The search for effective between the and municipality

Details of student: Name: Mohamed Zarouali ANR: 795104

Name of the supervisors: Name supervisor 1: Prof. Dr. J. Goedee Name supervisor 2: Dr. R.S. Mannak Master Thesis Circle: Supply Chain Collaboration

University Tilburg University School of Social and Behavioral Science Master Studies

Warandelaan 2

5037 AB Tilburg

Supervision

Supervisor 1: Prof. Dr. J. Goedee Supervisor 2: Dr. R.S. Mannak

Details of student

Name: Mohamed Zarouali ANR: 795104

Titles

Circle: Circle 4, Chain Collaboration Thesis: The search for effective collaboration between social enterprises and municipalities Abstract This study focuses on social enterprises that collaborate with municipalities and how the collaboration can be more effective. Social enterprises are enterprises with a dual mission. They strive for financial success, they have a commercial goal and next to that goal they have a social goal. The social enterprises that are being studied in this research are focused on providing people with a distance to the labour market possibilities to work, lean and develop into a possible job in the regular labour market. Due to the adoption of the Participation Act in January 2015, a lot has been changed within the social domain. Social working places are being reduces and the government stimulates that also disabled people or partly disabled people are being steered towards a regular job, or job setting in for example a social enterprise. Due to their disability those employees have a lower wage value than people who are %100 capable of doing regular work. Municipalities have the responsibility to place those people in social enterprises and they also subsidize those workers, so that the social entrepreneur is being motivated to hire disabled people. In this area, the municipalities and social enterprises have to work together to provide those people with jobs. In this research I studied the collaboration effectiveness between those two parties, using the collaboration dimensions from Thomson (2007). Propositions were made about which dimensions should contribute to the collaboration and those propositions were all confirmed except the autonomy dimension. It became clear that municipalities are still busy with integrating the Particpation Act into their organization and do not have a single ‘’to go to’’ point for social entrepreneurs. In this thesis these types of situations are being studied and elaborated on. Eventually factors are found that contribute to the effectiveness of the collaboration between social enterprises and municipalities.

Preface Before you lies the thesis: “The search for an effective collaboration between the social enterprise and municipalities”. While we are only at the beginning of the introduction of the Participation Act in The Netherlands, we have started a new phase in employment in The Netherlands. With lots of sites still to be explored, I have been amazed by all of the driven and diverse entrepreneurs I have had the chance to interview, level and discuss with. Trusting all these enthusiastic entrepreneurs I have had the opportunity to speak with, I look forward to a bright future where we can involve all members of our society regardless their possible disabilities and above all broad abilities. I want to thank John Goedee for his understanding, excellent guidance and kind support during this process. Also, I would like to thank Remco Mannak for his time and feedback. I also benefitted from debating issues with my close environment. If I ever lost interest, you kept me motivated. My parents deserve a special note of thanks, my warm thoughts go out to you. Your care and wiseness I have never forgotten and have served me well. I hope you enjoy your reading. Mohamed Zarouali Eindhoven, August 12, 2016.

Table of content

1.Introduction ...... 7 1.1 Research goal ...... 9 1.2 Research question ...... 9 1.3 Academic relevance...... 9 1.4 Social relevance ...... 10 1.5 Research context ...... 11 Social enterprises focused on labour participation ...... 11 Participation Act ...... 11 1.6 Thesis structure ...... 12 2.Theoretical background...... 14 2.1 Social enterprises ...... 14 Effective collaboration ...... 16 Factors contributing to collaboration...... 16 2.4. Administration ...... 17 2.5. Autonomy ...... 17 2.6 Mutuality ...... 18 2.7 Commitment ...... 19 2.8 Norms ...... 19 2.9 Conceptual model ...... 20 2.10 Propositions ...... 20 2.11 Operationalisation table ...... 21 3.1 Qualitative research design ...... 23 3.2 Data collection ...... 23 3.3 Data presentation ...... 24 3.3 Data analysis ...... 25 Coding process ...... 25 3.4 Unit of analysis and unit of observation ...... 25 3.5 Sample strategy ...... 25 3.6 Research quality indicators ...... 26 Credibility ...... 26 Transferability...... 26 Dependability ...... 27 Confirmability ...... 27 3.6 Answering the research question...... 27 H4. Results ...... 28 4.1 Governance ...... 28 4.2 Administration ...... 29 4.3 Autonomy ...... 31 4.4 Mutuality ...... 32 4.5 Commitment ...... 33 H5. Conclusion ...... 35 H5.1 Answering the research question ...... 35 H5.2 Discussion...... 36 Norms ...... 34

1.Introduction In 2002, Jamie Oliver combined two ambitions: to open a top class restaurant and to offer disadvantaged youngsters the chance to gain professional training that would set them up for an independent, inspired and productive life. In 2015, Fifteen is still achieving both, improving and expanding all the time. Fifteen Amsterdam was the first restaurant that adopted Jamie Oliver’s heritage in the Netherlands. Since 2004 they have trained and educated youngsters with poor employment prospects to become cooks, hosts or hostesses; and it works. From the more than 100 youngsters that have been trained by Fifteen, 80% remain in permanent employment (Social Enterprise NL, 2013).

"The social enterprise is the great institutional innovation of our times." David Cameron, August 2007

This statement was made by Prime Minister Cameron of the United Kingdom (UK) in 2007, when asked for his opinion on social enterprises. With more than 70,000 social enterprises, representing over 1 million jobs, the UK is a leader in Europe when it comes to recognising the importance of social for managing social issues. In comparison with the UK, the Netherlands have around 3,000 social enterprises, and investments in the social sector are, relatively, three to four times lower (Sociaal Economische Raad, 2015).

Social enterprises are organisations that have a social objective alongside a financial objective. They can vary from focusing on environmental improvement to the labour participation of people who have a disability and have difficulty finding jobs.

This study, using qualitative research, focuses on the last of those: finding employment for people with disabilities. These types of social enterprises, also called Work Integrated Social Enterprises (WISEs) are active in several areas and sectors. In the Netherlands, these organisations are mainly active in hospitality, industry (assembly, packaging, waste recycling) and in the maintenance of public areas. Dereadt, Gijselinckx & Opstal (2009), define them as organisations where at least 30% of the staff have labour inhibiting limitations. They are often founded by entrepreneurs who have experience in running commercial businesses and have a strong feeling of .

Lumeco from Hendrik-Ido-Ambacht is an example of such a social enterprise. This is an initiative from a trade company specialised in lightening, who provide people with poor employment prospects a working place and learning environment. The ultimate goal is to provide their employees with the skills to eventually enter the ‘regular’ labour market. This leads to less and less has to be invested in unemployment benefits by the government.

In order to meet their social goal, they have to collaborate with municipalities or other public organisations, like the Uitkeringsinstituut Werknemersverzekeringen (UWV). In this research I use semi-structured interviews to get more insight about this type of collaboration. Public organisations like municipalities provide the social enterprise with human and financial resources, i.e. workers and subsidies. Labyrinth (2013) states that social enterprises hardly ever develop into stable and strong enterprises, however, because they are structural and economically dependent on collaboration with different stakeholders, i.e. banks, municipalities, UWV, private investors. Collaborating with public partners, e.g. municipalities, brings challenges in terms of differences in culture and structure (Mintzberg, 1992). It is essential for all parties involved to be on the same level. Mintzberg (1992) distinguishes different types of organisational structures. Given the subject of this research, public organisations or government related organisations are characterised as ‘machine bureaucracy’, where routines, formal rules, bureaucracy, stability and standardisation are key. The most social enterprises in this research can be typified as a ‘simple structure’. This type of organisation can be described as informal, innovative, entrepreneurial, with authority centralised in a single person and flexible. Here we can see a clear distinction between the formal public organisations and the entrepreneurial social enterprise. Given their mutual goal, creating public value (Moore, 2013), and their differences in structure and culture, it is essential that both parties actively collaborate. This research is focused on the relationship between these two types of organisations, and what factors contribute to the collaboration between them.

As stated earlier, the social enterprise is a relatively new and unknown phenomenon, and is still developing. The Dutch Minister of Social Affairs, Lodewijk Asscher, acknowledged the importance of social enterprises in the Netherlands by requesting an advisory report from the Sociaal Economische Raad (SER) (2015) about their development. From this advisory report, it became clear that the Netherlands is lagging behind other European countries in terms of developing social enterprises and is one of the few that do not have a legal status for the social enterprise. The employment opportunities in the Dutch social sector are steadily growing, however, with growth of 25% in the past two years. In addition, in 2016, 80% of social entrepreneurs expect growth of their enterprise and employment opportunities. This expected growth also means more between social enterprises and, for example, municipalities. Given that there is hardly any theory about social enterprises’ relationships with municipalities and the differences in the types of organisations described by Mintzberg (1992), it is important to study current collaborations and examine which factors contribute to the collaboration. This research aims to explore the collaboration between social enterprises and municipalities that have to interact in order to provide people with work in their organisations.

1.1 Research goal Given that this research targets social enterprises that focus on labor participation, it is expected that public actors are involved. As stated earlier, public organisations are typified as formal, complex, bureaucratic, standardised, routine based organisations. Social enterprises are more informal, simple structured, non-bureaucratic and innovative organisations (Mintzberg, 1989). This difference could lead to collaboration challenges or difficulties to achieve their social mission. Many societal issues, however, call for an integrated approach. This can only be reached by in-depth collaboration between multiple organisations (Goedee and Entken, 2015). As stated earlier, the Netherlands lags behind other European countries in terms of social business activities, and the advisory report of the SER is one of the first in-depth Dutch studies about social enterprises in the Netherlands.

Considering that the social sector is growing in the Netherlands, and collaboration with municipalities has to be stimulated and improved, this research aims at finding factors that will contribute to the effectiveness of the collaboration between social enterprises and municipalities.

This leads to the following research question:

1.2 Research question

Which factors contribute to the collaboration effectiveness between social enterprises focused on labour participation and municipalities?

1.3 Academic relevance The field of social entrepreneurship is currently growing rapidly. This has resulted in an increasing number of academic articles on the topic. Nonetheless, the field is still not completely developed, and numerous research gaps can be found. There remains much dispute about the definition of social entrepreneurship, and significant efforts need to be made in order to mature the research field (Martin & Osberg, 2007). Only a few studies have focused on the relationship between social entrepreneurs and government or other public actors (Dees, 2007). Korosec & Berman (2006) conducted quantitative research among municipalities regarding social entrepreneurship in the United States of America. This is the only article that could be found about such a relationship. Therefore, this study, using qualitative research with in-depth interviews with social entrepreneurs in the Netherlands, contributes to the academic knowledge about this subject. In addition, most research is focused on social enterprises integrating disadvantaged low skilled workers, were this research focuses on both low and high-skilled workers. It further explores social entrepreneurship with new theoretical insights, with the main aim being to expand the theoretical development of this field.

1.4 Social relevance As mentioned earlier, there is no clear understanding of the nature and characteristics of the social enterprise within the Netherlands. Through case studies, this thesis contributes an understanding of the factors that influence collaboration with public partners. This approach is well suited for this particular field of business given the fact that social entrepreneurs are more willing to share their insights compared with ‘traditional’ entrepreneurs. Although there is still a sense of competition, the overall goal is to create a large social impact. Social entrepreneurs would be more willing to collaborate if it increased the chances of having a social impact (Social Enterprise NL, 2014). The sharing of best practices and knowledge causes social entrepreneurs to become aware about their business models and enables them to improve deviating aspects of their organisation. In the end, this research will contribute to the collaboration of social enterprises with their public partners.

There are several countries in which WISE is considered a business form with great societal and economical value (Nyssens, 2006). By adapting the working environment to employees’ needs, one does not only contribute to the quality of life but also to overall labour productivity. The jobs these companies create bring improvements to the participants’ overall productivity. This translates itself into lower government provided benefits, greater income tax, and higher revenues for the government. By conducting research on the social enterprise, this study aims to improve collaboration and, eventually, the performance of the social enterprises. 1.5 Research context Social enterprises focused on labour participation The focus of this research is on social enterprises in the field of labour participation or so-called social firms (Nicholls, 2006). The social entrepreneurs interviewed in this research all began their companies to provide people the possibility to develop themselves and create more employment possibilities. People can have all sorts of problems accessing the labour market, but the one thing in common these people have is that, in most cases, they are unable or have difficulties finding regular employment in a company. This affects a wide range of people. For example, people who have been in jail, the long-term unemployed, people with a mental or physical disability, and blind or deaf people. Among the social enterprises, the percentage of people with difficult accessing the labour market varies between 25% and 75% (Smit et al., 2008). In addition, these people can be divided in two groups (Hillen ,2014):

People with mental or physical disabilities who structurally have a low wage value (below minimum wage). These are people with:

 Psychiatric disorders: autism, schizophrenia and psychosis  Sensorial handicaps: blind and deaf people  I.Q. below 80  Physical handicaps and chronic disease

People who are capable of earning minimum wage within a suitable workplace, but not yet earning minimum wage, or do not have the possibility to do so. For example:

 Teenagers who leave school without a diploma, e.g. problems at home  Highly educated people with an autistic disorder, sensorial handicap or physical handicap  Former prisoners  People recovering from long-term illness or burn-out

In the next section I will discuss the Particpation Act, which is a relatively new law that has been introduced in the social domain of the Netherlands.

Participation Act The Participation Act was adopted in the Netherlands on January 1st, 2015. This act replaced the Employment and Assistance Act (WWB), the Sheltered Employment Act (WSW) and part of the Work and Employment Support for Disabled Young Persons (WAJONG). By introducing the Participation Act, the government sought to stimulate people with an illness or disability to work. An agreement was made between the government and employers to create additional jobs. This is regulated in the ‘Wet Banenafspraak’ and ‘quotum arbeidsbeperkten’.

The Participation Act was created to ensure that more people with an illness or disability find a job. For employers, this act means that they are expected to take an active role in creating job possibilities, e.g. exploring possibilities within their organisations and creating workplaces for people who have difficulty accessing the labour market. Organisations hiring people with an illness or disability are supported by municipalities and the UWV. The ‘Wet Banenafspraak’ states that employers are expected to create a total of 100,000 jobs for people with an illness or disability by 2026. From those 100,000 jobs, the government expects, or is obliged, to create 25,000 jobs.

According to the ‘quotum arbeidsbeperkten’, employers with more than 25 employees (or 40,575 salaried hours) are expected to hire a certain percentage of disabled employees. At the end of 2016, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment will conclude whether these numbers have been met or not. If those numbers are not reached, it is expected that the government will introduce a fine for employers/organisations that do not follow up the prescriptions from the government. Starting from 2018, it is possible that organisations will receive a fine of €5000,00 per year per unfilled job position.

On April 1st, 2015 the ‘Wet Banenafspraak en Quotum’ was adopted to confirm the agreements made in the Participation Act. In practice, this means that every municipality is responsible for the application of the Participation Act, and therefore seeks to collaborate with parties willing to adopt disabled employees. A result of the Participation Act is that the “regular SW facilities’’, or sheltered workplaces, are being reduced in order to allow employees to work in more regular work or learning places. The intention of the municipalities is to eventually have no people working in sheltered workplaces but, rather, to provide employee workplaces in the so called social enterprises, as mentioned earlier. These social enterprises are regular companies with a business model that focuses on the development of their employees as well as their commercial goal. This research aims to explore the collaboration between social enterprises and municipalities that have to interact in order to provide people with work in their organisations.

1.6 Thesis structure This thesis is structured as follows: following the introduction, chapter two provides the theoretical framework regarding social enterprise, collaboration factors and collaboration effectiveness. Chapter three covers the methodological choices made in order to target the research question. Chapter four presents the results of the study, in which the date of every factor will be presented. In chapter five the research question will be answered, propositions will be confirmed or declined and eventually I will discuss the results in combination with theory and my personal suggestions for future research.

Orientation of research context and problem statement

Description cause/reason of the research

Formulating research aim and research question

Describes what I want to research.

Literature study

Leads to description existing theory Reflection & revision

Methodological framework Planning Describes the choices made and approach in study

Data collection

Collecting data, semi-structured interviews

Analysis & results

Gathering insights from results

Conclusion & discussion

Answering research question & discussion Fig 1. Thesis structure

2.Theoretical background This chapter describes the theoretical foundation of this study. The definition of the theoretical concepts used in this research are discussed in the theoretical framework. Based on the existing literature, I discuss what possible factors are found and what the conceptual model is for this research.

2.1 Social enterprises Social enterprises are an up and coming phenomenon. The Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development (OECD) stated that this new type of enterprise and its economic and political importance can no longer be underestimated. Other scholars also emphasise the importance of social enterprises and social entrepreneurship to the economy. Hoogendoorn (2011) describes the positive contributions they provide in terms of innovation, productivity and growth. In the literature, various definitions of the social enterprise can be found. Some argue that there is no clear definition (Zahra, 2009). Social enterprises are, in general, concerned with the three Ps: People, Planet, Prosperity (Brabander et al., 2009). Social enterprises can be found in all different sectors, such as hospitality, industry, maintenance, cleaning and many more. This wide range of social enterprises makes it hard to define this concept. In general, social enterprises are businesses, bottom-up initiated and have a combination of a social and economic goals. Most social entrepreneurs place the social value higher than the economic value, impact first (Bornstein & Davis, 2010). For this research, social value is mainly about hiring people with disabilities or psychiatric disorders and guiding them to regular employment.

Alter (2007) provides a useful definition of social enterprise and, therefore, her definition is used in this research:

‘Any business venture created for a social purpose- mitigating/reducing a social problem or , and to generate social value while operating with the financial discipline, innovation and determination of a private actor.’

A social enterprise can be scaled on a spectrum from a pure non-profit organisational structure to a pure for-profit structure, with hybrids in the middle. Figure 2 shows the position of the social enterprise in relation to the spectrum provided by Alter (2007).

Traditional Non-profit Social Socially Corporation Traditional Non-profit with income- Enterprise Responsible Practising For-profit generating Business Social activities Responsibility Fig 2. Hybrid spectrum (Alter, 2007)

An example of a social enterprise is Autitalent. This organisation is a social enterprise that focuses on supporting administration for Human Resource (HRM), information- communication technology (ICT) and facility cases. These processes include various routine activities that are executed by the employees of Autitalent. All 30 employees have autism, but have an average or high I.Q. Autitalent wants to provide their employees with work at the office, but they can also send employees to clients to work on certain projects. This organisation is set up as a regular business, but has a social objective rather than commercial. This social enterprise clearly shows that different elements are used in one business model.

In the Netherlands, however, there is no special legal form for a social enterprise. It can be a B.V. (Besloten Vennootschap) but also a foundation. With a foundation, the organisation can accept gifts/investments, and with a B.V. there is a more commercial approach in which money can be earned (research institute TNO, 2011). In England and Italy there are special legal forms for social firms, and in Germany there is a different tax bracket for social entrepreneurs (Hoogendoorn, 2011). Often social businesses are confused with ‘corporate social responsibility’. There is a fundamental difference, however. Large sized commercial corporations can also have social goals, in which they, for example, support a certain good cause or local communities. These organisations also have a social goal next to their economical/commercial goal, but the focus is primarily on the commercial goals (Bornstein, 2010).

For social enterprises, the main and primary focus, is the social goal of the enterprise. This is in contrast with commercial business, which primarily wants to generate profit. In a social enterprise, the founder or shareholders are not the only ones who profit from the value created. It also contributes to a larger group in society, or society as a whole. Like the example of Autitalent, where people with autism or disabilities can work as an administrator. In this case, not only the owner of the enterprise profits from the company, but also the employees who are able to work and perhaps use the experience to help obtain a job in the future. Social entrepreneurship is also different from civil initiatives (Alter, 2007). A civil initiative could, for example, be when citizens living in the same street decide to protect their street together. These citizens could make appointments about which person will guard the street on what day, and protect the environment and properties of the neighbourhood. This initiative differs from social entrepreneurship because it does not necessarily have a business model. In social enterprises, there is money involved.

Effective collaboration According to Thomson (2001a), ‘effective collaboration is a process in which autonomous actors interact through formal and informal negotiation, jointly creating rules and structures governing their relationships and ways to act or decide on the issues that brought them together; it is a process involving shared norms and mutually beneficial interactions.’ Uzzi (1997) in his study on the paradox of embeddedness, mentions three major gains or benefits for partners when they are involved in an effective collaboration. Fine-grained information sharing, trust and joint problem solving

Factors contributing to collaboration The research aim of this study is to discover which factors contribute to the collaboration between public actors and social enterprises. Factors can be defined as ‘elements that bring about certain effects or results’. Thomson, Perry and Miller (2007) found and measured six different kinds of collaboration factors or also called dimensions. These factors are essential pieces of the puzzle, and social entrepreneurs and their partners need to acknowledge and balance them in order to solve or prevent collective action problems (Thomson et al., 2007). The following factors are mentioned:

 Administration  Organizational autonomy  Mutuality  Commitment  Norms  Governance

Contributing can be defined as helping to bring about a result, or to provide something in order to reach a common goal, add value, or benefit in some way. In the following section I discuss the different factors provided by Thomson et al. (2007).

2.3 Governance

Governance is defined as followed:

A set of coordinating and monitoring activities that enables the survival of the collaborative partnership or institution ‘(Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006).

2.4. Administration The second factor is administration. Thomson and Perry (2006) state that collaborations are not self-steering organisations. Organisations collaborate in order to achieve a certain objective. To do this, Provan and Kenis (2008) state that some form of administrative structure is required. In the context of this research, ‘administration’ means that ‘the goals of the partnership, the responsibilities and the organization’s roles are clear for all participants and the tasks are well coordinated’ (Thomson et al. 2008).

Thomson (2001) found that administration is an essential or critical factor of collaboration. In his study, participants were questioned about their worst and best experiences relating to their collaborations. It was repeatedly noted that in successful collaborations, clear roles and responsibilities were present. Whereas unsuccessful collaborations lacked clear role descriptions and responsibilities. In line with these findings, various scholars mention clear and regular communication (Das & Teng, 2007) and the presence of concrete achievable goals as key characteristics of an effective collaboration.

The implementation of coordination is complex, not only because of the required voluntary participation by both partners and possible loss of autonomy (Foster et al., 2001) but, in particular, because traditional coordination mechanisms, hierarchy, standardisation and routine are less feasible between organisations than within a single organisation (Mintzberg,1992)

2.5. Autonomy The third dimension discussed is autonomy. Thomson and Perry (2006) indicate that, in this dimension, the dual identity of the collaborating parties emerges. Organisational autonomy is about organisations continuing to meet their own organisational mission while active in a collaboration with another organisation. An autonomous organisation is one that maintains its own distinct identity and organisational authority separate from a dual or collaborative identity. When collaborating with other organisations, this creates a tension between self-interest and collective interest (Das & Teng, 2007). More specifically, tensions arise between attaining the objectives of their own organisation versus achieving the common or shared goals of the collaborating partners. Wood & Gray (1991) state that the autonomy dimension shows the contrast between individual and shared control in the collaboration. Actors try to protect their own identity by maintaining individual control. Das & Teng (2007), however, mention that for a collaboration to be successful, both actors have to communicate, share information with partners about their own organisation and its (in)capabilities regarding the collaboration. The choice to remain autonomous, to not share information, and not share the same goal and control, reduces the effectiveness of the collaboration. Thomson and Perry (2006) state therefore that differences regarding the objective of the collaboration have to be changed into a common shared view and objective. The art is to maintain one’s own identity, a level of autonomy and contribute to the common goal of the collaboration. For the purposes of this research, there are two distinct types of organisations with differing identities and organisational goals. The first is the social enterprise. Where there is a business, the entrepreneurial approach focuses on developing the workers (public goal) and achieve their financial goal, e.g. making profit, reaching certain amount of turnover. The other actor in this study, the municipality, focuses less on financial goals, but has a more public goal. To intensify the collaboration between these parties, it is essential that both parties focus on the same common goal and share information. Thomson and Perry (2006) state that solely sharing information is not enough, however, for the collaboration to survive.

2.6 Mutuality According to this dimension, a collaboration is effective when there are mutual beneficial interdependencies. In practice, it is necessary that actors within a collaboration acknowledge that there are mutual benefits to gain and that these benefits are used.

Jordan (1986) defined mutuality as followed: “both organisations affecting the other and being affected by the other; one extends oneself out to the other and is also receptive to the impact of the other”

2.7 Commitment At an individual level, commitment can be defined as ‘an individual’s intent to maintain the relationship and to remain psychologically attached to it’ (Rusbult, 1998). The individual wants to sustain a relationship with their partner over time. This definition can also be applied to this research, where parties have to be committed to successfully work with each other.

2.8 Norms Norms are acceptable standards of behaviour within an organisation or within a partnership. They are informal rules of behaviour. They provide order to organisational activities and influence the behaviour of employees or organisations. Conformity to norms is a powerful force in the internal environment of an organisation or partnership. Trust in a collaborative environment is defined as, “An organisation’s belief to have confidence in its partner’s reliability and integrity that would lead to positive outcomes for all the organisations involved in a partnership” (Cheng et al., 2008). Furthermore, trust makes organisations feel it is worthwhile to stay and work with other organisations rather than abandon a partnership. Trust is a central component of collaboration because it reduces complexity and transaction costs more quickly than other forms of organisation (Smith 1995).

2.9 Conceptual model Collaboration factors

Governance

Mutuality P1p1

 Commitment Collaboration effectiveness

Administration

Norms

Org.autonomy

Figure 3. Conceptual model

2.10 Propositions

- Governance has a positive influence on collaboration effectiveness

- High mutuality has a positive influence on collaboration effectiveness

- Low mutuality has a negative influence on collaboration effectiveness

- High commitment has a positive influence on collaboration effectiveness

- Low commitment has a negative influence on collaboration effectiveness

- Administration has a positive influence on collaboration effectiveness

- High autonomy has a negative influence on collaboration effectiveness

- Low autonomy has a negative influence on collaboration effectiveness

2.11 Operationalisation table

Concept Definition Dimension Indicator Governance ‘A set of coordinating - Formal agreement - Agreements are formally stated in a and monitoring - Rules/policy contract. activities that enables - Coordination

the survival of the - Decision making - Referring to who makes the collaborative decisions regarding the collaboration. partnership or institution ‘(Bryson, - The collaboration is coordinated via Crosby, and Stone a relationship manager. 2006). - Rules of the collaboration are listed on paper.

Administration ‘the presence of -Clear objectives collaboration - Both parties understand the concrete achievable -Clear task (descriptions) collaboration’s objective. goals, and good -Clear responsibilities communication -Regular contact - Both parties understand their tasks regarding the collaboration.

-Tasks, responsibilities and objectives are formalised in a contract.

- Both parties are aware of their responsibilities.

-Daily contact via email or phone.

-Weekly contact via email or phone. Mutuality “both organisations - Depending on resources of - No survival without subsidies, affecting the other partner employees provided by municipality. and being affected by - Complementary resources the other; one extends (money, expertise) - Resources of the municipality oneself out to the - Visits partner complement our resources. other and is also - Similar goals receptive to the - Reciprocity - Partners visit each other every impact of the other” month. (Jordan, 1986,). - Partners visit each other once per quarter.

- Partners visit each other once per year.

- Both parties have the same goals for the collaboration.

- Both parties put equal effort and take equal initiative in the relationship (come up with ideas, look for contact). Organisational “Maintaining their - Knowledge/information sharing - The municipality always gives Autonomy own distinct identity - Influence organisational mission information when requested. and organizational - Interests

authority separate - Information is freely shared between from (though both parties. simultaneously with) the collaborative - No information is deliberately kept identity’’ back. (Thomson ,2006) - Organizational interest equal important as mutual interest

Norms “Norms are a set of - Trustworthy partner - Both parties share organisational rules for human - Long-term relationship specific information. behaviour in the - Consequences - Partner has good intentions organisation’’ - If rules are not met, the collaboration will be ended.

Commitment “The extent to which - Willingness to invest in - The municipality is (not) willing to a person/organization collaboration financially invest in collaboration. wants to remain in the relationship’ - The municipality is (not) willing to (Thomson, 2007) invest time in collaboration.

3. Methodological framework

In this section, the research design of this study and the methods used to collect and analyse the data are described.

3.1 Qualitative research design This explorative research examines which factors contribute to the collaboration between public actors and social enterprises focused on labour participation in the Netherlands. A multiple case-study design has been adopted. The advantage of case studies is that it makes it possible to obtain in-depth information. This suits the nature of this research because of the specifications of the subject (Eisenhardt, 1989). There are several reasons why the choice has been made to perform a case study. First, social entrepreneurship is a popular phenomenon, but little is known about the potential of collaboration between public and private actors. Second, a multiple case study is able to describe in greater detail the daily reality of a variety of social enterprises. Thus, it is possible to associate the outcomes of the study to specific social issues. This study can be used to provide social entrepreneurs with practical tools and greater insight in their collaborations with their partners.

3.2 Data collection To fully understand the relationship between social entrepreneurs and public actors, I chose to conduct in-depth interviews. An interview is a conversation between an interviewer and a respondent, in which the interviewer tries to obtain information from the respondent. Interviews are an appropriate method for explorative research (Van Thiel, 2010).

Before the interviews were conducted, a literature study was undertaken, which led to the formation of the theoretical framework. From thereon, the process of operationalising the concepts into indicators was performed. The concepts, dimensions and indicators are the foundation for the data collection. The methods used to collect the data in this study were semi- structured interviews, document analysis and observation.

Document analysis Interviews Observations Theory Transcripts Field notes Articles Coding Figure 4. data collection methods Boeije et al. (2009) define the qualitative interview as a conversation between an interviewer and one or several interviewees. Below, I have listed the respondents:

Respondent Function Sector Tommy van der Giessen –Lumeco B.V. Manager Assembly, lighting Erik Schalk – Road2Work Owner Recycling Rob Jansen - Chain Owner Assembly, logistics Niels Deen - Soci-com Owner Assembly Paul Vermeer - Autitalent Owner ICT Peter Dobbelen – De Meewerkers Owner Assembly, logistics, Esther de Beus – Biga Groep Manager Assembly, packaging Cees van Pagee - Futuris Owner Packaging Jessica Melchers – BGS Manager Assembly, printing Dhr. Aarts – De Betho Groep Director Assembly, packaging Harry Lemmens - IT Vitae Director, boardmember ICT Marcel Meppelink – Prio verve / Risse Director Facility Groep Marco Olijslager - Hacrogroen HRM manager Facility Fig. 5 Interview respondents

These interviews were conducted according to a topic list that covered the concepts and indicators as given in the operationalisation table. The interviews consisted of questions about behaviour, opinions, attitudes and experiences related to collaboration with public partners. The interviews were semi-structured. This meant that the same subject, the collaboration with the public partner, was discussed for all respondents, but not according to a fixed questionnaire.

By paying attention to the same topics I was able to see where possible tension between the two parties could be located. In this research, I focused on the current vision of the public actors (managers) and social entrepreneurs, and their relationship with each other.

All interviews were recorded and transcripts made to analyse the interviews. In addition to the semi-structured interviews, observations were made during an event organised by Social Enterprise NL. In order to structure the data found, the following table was used.

3.3 Data presentation The data is presented by describing the answers that most respondents gave for every dimension. The statements and results that are described are based on the outcome of the analysis of the interviews. In the results section quotes from respondents are used to deepen the founded results.

3.3 Data analysis Coding process To be able to analyse the data I recorded all the interviews and made transcripts of these interviews. With the help of the transcript, I analysed the interviews.

The first step in analysing the data was the process of open coding (Strauss & Corbin, 2007). In this phase, I read all interviews and coded the transcripts into categories by using Microsoft Excel. In the open coding phase there is little distinction made in relevance. When I had coded all the transcripts, I proceeded to the second step, which is axial coding, or focused coding (Boeije, 2010). The codes were analysed and linked to a theme. From these, themes, subthemes and categories were made. In some cases, I described a word that I formulated myself, in others I used the exact words of the respondent. The word thought to best cover the content of the fragment was used. It was important to use words that were close to the data and research subject. Eventually, all the subthemes were divided into large categories and linked to the dimensions stated earlier.

In the final phase of the analysis, I used the method of selective coding (Boeije, 2010). Here, I tried to make sense of the different categories. With regard to the theoretical framework, I identified different key terms/characteristics to identify the factors. I compared these characteristics with the statements of the respondents to identify the different types of factors.

It is not easy to distinguish the dimensions given that the different types of factors are closely interlinked or sometimes overlap like mutuality and autonomy, in which both cases can be asked about interdependency.

3.4 Unit of analysis and unit of observation The unit of analysis in this study is the social enterprise, and the social entrepreneur is the unit of observation, since he/she acts as the representative for the social enterprise during the interviews and has the most insight on how the different dimensions affect the effectiveness of the collaboration with the municipalities

3.5 Sample strategy Interviews were conducted to obtain qualitative data. In order to select enterprises that were suitable for this qualitative research, purposive sampling was applied. Given that this research focuses on social enterprises in labour participation and their public partners, social entrepreneurs were interviewed about their opinions and insights. In order to arrange interviews, mainly snowball sampling was applied. At the beginning of this research, contact was made with Dichterbij, which is an organisation that provides people with low job prospects with workplaces. These workplaces can be found in social enterprises such as Lumeco. Given that they were in contact with different social entrepreneurs and were interested in this study, snowball sampling is a good method for reaching those social entrepreneurs.

In addition, the database of Social Enterprise NL was also consulted to find potential interviewees. The reason for selecting mainly social entrepreneurs for the interviews is because they have already started and developed their social enterprise to achieve their social mission. In addition, these owners are in a position where they can steer the social enterprise and are most keen on the objectives of the enterprise. In general, they are also directly in contact with their partners, such as clients, suppliers and investors. They are the ones who negotiate with partners and know which agreements are made. I have deliberately chosen not to interview public actors as I am personally interested in the view of the entrepreneurs and read articles about social entrepreneurs that come along difficulties in collaborating with public organisations like municipalities.

3.6 Research quality indicators Credibility The codes and categories developed after transcribing were constantly checked to see whether they match the primary data, in order to keep this research credible. The initial basis was a literature study; it is expected that subsequently, all of the interviewees will agree to contribute to this study and will also be given the opportunity to reconsider their thoughts and opinions. During the interviews, observations were done in order to capture behaviour and attitudes. The use of a document study provides information about existing social enterprises. This type of data collection provides triangulation, which contributes to a credible, in-depth understanding of the outcomes. The involvement of experts in the area of social entrepreneurship also contributes to the credibility of this study, given that they add information by expressing their opinions.

Transferability Transferability refers to the degree in which study results can be generalised to other contexts. In this study, the transferability is low because the focus is on a specific part of the social sector. The transferability of the research will also not be high, because generalisation of the outcomes will be hard given the small number of cases.

Dependability The dependability of this research is kept high by carefully capturing and documenting all the steps taken. This includes recording and transcribing the interviews. As stated earlier, all transcripts contain the full conversation that has taken place with the interviewee.

Confirmability The main concepts used in this research are derived from Thomsons (2006) theory that has been thoroughly studied and, therefore, the confirmability is sufficient.

3.6 Answering the research question. The main steps in this research, and therefore the road to answering the research question are;

 Topic list  Contact interviewees  Conduct interviews  Transcribe interviews  Coding  Search for patterns  Compare findings with propositions  Mention new possible insights  Draw conclusion(s)

H4. Results In this section, I will analyse and discuss the results that are derived from the interviews that are conducted. As stated earlier in the methodological section, the respondents were asked about their experiences in collaborating with municipalities. The questions that have been asked are based on the indicators that can be found in the operationalization table. To analyse the results I will discuss the results using the collaboration dimensions provided by Thomson (2007).

4.1 Governance The first dimension that will be discussed in this section is the ‘governance dimension’. In the interviews that have been conducted, respondents were asked about governance related topics regarding the collaboration with their public partner.

Actors that collaborate have to understand how they can jointly make decisions about rules that control their behaviour and relationships, create structures to reach agreement about the collaborating activities and the mutual objects of the collaboration. The collaboration becomes effective when actors develop collective sets of rules which indicate which actions are allowed or not allowed, which information is necessary, how costs and revenues are shared and how conflicts are being mediated.

On the question whether agreements regarding the collaboration itself are formally stated in a contract, a large part (11 resp.) of the respondents confirmed that agreements were noted However, more than the halve of those respondents (7 resp.) mentioned that they work with so- called ‘framework contracts’, this kind of contract includes the red line of the collaboration and indicates the intention of both parties to collaborate with each other. A small part of the respondents (5 resp.) mentioned that they do work with fixed term contracts in which all costs/revenues, responsibilities, goal of the collaboration, rules and possible sanctions are included in the contract. From the interviews with the respondents working with frame-work contracts it became clear that if agreements were not specific defined in the contract, it could lead to unclear situations, which could lead to misuse of power, as stated below in the interview with Niels Deen.

They have the possibility to say, yes we do have a frame-work contract, but that does not mean that you will get more employees from us. (Niels Deen, Soci-com)

Most social entrepreneurs (9 resp.) described the municipalities as ‘clients’ in their relationship. In their context, this means that the social enterprises, provide work and learning places for employees from the target group, that are being send by the municipalities. The municipalities provide the enterprises with subsidies based on the wage value of the employee. In this kind of form, the municipality can be mentioned as the initiator for collaboration, because they seek working places for employees that are covered by the Participation Act.

4.2 Administration The second dimension that is discussed during the interviews, is the administration dimension.

As stated earlier, Provan and Kenis (2008) state that some kind of administrative structure is required to have an effective collaboration. Administration in an effective collaboration means that the goal of the collaboration, the responsibilities and the ’ roles are clear for all participants. In addition, tasks are well coordinated.

From analyzing the interviews it became clear that the majority of the respondents (8 resp.) mentioned that it is clear how the collaboration is coordinated, what the goals are, what the responsibilities are and what their personal role is within the collaboration. From those respondents, five respondents noted that these goals, tasks, roles and responsibilities were included in a formal contract. One of the respondents mentioned that because those points are clearly administered, all parties know what they have to do and few questions are asked relating to responsibilities, tasks and goals.

I: So you mention that because all these points are addressed in the contract it is clear for you what the responsibilities , roles and goals are. Do you think that this applies to both parties, so also for

the municipality?

Jessica Melchers (BIGA): Yes, from the feedback I get from them I can conclude that it is clear for them and I also get few questions.

The above stated quote is an example of a collaboration in which many details of the collaboration are noted in the contract. However, six respondents mentioned that they experience difficulties with municipalities in how they determine the wage value of an employee. Most respondents collaborate with multiple municipalities and noticed that there is no uniform structure for determining the wage value of an employee. A situation is described by a respondent who noticed that for an employee with a certain level of disability, it can vary between municipalities, how much subsidy they provide and this can vary between a few hundred euro’s and six thousand euro’s. From analyzing the interviews it became clear that this was a point that is yet to be improved and more transparency, uniformity is needed.

Esther de Beus (BGS): That is a constant battle that we have with the municipality, about the wage Asvalue mentioned of those people.earlier, a difference between a social enterprise and a municipality is that the social enterprise is more entrepreneurial, commercial and focused on making profit, than a public organization like a municipality. Nine respondents mentioned this difference in attitude.

They mention that municipalities in general act slow when a suggestion or request has been submitted by them. Most respondents do understand that municipalities are still not perfectly adapted to the Participation Act and the relatively new social enterprises. The respondents stated that there is no section in the municipalities or point of contact related specific to social enterprises.

One respondent mentioned that when he started to collaborate with five different municipalities, he personally visited all five municipalities and met with employees to connect himself to a fixed contact person per municipality.

Marco Olijslager: Within those municipalities I have contact persons which I make agreements with,

I discuss vacancies with and also contact when I need extra manpower.

This is an example of a respondent that does have fixed contacts within the municipalities and from his experience, he stated that this leads to a more effective collaboration.

In addition, I asked respondents how often they have contact with the municipalities and how they have contact. Five respondents mentioned that on a contract-level, the contact is four times per year, every quarter. This contact is in the form of meetings with councillors from the municipalities, in which they mainly discuss the development and results during the past quarter. Two respondents mentioned that there is one yearly meeting with councillors from the municipalities and six respondents mentioned that they have meetings on contract-level, twice a year.

In addition to the contract-level or strategic meetings, ten of the respondents mentioned that their operational contact moments with the municipalities are once or more times a week. These contact moments are mainly via telephone or email. Three respondents mentioned that they only have contact incidental.

4.3 Autonomy The next dimension that has been discussed in the interviews, is the autonomy dimension. As mentioned earlier in this thesis, for an effective collaboration it is important that the organizations’ objective or own-interest shows similarities with the mutual objective or mutual interest of the collaboration. In addition, this mutual objective or interest has to contribute to the individual interests or objective of the organizations that are involved in the collaboration.

From the analysis of the interviews it became clear that all respondents acknowledge similarities between the interests for which they, as social enterprise stand for and the mutual interest of the collaboration with the municipalities. In addition, respondents also mention that in their involvement in the collaboration, they also represent the interests of the social enterprise. This became clear from the following statements made by respondents:

Cees van Pagee (Futuris): So, we often talk about ’work experience placements’, but we target the same goal. It is about creating work to develop their skills to eventually have a regular job.

Tommy van der Giessen (Lumeco): Well, our mutual goal is to create as much employment possibilities for our target group (people with a distance to the labour market) and share our Althoughknowledge both and partiesexperience have as much the same as possible goal, thereto reach is this still goal. some uncertainty among the social entrepreneurs regarding the allocation of employees by the municipality. In the interviews I have conducted, this was a recurring theme. Nine respondents mentioned that they experience difficulties regarding the influx of possible employees. The Dutch word ‘’Kaartenbak’’was used by many respondents as a synonym for the potential employees who are still at home and are qualified to work for the social enterprise. The municipality is responsible for the influx of employees and many respondents notice that they have sufficient workplaces, but receive less or no employees from the municipality. This is an example in which the individual interest of the municipality has an negative influence on the mutual interest of the collaboration. Harry Lemmens from ItVitea confirmed this general concern of the social entrepreneurs with the following quote:

Harry Lemmens (ItVitea): Then they tell me that the card boxes (Kaartenbakken) are empty, I also hear that from other social entrepreneurs. Then I think, how on earth is that possible?

4.4 Mutuality In this section I will discuss and analyse the findings concerning the mutuality dimension. According to this dimension, a collaboration is effective when there are mutual beneficial interdependencies. In practice, it is necessary that actors within a collaboration acknowledge that there are mutual benefits to gain and that these benefits are used. In the interviews that have been conducted, questions were asked about whether social enterprise experienced mutual benefits and if so, how this is reflected.

From the interviews it became clear that all respondents acknowledge mutual benefits regarding the collaboration. The mutual benefits are reflected in the exchange of complementary resources. The municipalities provide the social enterprises with employees and subsidize them partly, and the social enterprises provide the employees the opportunity develop their skills and ultimately get a regular job. Almost all respondents (12) acknowledge that they are for a large part (more than 50%) dependent on the municipalities in order to maintain their business model as a social enterprise. This is also reflected in the following statements made by respondents during the interviews:

Cees van Pagee (Futuris): If you ask me: Are you dependent on the municipality? Then I have to say yes, we are around 60% dependent on the municipality.

Esther de Beus (BGS): I must collaborate with the municipality to get employees. If I put out a vacancy or an add that says, ‘looking for disabled person’ than it is very hard to get responses.

As stated earlier, most respondents acknowledge their dependency, however some respondents (4) also mention that their enterprise could survive without the support of the municipality. The consequence then will be that they will go further as a regular company without the ‘social mission’.

Tommy van der Giessen (Lumeco): Well, yes if we want to continue with this form or business model, we are dependent of the municipality. However, for us it is not a necessity to survive. We can also work with only certified electricians, but then prices will be a bit higher. They are more expensive. However, we have made a deliberate choice to work as a social enterprise, but it is not a necessity.

Apart from the fact that the social enterprise will receive less employees, all respondents mentioned that without subsidies from the municipalities, hardly any employees from the targetgroup would be hired. If these employees are not subsidized, it is financially unattractive for the social enterprise to hire them. Without those subsidies, the social entrepreneurs have to pay the workers more than a regular minimum wage, for which they can also hire employees that are 100% capable and do not need extra care.

. Esther de Beus (BGS): Then I can better hire a student, that is cheaper than someone we have to accompany and is not %100 capable to work

4.5 Commitment The next dimension that will be discussed is the commitment dimension. Commitment is the extent to which an organization wants to remain in a relationship, or collaboration. Collaboration will be effective if the organization has the willingness to undertake collective action with other actors, even if other actors do not have that willingness. Therefore during the interview, respondents were asked about the willingness of their organization and the municipalities, to participate in the collaboration.

From the conducted interviews it became clear that all respondents were willing to participate and invest time and money in the collaboration with the municipalities. Most respondents are entrepreneurs that want to grow as a company and dare to invest time and money in the collaboration. Five respondents mentioned that they take initiative in the collaboration and regularly send improvement proposals for the collaboration to the municipalities. However, four of those respondents mentioned that they doubt the willingness of the municipality to innovate. They do understand that if they come up with suggestions, they will not directly be adopted, but it is often the case that municipalities act inert or react slow.

One respondent mentioned this topic and stated the following:

. Rob Jansen (Chain Logistics) : When you see how many changes there have been in municipalities recently due the Participation Act and how there has been cut in their organizations, it is also understandable that no one is encouraged to do something out of the box

From the interviews that have been conducted, I found a recurring pattern in which the social entrepreneurs do understand that at this moment, the municipalities are still reforming due to the Participation Act and that improvement proposals can take longer to be processed. They also noticed that the municipalities in general are willing to invest, because they do provide subsidies and want to learn more about social enterprises and also show the intention to collaborate by signing agreements. Norms In this section, I will present the results of questions that are part of the norms dimension. Norms are a set of rules for human behaviour in the organization. A specific, but critical factor in collaboration is the trustworthiness of the partner you are collaborating with.

Das & Teng (2001) mention trust as a key element in inter-organizational relationships. It is particularly effective in reducing opportunistic behaviour, better integrating the collaboration partners and reducing formal contracting.

Rob Jansen (Chain Logistics) : Client: Rob, we can formalize every agreement, but if we just give each other a handshake we both know what to expect from each other.

During the interview the respondents were asked about how much they trust their partners and how much they honour existing agreements. From the interviews it became clear that 10 respondents fully trust the municipality in their collaboration. They share organizational specific information and communicate open and transparent towards each other. Six respondents trust the municipalities and their intentions, but question their abilities. As stated earlier, a significant part of the respondents experienced difficulties when the wage value of the employees is being determined by the municipality. Respondents are uncertain about how they determine those wage values and why this is not transparent.

H5. Conclusion In this section the conclusion and discussion is outlined. Firstly, the research question will be answered. Furthermore, the implications for further research are discussed.

H5.1 Answering the research question The research question that is stated at the beginning of this research is: Which factors contribute to the collaboration effectiveness between social enterprises focused on labour participation and municipalities?

To discover which factors contribute to the collaboration effectiveness, a conceptual model has been made. Linked to that model several propositions are made, based on the theory that has been studied during the research. In this section the propositions will be discussed and we find the answer for the research question.

Propositions  Governance has a positive influence on collaboration effectiveness

This proposition is confirmed by the data.  High mutuality has a positive influence on collaboration effectiveness This proposition is confirmed by the data.  Low mutuality has a negative influence on collaboration effectiveness This proposition is confirmed by the data  High commitment has a positive influence on collaboration effectiveness This proposition is confirmed by the data.  Low commitment has a negative influence on collaboration effectiveness

This proposition is confirmed by the data.

 Administration has a positive influence on collaboration effectiveness

This proposition is confirmed by the data.

 Norms have a positive influence on collaboration effectiveness

This proposition is confirmed by the data.

 High autonomy has a negative influence on collaboration effectiveness

This is confirmed by the data

 Low autonomy has a negative influence on collaboration effectiveness

This is partly confirmed by the data

Answer on research question: All factors that were studied contribute to the collaboration effectiveness, except for autonomy. H5.2 Discussion

Governance-dimension From this research it became clear that if contracts were used to note the responsibilities, roles, tasks, but also the goals for the collaboration on a detailed level, this proved to stimulate the collaboration effectiveness. Less time is needed to discuss cases with each-other and both actors know what they can expect from each-other. However, more detailed contracts seem to be leading to less communication and less meetings between partners (Das & Teng, 2007). One respondent noted that he did not like that everything was formalized and that there were fixed meeting moments. This respondent had a strong preference for building a social relationship with partners. If we solely look at the effectiveness of governance, we can conclude that a high level of governance leads to high effectiveness, but can also be negative for the collaborations’ intensity. Administration-dimension Regarding the administration dimension, most respondents mentioned that communicating and the exchange of information is going well. However, during the interviews a significant part of the respondents mentioned that it was unclear why they could not get more employees from the municipalities. In this point it became clear that the municipalities are not fully designed to adopt the Participation Act yet. Due to bureaucracy and the complexity of their organization (Mintzberg, 1992) changes are not done within a short period of time. Autonomy-dimension As stated earlier by Thomson (2007) collaboration will be proven to be more effective if the mutual goal shows similarities with the organizational or individual goal and the mutual goal also contributes to the individual goal. Based on this research it can be stated that this is also confirmed within this type of relationship (social enterprise – municipality). The concerned actors, social entrepreneurs and municipalities (councillors) do realize that their goals are overlapping and more intensive collaboration could lead to better understanding of each other’s individual goals. This is in accordance to what Thomson(2007) in his theory about collaborations. Mutuality-dimension Thomson (2007) stated that a high level of mutuality improves collaboration effectiveness. This is also confirmed in the interviews that I have conducted. Respondents acknowledge their interdependencies and mentioned that they are for a great part dependent of the municipality. This comes about in subsidies as well as the influx of new employees. Municipalities are depending on the social enterprise who now have taken over the rolls of the social workingplaces. Both parties are aware of their interdependencies. Most respondents noted that if they are not subsidised, they cannot survive as a social enterprise, but will go further as a commercial enterprise. Thomson (2007) mentioned that by collaborating and exchanging complementary resources that the other party does not posses, leads to more effective collaboration. Which I can also confirm from my findings during this study.

Commitment-dimension This dimension is about the commitment that both parties have for the collaboration. It became clear for me that the social entrepreneurs were very committed but were also restrained in bringing up new ideas to the municipalities. If I would repeat this research, I would bring the commitment dimension under the mutuality dimension due to their overlapping values. Thomson (2007) mentioned commitment as a dimension, that also has a positive effect the collaborations’ effectiveness. This is also confirmed in this research and it was remarkable to notice how committed the social entrepreneurs are in the collaboration. Norms-dimension This dimension has proven to have a lot of overlapping values with trust. Various scholars, like Das & Teng and Provan & Milward mentioned that trust is a critical characteristic of an effective collaboration. In this research respondents confirmed that they fully trust the municipalities, but are uncertain about how well prepared the municipalities are regarding the Participation Act. In this research it became clear that trust also contributes to the effectiveness of the collaboration. The norms-dimension described by Thomson (2007), is mainly about trust and therefore I would suggest for further research to use trust as a dimension.

Most factors that were studied contribute to the collaboration effectiveness, except autonomy.

References

Alter, K. (2007). Social Enterprise Typology. Virtue Ventures LLC.

Benington, J. & Moore, M. (2010). Public Value: Theory and Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Boeije, H., ’t Hart, H & Hox, J. (2009). Onderzoeksmethoden. Den Haag: Boomonderwijs.

Brabander, R., Emmerik, R., Pijpelink, P., Walraven, G. & Zoeteweij, P. (2009). Een waardevolle spagaat. Een verkenning van sociaal ondernemerschap. Lectoraat van de stad Apeldoorn.

Brouwer, P., De Graaf, B., Smit, A., Verweij, E. (2011). Sociale ondernemingen en werknemers met een arbeidsbeperking. TNO.

Cheng, J-H., Yeh, C-H. & Tu, C-W. (2008). Trust and knowledge sharing in green supply chains. : An International Journal, 13(4), p. 283 – 295.

Dees, J.G. (1998). The meaning of ‘Social Entrepreneurship’.

Deraedt, E. & van Opstal, W. (2009). Een monitor voor de sociale inschakelingseconomie in Vlaanderen. Methodologierapport, Steunpunt WSE – HIVA.

Edwards, M. (2010). Small change. Why business won’t save the world. San Fancisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc. Franssen, B. & Scholten, P. (2011). Handboek voor sociaal ondernemen in Nederland. Assen: Van Gorcum. Goedee, J. & Entken, A. (2015). (Ont)keten – Implementeren van werken in ketens, Den Haag: Lemma. Harding, R. (2007). Understanding Social Entrepreneurship. Industry & Higher education, p. 73-84. Hillen, M., Panhuijsen, S. & Verloop, W (2014). Iedereen winst. Samen met de overheid naar een bloeiende social enterprise sector. Amsterdam: Social Enterprise NL.

Hillen, M., Panhuijsen, S. & Verloop, W. (2014b). De social enterprise als businesspartner van de gemeente. Amsterdam: Social Enterprise NL.

Hoogendoorn, B. (2011). Social entrepreneurship in the modern economy, warm glow cold feet. Erasmus University

Klijn, E. & Teisman, G.R. (2003). Institutional and Strategic Barriers to Public-Private Partnerships: An Analysis of Dutch Cases, Public Money & Management, 23(3), p. 137-146.

Klijn, E. & van Twist, M.J.W. (2007). Publiek-Private Samenwerking in Nederland.

Korosec, R. L. & Bernman, E. M. (2006). Municipal support for social entrepreneurs. review, 66 (3), p. 448.

Labyrinth (2013). Sociaal ondernemen: passie en poen

Mair, J. & Martí, I. (2006). Social entrepreneurship research: A source of explanation, prediction, and delight. Journal of World Business, 41, p. 36-44.

Mair, J., Robinson, J. & Hockerts, K. (2006). Social Entrepreneurship. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.

Maretich and Bolton (2010). Social Enterprise from definitions to development. Alliance Publishing Trust

Martin, R. L. & Osberg, S. (2007). Social Entrepreneurship: The Case for Definition. Stanford Review, p. 29-39.

McKinsey & Company (2013). Social Enterprise Monitor 2013. Retrieved from http://social- enterprise.nl/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/SE-Monitor-.pdf

Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken (2013). IOB study: public-private partnerships in developing countries. Den Haag: BZ.

Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (2009). Iedereen doet naar vermogen mee. Kabinetreactie op het advies van de commissie Fundamentele herbezinning Wsw. Den Haag: SZW.

Mintzberg, H. (1993). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Prentice Hall, Inc.

Moore, M. (2000). Managing for Value: ‘Organizational strategy in for-profit, nonprofit, and governmental organizations’. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 183-204.

Moore, M. (2012). Recognizing Public Value: Developing a Public Value Account and a Public Value Scorecard. Retrieved from http://publiccommons.ca/public/uploads/literature/Moore- 9.4.12.pdf

Moore, M. (2013). Recognizing Public Value. London: Harvard University Press.

Nicholls, A. (2006). Social entrepreneurship: new models of sustainable social change. Oxford: University press.

Noordegraaf, M. (2004). Management in het publieke domein: issues, instituties en instrumenten. Bussum: Coutinho.

Nyssens, M. (2006). Social enterprise: At the crossroads of market, public policies and . Retrieved from http://www.thebrokeronline.eu/Articles/The-emerging-social-enterprise#

OECD. (1999). Social enterprises. Paris: OECD publications.

OECD, (2010). Social Entrepreneurship and Social Innovation. Paris: OECD publications.

Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic Responses to Institutional Processes. Academy of Management Review 16(1), p. 145-179.

Provan, K. & Kenis, P. (2007). Modes of network governance: structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, p. 229-252.

Rijksoverheid (2014). Wat is de overheid van plan met de participatiewet?

Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships, 5, p. 357–391.

Sociaal Economische Raad (2015). Sociale ondernemingen: Een verkennend advies.

Thomson A.M., Perry J.L. & Miller T.K. (2007). Conceptualizing and measuring collaboration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Advance.

Van Ham, H. & Koppenjan, J. (2001). Building Public Private Partnerships: Assessing and managing risks in port development, Public Management Review, 3(4), p. 593-616.

Volberda, H., Jansen, J., Tempelaar, M & Heij, T. (2011). Monitoren van sociale innovatie: slimmer werken, dynamisch managen en flexibel organiseren. Tijdschrift voor HRM,1, p. 85-110.

Wood, D., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a Comprehensive Theory of Collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27 (2), p. 139–162.

Zahra, S., Gedajlovic, E., Neubaum, D., & Shulman, J.M. (2009). A typology of social entrepreneurs: motives, search processes and ethical challenges. Journal of business venturing, 24 (5), p. 519- 532.