions of the non-profit sector. Baltimore, MD: John

Hopkins University.Seitanidi, M. M., & Ryan, A. (2007). A critical review of forms of corporate community involvement: From philanthropy to partnerships. International Journal of

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12(3), 247–266.Sheth, H., & Babiak, K. M. (2009). Beyond the game: Perceptions and practices of corporate social responsibility in the professional sport industry. Journal of

Business Ethics, 91(3), 433–450.Silverman, D. (2011). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction (4th ed.). London: Sage.Simmons, C. (2012). Will you be on our Board of Directors? We need help: Media corporations, environmental change and resource dependency theory. Journalism

& Mass Communication Quarterly, 89(1), 55–72.Speckbacher, G. (2003). The economics of performance management in non-profit organizations. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 13(3), 267–281.Stuart, T. E. (2000). Inter-organizational alliances and the performance of firms: A study of growth and innovation rates in a high technology industry. Strategic

Management Journal, 21(8), 791–811.Ulrich, D., & Barney, J. B. (1984). Perspectives in organizations: Resource dependence, efficiency and population. Academy of Management Review, 9(3), 471–481.Verbruggen, S., Christiaens, J., & Milis, K. (2010). Can resource dependence and coercive isomorphism explain nonprofit organizations’ compliance with reporting

standards? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(1), 5–32.Webb, D., & Mohr, L. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to cause-related marketing: From sceptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy and

Marketing, 17(2), 226–238.Westphal, J. D., Boivie, S., & Chng, D. H. M. (2006). The strategic impetus for social network ties: Reconstituting broken CEO friendship ties. Strategic Management

Journal, 27(5), 425–445.Wicker, P., & Breuer, C. (2011). Scarcity of resources in German non-profit sport clubs. Sport Management Review, 14(2), 188–201.Xia, J. (2010). Mutual dependence, partner substitutability, and repeated partnership: The survival of cross-border alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 32(3),

229–253.