Filip Wijkström

This article contributes to and develops the previous literature on excess resources (“slack”) in nonprofit organizations through a conceptual analysis of the implications that the organizational distinctiveness of nonprofits carries for our understanding of slack in these organizations. We argue that this distinctiveness has important implications for (i) the threshold level at which resources become slack in nonprofit organizations; (ii) the type of resources that can be considered to constitute slack in nonprofits; and (iii) the different categories of slack to which nonprofit researchers should pay special attention. In particular, we propose an additional slack category to expand the classical typology: tappable slack. Importantly, we also suggest that in order to be relevant and useful also in the nonprofit context, the concept of organizational slack needs to be analytically linked to the mission of the organization. As an empirical illustration of these theoretical points, we discuss the resource use of the Church of Sweden and its parishes during the European refugee reception effort in 2015–2016.

Vid såväl mindre som mer omfattande samhällsstörningar (i dagligt tal ”kriser”) bidrar ideella organisationer, trossamfund, folkrörelser och andra delar av civilsamhället ofta med insatser i de olika faserna av en kris där den offentliga sektorns resurser, kompetenser, tempo eller sätt att arbeta inte räcker till. Det gör man till exempel genom att mobilisera och koordinera volontärer, ordna med sovplatser, boende och tak över huvudet för utsatta grupper, bidra med transporter, hjälpa till med matinköp, ge röst åt och stöd för de mest sårbara och utsatta i vårt samhälle. Dessa insatser sker inte sällan i samverkan med andra idéburna organisationer och med offentliga aktörer som kommuner, sjukhus, skolor eller statliga myndigheter samt med näringslivets företag.

This multi-perspective Research Handbook provides a clear pathway through the nonprofit governance research field, pushing beyond the borders of current theory to expand and deepen the analytical framework for nonprofit governance. It offers an analysis of the basics including definitions, organizational forms and levels of governance, and takes a critical approach towards the normative and prescriptive tendencies in much of contemporary governance scholarship. Divided into four distinctly thematic parts, contributors provide an in-depth review of the last 20 years, building on the foundations of classical contributions and further exploring new theoretical approaches, while examining the governance challenges of diverse types of organizations, including those from both developed and developing countries. Future challenges including multilevel governance are expertly addressed, and insights leading towards a unified theory are proposed. This thoroughly engaging Research Handbook will be an excellent resource for scholars in business and strategic management, nonprofit management and civil society, interested in topics such as nonprofit governance practice and boards of directors, governance theory, stakeholder management, membership organizations, foundations and hybrid organizations. Teachers of nonprofit management will also find this invaluable as it addresses both the core concepts and the most recent developments.

The objective of this chapter is to deepen and broaden the reader’s understanding of nonprofit governance. The objective is pursued in three ways. First, the chapter offers a primer on the history and principles of nonprofit governance scholarship, for students and established researchers. This is achieved through attention to governance definitions; governance practices - boards, accountability and transparency, governance codes and collaborative governance - as they occur within organization type, stakeholder relationship and nonprofit regime contexts; and theoretical perspectives. Second, the work of contributors to the Research Handbook on Nonprofit Governance is contextualized within this governance ‘story’. The interplay means the chapter both serves as a standalone guide to the nonprofit governance concept and points to the scholars whose contributions are contemporary and authoritative. Third, the chapter critiques the limitations of the nonprofit governance literature and points to some of the lacunae - the gaps, the missing parts in the narrative. © Editors and Contributors Severally 2021.

The case for theoretical scrutiny of philanthropy's achievements and problems, in the institutional settings in which it operates, has never been stronger. In this introduction to IJMR’s special issue on philanthropy, we examine the developing levels and directions of institutional philanthropy scholarship, together with the consensual and contradictory themes they exemplify and the theoretical leads to which they give rise. Modern philanthropic theory is still largely based on archetypes developed in the early 20th century that accord a central role to foundations in addressing social challenges, yet the complex health, education and social service fields within which philanthropy operates have changed dramatically. We argue for the elevation of, and deepening directions for, theoretical study of institutional philanthropy. At present, institutional philanthropy has a modest theoretical literature, at the same time as we can notice an extensive and growing grey literature in the philanthropic community, often grounded in traditional strategic management. We reflect on the grey literature's potential development into theoretical scholarship, drawing on and fusing with a broader range of academic disciplines and organizational theories, and the linked study of the field as a discourse community. Here, the challenges of visibility and transparency in relation to privacy are significant, whether for accountability or research access. © 2021 The Authors. International Journal of Management Reviews published by British Academy of Management and John WileyXX1Sons Ltd

This article deals with the policy discourse on social innovation at the European Union (EU) level as well as across nine European countries. We perform an exploratory analysis of relevant policy documents focusing on articulated policy authority, suggested actors, and key outcomes of social innovation. We also conduct an explanatory testing of the applicability of the varieties of capitalism as a traditional innovation classification system to social innovation. We find that the policy discourse across Europe lacks systemization and that EU agendas are only incompletely replicated at the individual country level. We also find that social innovation policies largely defy the principles governing traditional innovation policy regimes, which necessitates new or revised classification frames.