References of "Huybrechts, Benjamin"
     in
Bookmark and Share    
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailWhere do hybrids come from? Entrepreneurial team heterogeneity as an avenue for the emergence of hybrid organizations
Dufays, Frédéric ULg; Huybrechts, Benjamin ULg

in International Small Business Journal (in press)

This conceptual paper aims to respond to the poorly addressed question of the emergence of hybrid organizations – i.e. organizations that embrace several institutional logics. It does so by developing a ... [more ▼]

This conceptual paper aims to respond to the poorly addressed question of the emergence of hybrid organizations – i.e. organizations that embrace several institutional logics. It does so by developing a model and a set of propositions focusing on the heterogeneity of the entrepreneurial team as a possible driver for hybridity throughout the entrepreneurial process and up to the emergence of a hybrid organization. As contributions to the literatures on (collective) entrepreneurship, imprinting and hybrid organizations, we advance several avenues and conditions under which the heterogeneity of the entrepreneurial team may imprint the entrepreneurial process and lead to the creation of hybrid organizations. Our propositions connect the individual, team and organizational levels and thus advance our understanding of how institutional logics can be combined across different levels of analysis and throughout the stages of an entrepreneurial process. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 62 (6 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailFair Trade and Co-operatives
Nicholls, Alex; Huybrechts, Benjamin ULg

in Michie, Jonathan; Blassi, J.; Borzaga, Carlo (Eds.) The Handbook of Co-operative and Mutual Businesses (in press)

The Fair Trade and co-operative movements have much in common. This chapter aims to examine the convergences and divergences between the two fields, highlighting what they can learn from each other and ... [more ▼]

The Fair Trade and co-operative movements have much in common. This chapter aims to examine the convergences and divergences between the two fields, highlighting what they can learn from each other and how practitioners and researchers in the two areas can better collaborate. Fair trade is an innovative approach to economic development that uses a market-driven approach to exploit the growing trend in ethical, or caused-based, consumption (Nicholls & Opal 2005). Fair Trade organizations aim to re-engineer the value chains between poor producers and artisans - typically in developing countries - and their wholesale buyers such that a greater proportion of the overall rents accrue to those who provide the inputs. Put simply, Fair Trade aims to ensure that the poorest actors in a supply chain benefit from more of the overall financial value creation as a development tool. Moreover, Fair Trade reconnects producers and consumers at the point of purchase such that consumption becomes a political – or, at least, life style – choice. This chapter is structured as follows. After this introduction, the second section describes the development of Fair Trade from its historical roots to the current organizational landscape and market organization. Next there is a discussion of several key issues and challenges that have emerged as Fair Trade has become increasingly institutionalized. Then, the fourth section explores the relationship between Fair Trade and the co-operative and mutual movements. Finally, conclusions serve to sum up the chapter. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 26 (3 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailSustaining Inter-Organizational Relationships across Institutional Logics and Power Asymmetries: the Case of Fair Trade
Nicholls, Alex; Huybrechts, Benjamin ULg

in Journal of Business Ethics (in press)

In Fair Trade (FT), as well as in other ‘mixed-form’ fields (Becchetti & Huybrechts 2008; Marwell & McInerney 2005), non-profit organizations and social enterprises have been partnering with large ... [more ▼]

In Fair Trade (FT), as well as in other ‘mixed-form’ fields (Becchetti & Huybrechts 2008; Marwell & McInerney 2005), non-profit organizations and social enterprises have been partnering with large corporations over long time periods despite the presence of conditions that might be expected to destabilize such relationships. These conditions include striking differences in size, economic power, and organizational goals or ‘logics’. Given these asymmetries, the collaborations are typically seen as problematic and temporary because the stronger party (the corporation) will impose its (market) logics upon the weaker one (the social enterprise), leading to either instrumentalizing and corrupting the latter or to the breakdown of the collaboration. Whilst some of the literature on FT and other market-oriented social movements has tended to depict corporate participation as a threat to the original goals of the social movement and to the integrity of partnering social enterprises (e.g. Fridell et al. 2008; Reed 2009), there is evidence of a set of social enterprise-corporate relationships that persist over time and cannot be simply summarized as dominated by the sole corporate, market logic. These examples illustrate the emergence of new working relationships across the conventional divides between distinct sectors – the public, private, and civil society – that offer new approaches to managing power asymmetries and apparently conflicting logics – typically, in FT and more generally in social entrepreneurship, market and social justice/welfare logics (Battilana & Lee 2014; Defourny & Nyssens 2006; Huybrechts & Nicholls 2012; Smith et al. forthcoming). This leads to the following research question: Under what conditions can inter-organizational relationships emerge and be sustained despite power asymmetries and the presence of distinct, potentially conflicting, institutional logics? The analysis in this paper aims to extend theory by providing an alternative to more deterministic analyses of inter-organizational relationships that suggest that the more powerful actor will always impose its logics upon the less powerful organization thus undermining the persistence of the relationship over time. In the process, this research adds a new construct to existing theory around the resolution of conflict in institutional logics by suggesting that dynamic persistence is also evident in contrast to examples of conflict resolution through dominance, compromise, hybridization, synthesis, or relationship breakdown. Based on the analysis of the relationships between commercial buyers and FTOs, initially embodying market and social justice logics respectively, this paper proposes a set of key conditions under which dynamic persistence can be observed even in the presence of power asymmetries. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 75 (4 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailSocial Enterprise in Belgium: A Diversity of Roots, Models and Fields
Huybrechts, Benjamin ULg

E-print/Working paper (2015)

This working paper is structured as follows. The first introductory section reviews the main historical roots that have led to the emergence of a diversity of models related to social enterprise and the ... [more ▼]

This working paper is structured as follows. The first introductory section reviews the main historical roots that have led to the emergence of a diversity of models related to social enterprise and the social economy in Belgium. Next, the second section sketches the main features of these models in terms of legal forms, types of social missions addressed, governance dynamics and resources. In the third section, these models are then illustrated in different fields of activity both established and emerging. Finally, the fourth section proposes a transversal analysis of the main trends and challenges facing the development and coexistence of the different models. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 44 (1 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailFair Trade and Social Enterprise
Huybrechts, Benjamin ULg

in Raynolds, Laura; Bennett, Elizabeth (Eds.) The Handbook of Research on Fair Trade (2015)

This chapter suggests that the notion of ‘social enterprise’ is useful to capture the DNA of organizations focused on fair trade and to locate them within a broader organizational taxonomy. Without ... [more ▼]

This chapter suggests that the notion of ‘social enterprise’ is useful to capture the DNA of organizations focused on fair trade and to locate them within a broader organizational taxonomy. Without seeking to impose a new term that may not resonate for certain actors or regions, this chapter aims to bring two contributions to fair trade research and practice. First, it is suggested that the social enterprise approach is particularly useful as an analytical tool enabling researchers and other stakeholders to capture the evolution and diversification of organizational models in fair trade. Second, the use of a broader organizational approach that is not specific to the sole fair trade sector allows for connections with similar organizations in other sectors and brings a shift from considering mainly what the organizations do (fair trade in this case) towards also addressing what they are (innovative social enterprise models combining market dynamics with social purpose). This chapter is structured as follows. First, the concept of social enterprise is introduced and discussed. Then, the evolution of the organizational landscape of fair trade (in the North) is summarized. Finally, fair trade organizations are examined in the light of the social enterprise concept, with illustrations from a study in four European countries (Huybrechts 2010a; 2012). [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 143 (3 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailThe emergence of hybrids: Imprinting from the entrepreneurial team heterogeneity
Dufays, Frédéric ULg; Huybrechts, Benjamin ULg

Conference (2014, July 03)

This conceptual paper deals with the emergence of hybrids by developing a process model that crosses levels of analysis. It aims to explain how heterogeneity in an entrepreneurial team may translate into ... [more ▼]

This conceptual paper deals with the emergence of hybrids by developing a process model that crosses levels of analysis. It aims to explain how heterogeneity in an entrepreneurial team may translate into the creation of a hybrid organization. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 41 (3 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailExplaining stakeholder involvement in social enterprise governance through resources and legitimacy
Huybrechts, Benjamin ULg; Mertens de Wilmars, Sybille ULg; Rijpens, Julie ULg

in Defourny, Jacques; Hulgard, Lars; Pestoff, Victor (Eds.) Social Enterprise and the Third Sector: Changing European Landscapes in a Comparative Perspective (2014)

In the continuity of stakeholder theory, much of the current literature on (corporate) governance and business ethics looks at how organizations involve their stakeholders at different decision-making ... [more ▼]

In the continuity of stakeholder theory, much of the current literature on (corporate) governance and business ethics looks at how organizations involve their stakeholders at different decision-making levels (Carroll 2004; Clarkson 1995; de Graaf & Herkströter 2007; Freeman & Reed 1983). According to Freeman (1984), stakeholders are ‘any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of an organization's purpose’ (148); typically: the owners, the managers, the workers, the volunteers, the financing bodies, the partners, the suppliers, the customers/beneficiaries, etc. A continuum of involvement can be highlighted, from the rather passive strategies (stakeholder information) to the more active ones (stakeholder representation). Among the latter, involvement or ‘cooptation’ of stakeholders in the governance structures such as the general assembly and the board of directors is increasingly presented as a strategy mirroring a long-term relationship between the organization and a particular stakeholder category (Mitchell et al. 1997). Traditionally, the owners are the category of stakeholders that is co-opted in the governance structures. Indeed, the power of decision is part of the property rights (Milgrom & Roberts 1992). It allows owners to ensure that the enterprise is run according to their own objectives. Thus, in for-profit enterprises, the investors are the owners and, as such, they have the right to decide. They exercise this right by their presence at the general assembly. But not all enterprises are investors-owned firms. In some enterprises, ownership is in the hand of other stakeholders, like in producer, consumer or worker cooperatives. Others, like nonprofit organizations, can even be seen as firms without owners (Hansmann 1996). This chapter raises the question of stakeholder involvement in social enterprises, which are ‘non-investor owned’ and can broadly be defined here as organizations pursuing social aims through their economic activity (Defourny 2001; Defourny & Nyssens 2006). In these organizations, the configuration of stakeholder involvement contrasts with that of for-profit businesses in at least two ways. First, social enterprises are more likely than other types of organizations to be set up through a process of collective entrepreneurship which often involves a diversity of actors who each have a ‘stake’ in the pursuit of one or several organizational missions (Defourny & Nyssens 2006; Haugh 2007; Petrella 2003). Second, social enterprises seem to have a stronger tendency to give a voice to the actors with whom they interact –i.e., to involve their beneficiaries, supporters, funders or partners within their governance structures (Campi et al. 2006; Huybrechts 2010; Münkner 2004; Rijpens 2010). They usually use legal forms that allow and encourage economic democracy by recognizing stakeholders other than investors the right to participate formally in the governance bodies. While, as suggested by Campi et al. (2006; 2012), the presence of multiple stakeholders observed in a number of social enterprises may be linked with the diverse goals pursued by these organizations, such presence –or absence– may be due to many factors which have no direct links with organizational goals. As suggested in this chapter, the organizational need for resources (in a broad sense) and the drive to conform to external expectations may be two key factors. In any case, the diversified patterns of stakeholder involvement in social enterprises confirm the need for a more comprehensive account of stakeholder involvement in these organizations. Although several attempts have been made to theorize stakeholder involvement in social enterprise governance, it is still a much under-researched topic. We believe that this research gap is due not only to the infancy stage in which social enterprise research is located, but also to a lack of connection and integration of this research within the broader study of organizations. Indeed, while new theoretical developments centered on the specific features of social enterprise are needed, these developments cannot be made independently from the knowledge built for more than a century regarding how organizations are structured and operate. This chapter aims to examine stakeholder involvement in social enterprise governance using two types of theoretical lenses each embodying a rich research tradition in organization theory. The first lens refers to strategy and examines organizations (in this case governance structures) in terms of their dependency on a set of resources. The second lens uses legitimacy arguments to explain organizational governance as a social construct located in a broader setting of social relationships. The first two sections will present each of these views and examine their contributions to understanding stakeholder involvement in the governance structures of social enterprises. Then, a comparative case study on work integration social enterprises will serve to illustrate how both research avenues can be combined so as to better grasp social enterprise governance as a complex and multi-dimensional practice. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 1174 (29 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailConnecting the dots for social value: A review on social networks and social entrepreneurship
Dufays, Frédéric ULg; Huybrechts, Benjamin ULg

in Journal of Social Entrepreneurship (2014), 5(2), 214-237

The emergence of social entrepreneurship has been explained at the macro-level (socioeconomic drivers), at the meso-level (concepts such as opportunity), and at the micro-level (motivations and intentions ... [more ▼]

The emergence of social entrepreneurship has been explained at the macro-level (socioeconomic drivers), at the meso-level (concepts such as opportunity), and at the micro-level (motivations and intentions of social entrepreneurs). In this conceptual article, it is argued that the sociology of social networks may contribute to explain how and why social entrepreneurship arises by bridging micro- and macro-levels of analysis. Four different usages of the social network concept in the social entrepreneurship literature are identified: embeddedness of social entrepreneurship, collective social entrepreneurship, networking as a critical skill or activity of social entrepreneurship, and finally networking and the creation of social capital as a goal of social entrepreneurship. Theoretical frameworks explaining the emergence of conventional entrepreneurship with a social network lens are identified. These are evaluated with regard to social entrepreneurship and translated into a set of research proposals to be explored in order to strengthen our understanding of social entrepreneurship emergence. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 198 (17 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailThe relevance of the cooperative model in the field of renewable energy
Huybrechts, Benjamin ULg; Mertens de Wilmars, Sybille ULg

in Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics = Annales de l'Economie Publique, Sociale et Coopérative (2014), 85(2), 193-212

This article examines the relevance of the cooperative model in the field of renewable energy (RE). RE sources have been developed since the end of the 1970s and their growth has been expansive since then ... [more ▼]

This article examines the relevance of the cooperative model in the field of renewable energy (RE). RE sources have been developed since the end of the 1970s and their growth has been expansive since then. While social-ecological movements have been instrumental in shifting the public attention towards the need for alternative energies (Sine and Lee, 2009), in most countries the sector has rapidly become dominated by corporate actors experienced in building large-scale RE projects. In an attempt to counter the corporate hegemony and to protect available lands, a range of citizen initiatives have emerged under different forms and names such as community energy groups or renewable energy (source) cooperatives (van der Horst, 2008; Willis and Willis, 2012; Lipp et al., 2012; Schreuer and Weismeier-Sammer, 2010; Weismeier-Sammer and Reiner, 2011). Pioneering examples include EWS in Germany, Enercoop in France, Energy4All in the UK, or Ecopower in Belgium. As these citizen groups tend to adopt the cooperative model, or a related form depending on the local legislation and context, it seems important to understand what are the specific features, assets and limitations of this model in the field of RE. Indeed, while ‘traditional’ cooperatives operating for a long time in fields such as banking, agriculture, or retail, have received an important attention in the cooperative literature, much work still needs to be done to understand why and how cooperatives emerge either in fields in which they have not traditionally been widespread (such as health and care, services, etc.), or in ‘new’ fields or sub-fields (such as fair trade, microfinance or renewable energy). Research is even more needed insofar as ‘new’ cooperatives tend to differ from traditional ones in several ways, for instance through the involvement of multiple stakeholders (rather than a dominant one such as producers, consumers or workers) or through a stronger orientation towards general interest goals (beyond traditional mutual interest at the basis of most cooperatives). While RE cooperatives have strongly developed in countries such as Denmark (Lipp et al., 2012), Germany (Schreuer, 2012; Weismeier-Sammer and Reiner, 2011) and to a lesser extent the UK (Aitken, 2010; Kellett, 2007; Seyfang et al., 2012; van der Horst, 2008; Willis and Willis, 2012; Walker et al., 2007), their development has been much slower in other countries, particularly Southern Europe (Lipp et al., 2012). This seems to echo, to a certain extent, the general development of RE in these countries (Haas et al., 2011). Before mapping these differences against the background of RE development in these countries, it is necessary to understand how the assets and limits of the cooperative model apply to the particular case of RE. This is precisely the aim of this article. On the one hand, the assets of the cooperative model enable to understand why this form has been adopted by citizen groups and has developed in certain countries. On the other hand, the limits or weaknesses of the model enable to explain why cooperatives are still a minority in the field of RE and why their development is constrained by obstacles in certain countries. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 398 (18 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOn the way to hybrid organizations? When worlds collide through collective entrepreneurship
Dufays, Frédéric ULg; Huybrechts, Benjamin ULg

Conference (2013, September 02)

This communication presents a model of collective entrepreneurship process, drawing on institutional theory (institutional logics) and on the sociology of social networks (structural hole). It argues that ... [more ▼]

This communication presents a model of collective entrepreneurship process, drawing on institutional theory (institutional logics) and on the sociology of social networks (structural hole). It argues that entrepreneurship might result from the association of bridge-builders, both in terms of structural hole bridging and in terms of institutional logics bridging. Individual as well as structural factors will influence the entrepreneurial outcome, in particular in the way the new organisation deals with the distinct logics. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 52 (3 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailConnecting the dots for social value: A review on social networks and social entrepreneurship
Dufays, Frédéric ULg; Huybrechts, Benjamin ULg

Conference (2013, September 02)

The emergence of social entrepreneurship has been explained at the macro-level (socioeconomic drivers), at the meso-level (concepts such as opportunity), and at the micro-level (motivations and intentions ... [more ▼]

The emergence of social entrepreneurship has been explained at the macro-level (socioeconomic drivers), at the meso-level (concepts such as opportunity), and at the micro-level (motivations and intentions of social entrepreneurs). In this conceptual article, we argue that the sociology of social networks may contribute to explain how and why social entrepreneurship arises by bridging micro- and macro-levels of analysis. We identify four different usages of the social network concept in the social entrepreneurship literature: embeddedness of social entrepreneurship, collective social entrepreneurship, networking as a critical skill or activity of social entrepreneurship, and finally networking and the creation of social capital as a goal of social entrepreneurship. Theoretical frameworks explaining the emergence of conventional entrepreneurship with a social network lens are identified. These are evaluated with regard to social entrepreneurship and suggested to constitute an important source of inspiration for future research. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 66 (6 ULg)
Full Text
See detailL'entrepreneur, plus solidaire que solitaire
Dufays, Frédéric ULg; Huybrechts, Benjamin ULg

Article for general public (2013)

L'entrepreneuriat est souvent le résultat d'un processus collectif, contrairement à l'image de l'entrepreneur "héros solitaire" véhiculée. L'entrepreneuriat social est particulièrement représentatif en ce ... [more ▼]

L'entrepreneuriat est souvent le résultat d'un processus collectif, contrairement à l'image de l'entrepreneur "héros solitaire" véhiculée. L'entrepreneuriat social est particulièrement représentatif en ce qu'il intègre cette dimension collective dans ses structures de gouvernance. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 52 (9 ULg)
Full Text
See detailLa gouvernance des coopératives en situation de conflit et de post-conflit
Niyungeko, Thadée ULg; Huybrechts, Benjamin ULg

E-print/Working paper (2013)

If governance has become, for many years, as a matter of paramount importance in traditional companies (Berle & Means, 1932), microfinance institutions have also not escaped this need (Rock et al. 1998 ... [more ▼]

If governance has become, for many years, as a matter of paramount importance in traditional companies (Berle & Means, 1932), microfinance institutions have also not escaped this need (Rock et al. 1998), there are about thirty years. Considered essential to address issues related to economic and social development (Wélé, 2009), governance is also emerging as an undeniable factor for to strengthen the financial performance and to increase awareness in microfinance institutions (Rock et al., 1998; Labie, 2001 Helms, 2006). Several authors have contributed to the understanding of corporate governance by using a variety of theoretical approaches (Jensen & Meckling (1976), Fama and Jensen (1983a) for Shareholders approach, Freeman (1984), Donaldson & Preston (1995) Hung (1998) for the stakeholder approach, Meyer and Rowan (1977), Mertens (2010), Muth & Donaldson (1998), Berle & Means (1932); Labie (2005a) for alternative approaches). Applied individually in cooperatives and organizations, these approaches have proved rather one-dimensional and illuminate one aspect of the Boards of Directors (Cornforth, 2004). Hence the need for an approach that integrates the insights of these perspectives has been felt. Thus, a perspective in terms of paradox (Cornforth, 2004) helped to highlight the dilemmas, paradoxes and tensions that boards of directors are facing. Several researchers have used this paradox perspective in different organizations (Demb & Neubauer, 1992 Wood, 1996; Sundaramurthy & Lewis, 2003), but it also did not take long. Criticized for focusing only on the board, this perspective paradox is also alleged to ignore the role of contextual factors. However, as argued by DiMaggio & Powell (1983), Meyer and Rowan (1977), environmental factors play an undeniable role in the way organizations make isomorphic. Rijpens & Adam (2011) also point out that the internal and external factors to the organization involved in the debate on the governance model adopted. Hudon and Seibel (2007) argue that conflicts and disasters seriously affect the socio-economic institutions, public governance, networks and social relations of citizens, including those related to the exchange or transfer of financial resources. This article examines the influence of armed conflict on the cooperatives’ governance. It is built around three fundamental questions. (1) What overlay the systems of cooperatives governance? (2) What is the theoretical model of governance adapted to cooperatives working in conflict situations? (3) How an armed conflict does it influence the cooperatives governance? To answer these questions, this article assumes, first, the confrontation of existing theoretical approaches in the literature on corporate governance in general and cooperatives in particular. It then develops a model of governance adapted to the conflict. Finally, that model will be tested after data collect from a qualitative field study based on the triangulation of information resources and interviews with key players in organizations under study in a country where microfinance institutions have evolved conflict situations. The results will be presented in another article. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 98 (16 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailOn the way to the hybrid organization? When worlds collide through collective entrepreneurship
Dufays, Frédéric ULg; Huybrechts, Benjamin ULg

Conference (2013, July)

This communication presents a model of collective entrepreneurship process, drawing on institutional theory (institutional logics) and on the sociology of social networks (structural hole). It argues that ... [more ▼]

This communication presents a model of collective entrepreneurship process, drawing on institutional theory (institutional logics) and on the sociology of social networks (structural hole). It argues that entrepreneurship might result from the association of bridge-builders, both in terms of structural hole bridging and in terms of institutional logics bridging. Individual as well as structural factors will influence the entrepreneurial outcome, in particular in the way the new organisation deals with the distinct logics. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 56 (4 ULg)
Full Text
Peer Reviewed
See detailThe Role of Legitimacy in Social Enterprise-Corporate Collaboration
Huybrechts, Benjamin ULg; Nicholls, Alex

in Social Enterprise Journal (2013), 9(2), 130-146

This research examines the collaborations between social enterprises (SEs) and corporations, which have been flourishing over the last decades. These collaborations differ from both philanthropic ... [more ▼]

This research examines the collaborations between social enterprises (SEs) and corporations, which have been flourishing over the last decades. These collaborations differ from both philanthropic partnerships and classical business alliances. Unlike the former, these collaborations are centred on the joint development of a product or service which represents a business opportunity for both the SE and the corporation. Unlike the latter, these collaborations contribute at least partially to the pursuit of a social mission, which is the main driver of the SE and may motivate the corporation as well. While most work on cross-sector collaboration examines the advantages of collaboration for the different types of organizations, we take a slightly different perspective, using institutional theory to look at the implications of collaboration in terms of organizational legitimacy. As organizational legitimacy is contingent on a given institutional field in which a number of stakeholders provide legitimacy based on patterns of appropriateness, questions emerge about what happens when organizations from different fields embodying different logics and responding to various legitimating stakeholders collaborate. Surprisingly, while institutional theory has become a widely used theoretical framework, it has only little been applied to examine interorganizational collaboration, let alone cross-sector collaboration between social enterprises and corporations. This research aims to fill this gap in order to enrich both the understanding of interorganizational collaboration and its implications in terms of organizational legitimacy, and the knowledge and practice of cross-sector collaboration. [less ▲]

Detailed reference viewed: 195 (21 ULg)
Full Text
See detailREScoop Action Guide
Rijpens, Julie ULg; Riutort, Sebastia; Huybrechts, Benjamin ULg

Report (2013)

Detailed reference viewed: 10 (0 ULg)