Case D partnership implementation

The fourth partnership analysed is between Case D, a social enterprise supporting the education and training needs of refugee youth, and their BP, operating within the finance industry. Data relating to each of the key themes within the implementation stage of partnership, being the resources contributed by partner organisations and the power dynamics that exist in the relationship, will be presented below.

5.4.4.1 Resource contributions

A number of resources were shared between Case D and their BP, and are outlined in Table 16. Examples of key resources are highlighted in bold text. As illustrated by this

-151-

table, the primary contribution made by Case D’s BP was financial support in the form of grant funding, which was used to support the development of the social enterprise. The second contribution made was the provision of professional development support for the social enterprise, as well as access to business networks. Both of these resources supported the development of the commercial capabilities of Case D, thus helping to achieve

objectives associated with their commercial logic. The commercial objectives of the social enterprise were also supported by the publicity opportunities provided by their BP, which supported objectives associated with both the social benefit and commercial logic of the social enterprise. Inclusion within their BP’s marketing campaigns created exposure for Case D and opportunities to increase public awareness regarding the activities undertaken as a result of its social benefit and commercial logics.

Table 16 - Resource contributions within Case D's partnership

Resources contributed by BP

Resource contributions supporting positive commercial outcomes for social enterprise

Financial support (via funding and discounted products/services)

…as well as receiving the funding from them (D1)

Access to business expertise and knowledge

From our point of view it was pitched as being more than that – it was pitched as being funding along with professional development and/or links to other opportunities through greater networking, and leveraging off the skills of the business as well (D1)

Resource contributions supporting achievement of both social and commercial objectives of social enterprise

Enhanced publicity regarding enterprise’s beneficiaries

This particular foundation at one point brought it consultants from their marketing area, who had sub-contracted to a marketing company who came in to run a media opportunity, a photo-shoot with us (D1)

Resources contributed by social enterprises

Resources supporting positive commercial outcomes for BP

Use of enterprise resources to develop positive publicity for business

...Which was partly about promoting their business brand and showing that they’re connected to the community by coming to our space and being filmed walking around the studio and showing their support (D1)

The inclusion within the marketing activities of their BP required Case D to provide the business access to the social enterprise’s space, as well as to photos and videos of staff and

-152-

students. As such, the exchange value of Case D was linked to the social activities and individuals engaged with the social enterprise as a result of their social benefit logic. Providing their BP access to staff and students supported efforts of their BP to develop their image as a socially responsible organisation.

5.4.4.3 Relationship dynamics

As a grant agreement, the partnership between Case D and their BP concluded after a period of one year. According to participant D1, the relationship, whilst fulfilling its objectives, had led to negative experiences for the social enterprise. These experiences had arisen as a result of uneven power dynamics within the relationship whereby the BP, as the provider of funding, was perceived to hold a position of power over the social enterprise (see Table 17).

Table 17 - Social enterprise partnership adaptations (Case D)

Social enterprise adaptations

Alignment with

marketing requirements

At times it was problematic because we were asked to do media activities that were quite intrusive for students and staff, we didn’t feel that we were in a position to negotiate or say no. So that was problematic (D1)

As a result, Case D had felt pressured into adapting to their BP’s requirements in relation to gaining access to the social enterprise and its students and employees, requirements that had not been communicated clearly to participant D1. As such, the participant felt

pressured to sacrifice the values associated with their social benefit logic in preference for the commercial logic of their BP:

‘Because they granted money to us we felt we were powerless to say no. There was a sense that they had bought the right to come in and do whatever they wanted to do in the place, even though it was supposed to be more of a philanthropic arrangement’ (D1).

As a result of conforming to their BP’s wishes in relation to the collection of material for their CSR campaign, the Case D experienced disruptions to their social programs and

-153-

commercial operations, and had to manage conflict that arose out of negative interactions between the marketing team and the social enterprise’s staff and students. Participant D1 felt that their core social mission had been compromised:

‘We tried our best to manage the marketing circus as it came through – but it upset a number of our staff and students because of the way that they were treated. And that was something that really compromises our core mission, as one of our most important values and principles was to create a safe space for our students and staff, and unfortunately on that occasion the behaviour of these people

compromised that’(D1).

In summary, Case D’s relationship was characterised by unbalanced power relations between partners. The exchange value of Case D’s BP was perceived to be centred upon their commercial competencies, and the financial support provided to the social enterprise. This was perceived to place their BP within a position of power in the relationship, leading to pressures upon Case D to prioritise their partner’s commercial logic over the social enterprise’s social benefit logic.