The role of stakeholder networks and motivations in Corporate Cultural Responsibility : an analysis of Amsterdam’s Cultural Industries

(1)

The role of stakeholder networks

and motivations in

Corporate Cultural Responsibility:

an analysis of Amsterdam’s

Cultural Industries.

MSc Business Administration

Faculty of Economics and Business

Master Thesis Strategy

Sidney van Niel

10896619

sidneyvanniel@gmail.com

Arno Kourula

(2)

Acknowledgements

This thesis is the concluding piece of the Master of Science in Business Administration at University of Amsterdam. The exploration of the cultural industries in Amsterdam has been an interesting and exciting project.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my thesis supervisor Dr. Arno Kourula for his time, input and support throughout the process of writing the Master thesis. I am especially grateful for his supporting attitude in choosing a subject that matched my personal interests and future plans.

Finally, I would like to thank Hermitage Amsterdam for participating in this study. It has been an inspiring experience for me and I am hoping this study will promote your inspiring attitude towards collaboration. Hermitage Amsterdam convinced me that collaboration is the key to change society for the better.

Specifically I would like to thank Lisette Forbes-Wells and Nelleke van den Bosch for assistance in gaining access, and Cathelijne Broers, Martine Willemsen, Mark van Kampen and Joanna Drooglever Fortyn for their substantive contributions.

Statement of Originality

This document is written by student Sidney van Niel, who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it.

The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.

(3)

Abstract

This study explores the emerging subject of Corporate Cultural Responsibility (CCR). This research is grounded in literatures of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), CCR, inter-organizational partnerships, social networks and creative

industries. The mixed method design allows for an examination of both the broader network level of partnerships as well as the organizational level motivations for CCR. In this way, the study is able to analyze both the network structure and the meaning of the relationships. The network analysis maps show how cultural organizations engage with firms based on board interlocks and reported partnerships. Thereafter, we

explore why firms and cultural organization engage in CCR, based on the case study of Hermitage Amsterdam.

Within the largest actors in the Amsterdam cultural industries, we identify 998 ties between cultural institutions and partner organizations. The partnership map is highly interconnected and partners with a social or cultural purpose are most

abundantly present in the centre of the map. The board interlocks network map shows less density and a lower number of ties in general. However, social and cultural-oriented organizations dominate the centre of the board interlocks map as well.

Finally, drivers for CCR are explored and integrated in a CCR partnership model. The bottom line is the financial dimension, which is essential for survival of cultural institutions. Second, there is the network dimension, which poses or limits opportunities for partnerships. The next level consists of the organizational

dimension, which entails strategic fit, brand fit, and shared values considering entrepreneurship and quality. The last dimension is behaviour at the individual level, consisting of trust, honesty and transparency. This model contributes to the emerging CCR literature by identifying key aspects and dimensions of partnership

(4)

1. Introduction

This section introduces the subject of Corporate Cultural Responsibility from CSR perspective. The background introduces the context of cultural institutions in Amsterdam and recent developments in society. The research gap elaborates on literature deficiencies. Thereafter the research question, key definitions and structure of this thesis are discussed in short.

1.1 Background

The cultural industry in Amsterdam offers a wide diversity of art and culture to almost 12 million annual visitors (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015). The total

estimated value of museums in The Netherlands is 6,4 billion euro (Marlet, Poort, & van Woerkens, 2011) and this is partially attributed to 44 Amsterdam based museums.

The Dutch cultural industries experienced major environmental changes over the past decade. Starting with the economic crisis of 2008 (Campello, Graham, & Campbell, 2010) and subsequently budget cuts in funding. In 2012 the Dutch government decided to reduce funding for cultural institutions (Bussemaker, 2013), which resulted in renewed revenue models and different stakeholders relationships. The goal was to change the government’s role to facilitator of the basic cultural infrastructure (Bussemaker, 2013), in practice this meant budget cuts in subsidies for cultural institutions. Afterwards cultural institutions had to find new revenue sources, which pose opportunities for partnership initiatives and projects to benefit society.

Nowadays cultural organizations are deeply embedded and central actors in society (Castells, 2011). Literature on Corporate Cultural Responsibility (CCR) is emerging and this research aims to contribute to CCR literature by exploring engagement between firms and cultural organizations in CCR-related partnerships.

(6)

1.2 Research gap

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a central concept in today’s business environment (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). Practitioners as well as academics proposed diverse concepts to realise a more ethical, humane and transparent way of doing business (van Marrewijk, 2003).

During the nineties Elkington proposed ‘win-win-win’ Business strategies (Elkington, 2004; Elkington, 1997) and subsequently the 3P ‘people, planet, profits’ formulation, which is commonly known as the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) (Elkington, 2004). This formulation is rephrased as social, environmental and economic

perspectives (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). However, the social dimension did receive the least attention from the academic community (Maon & Lindgreen, 2015). Firms engage in CSR mainly due to instumental reasons such as financial results, so much research focussed the relationship of CSR and financial outcomes (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). However, firms which engage in activities which hurt the natural environment tend to pick up on CSR practice based on environmental pressures (Elkington, 2004).

A novel development in the CSR field is Corporate Cultural Responsibility (CCR), by which firm can contribute to the cultural development of society (Maon & Lindgreen, 2015). Research considering CCR is limited, so exploration of the subject is required to fulfill the ‘win-win-win’ business strategy, in which the last win refers to society. The concept of CCR is especially relevant to the creative industries, since the industry is inseparable of culture. This study examines how and why firms contribute to cultural society-oriented initiatives.

We will explore the social CSR perspective and focus on firm engagement with cultural organizations. The cultural industries are inherently connected to society and yield interesting cases for researching Corporate Cultural Responsibility (CCR).

(7)

1.3 Research objective and questions

This study aims to learn about the role of stakeholder networks and motivations for partnerships in CCR. This objective is utilized in two research questions:

1. How do different cultural organizations engage with firms?

2. Why do cultural organizations and firms engage in CCR partnerships? The first question aims to provide the structure of the eco-system in which corporations and cultural organizations collaborate and provides a ‘big picture’ overview of the subject. To answer this question we conduct a network analysis of cultural organizations and partners in Amsterdam. The second question focuses on motives for partnerships and provides meaning and detailed descriptions of CCR collaborations. To answer this question we conduct an interview-based case study at Hermitage Amsterdam.

1.4 Key definitions

The field of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has developed significantly over the past years. The subject gained attention from firms, governments and society based on environmental and social change. As the field evolved several definitions of CSR were adopted, for this study the definition of CSR proposed by Aguinis is selected: “context-specific organizational actions and policies that take into account stakeholders’ expectations and the triple bottom line of economic, social, and

environmental performance” (Aguinis H. , 2011). The definition refers to policies and actions, and influences actors at different levels of analysis: institutional,

organizational and individual (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). The European Commission simplified this definition to: “the responsibility of enterprises for their impacts on society” (Gallardo-Vasquez & Sanchez-Hernandez, 2014; Commission of the European Communities, 2011).

(8)

The subject of CCR is not as well defined as CSR, due to the dynamics of culture. Culture is argued to be developing constantly and therefore requires a dynamic and generic definition (Maon & Lindgreen, 2015). The definition by Moan & Lindgreen is selected for this study, since it focuses on voluntary development of CCR initiatives and the conscious consideration about the underlying cultural system.

“Corporate cultural responsibility refers to the extent to which a corporation voluntarily develops its activities in a manner that recognizes and ensures the

conscious consideration, respect, and defense of the systems of values and beliefs underlying and accompanying the myriad of behaviours and practices that represent extant cultures in the various settings in which the corporation operates” (Maon & Lindgreen, 2015).

Finally, the definition of partnerships is based on research by Gray & Stites.

“Initiatives where public-interest entities, private sector companies and or civil

society organizations enter into an alliance to achieve a common practical purpose, pool core competencies, and share risks, responsibilities, resources, costs and

benefits” (Gray & Stites, 2013). This definition is selected based on the incorporation of different types of organizations and different motives for alliances. These motives are the starting point for analysing drivers for cultural-oriented alliances.

1.5 Structure of the study

The next chapter reviews literature on: CSR, CCR, partnerships, social networks and creative industries. The method section elaborates on the research design, the cases, data collection and analysis procedures, and strengths and limitations of the design. Next, the results and analysis are presented and

subsequently conclusions, contributions, limitations and recommendations for future research are discussed.

(9)

2. Literature review

This chapter reviews relevant literature to the subject of CCR. CCR originates from CSR research, so CSR literature is reviewed to identify existing knowledge and gaps regarding CCR. Partnership literature is included, since CCR is utilized in stakeholder networks. Subsequently social network literature is required in terms of the network analysis and literature on the creative industries provides context.

2.1 Corporate Social Responsibility

Aguinis and Glavas propose a CSR framework integrating the highly

heterogeneous CSR literature originating from fields such as: environmental studies, organizational behaviour, organizational theory and strategy. Previous work from these fields is integrated at the individual, organizational and institutional levels of analysis. The general model is a multilevel model of CSR, which bridges micro and macro research streams and integrates mediator and moderator variables (2012). CSR predictor variables are divided in proactive and reactive predictors. Outcomes are divided in internal and external. Mediators are value based or relationship based and moderators are divided among people, place, profit and profile (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). The figure in appendix 1 illustrates the relationships of groups of variables. It is important to note that the model is not an exhaustive model and variables can be added.

The study by Aguinis and Glavas yielded several research gaps such as the need for micro level research on CSR and underlying mechanisms that link to

outcomes. Furthermore is noted that more qualitative studies are required to improve our understanding of underlying mechanisms of CSR. (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). This gap is addressed by investigating values regarding CSR (individual level predictor) and stakeholder relationships. The qualitative design aims to identify drivers for CCR and partnerships regarding CCR.

(10)

Gallardo-Vasquez & Sanchez-Hernandez propose a CSR conceptual model (appendix 2) based on a regional analysis in Spain and suggest scales for measuring CSR linked to performance and competetive succes. CSR is constructed by social, economic and environmental dimensions based on the TBL, and directly related to competetive succes. Furthermore there is a relationship between CSR and

competetive succes, mediated by performance. Based on the business reality a scale is developed to evaluate CSR orientation, formatted as a checklist to managers. The scale is adapted to day-to-day business in the natural environment, so the scale allows to determine to what extent CSR orientation is an explanatory variable of

performance and how performance mediates the relationship (Gallardo-Vasquez & Sanchez-Hernandez, 2014). Furthermore, the study highlights the importance of the relationship of CSR models and adaptation to the real world. In the case of the Dutch cultural industries the social-economic context changed based on a new law

considering cultural subsidies (Bussemaker, 2013) and the economic crisis (Campello, Graham, & Campbell, 2010).

The scales for the evaluation of CSR orientation consist of a social,

economical and environmental dimension of CSR. Logically one would asume CCR is part of the social dimension. This is not the case, two scales are proposed which could be interpreted as related to culture, but they do not by definition. “A12: We participate in social projects to the community. A13: We encourage employees to participate in volunteer activities or in collaboration with NGO’s” (Gallardo-Vasquez & Sanchez-Hernandez, 2014). Social projects and volunteer work could be related to culture, but when considering activities such as voluntering in an elderly home, this is not the case.

(11)

Research on motivations for CSR and specifically environmental motivations managed to predict completeness or incompleteness of environmental management. Lannelongue, Gonzales-Benito, & Gonzales-Benito identified determinants of

environmental motivation;(1) legitimation (external) and (2) competetive motivations (internal) (2014). Evidence is provided on the explanatory capability of motivations for the completeness of environmental management. This is expected to help in predicting a firm’s environmental performance based on it’s motivations

(Lannelongue, Gonzales-Benito, & Gonzales-Benito, 2014). An important conclusion is that firms looking for ligitimisation fail to achieve the best environmental

outcomes. The paper concludes with an encouragement for public authorities to channel efforts to driving environmental innovation as representative of

environmental performance. In other words, external motivations (ligitimisation) have less positive spin off for environmental performance, than internal ones which relate to competetive pressures.

2.2 Corporate Cultural Resonsibility

CSR literature has expanded extensively over the past decade. However, the subject of Corporate Cultural Resonsibility did receive much less attention from the academic community. Even though corporations influence the cultures they exist in, the cultural dimension of their activities is often neglected (Maon & Lindgreen, 2015). The authors call for a more explicit consideration of cultural aspects in corporate activities and demand integration of CCR-related concerns in ongoing debates about the relationship of corporations and society (Maon & Lindgreen, 2015). Furthermore is noted that CCR objectives and the translation to practice through structured and formalized measures remains unexplored. There is a need for contextualized examples of CCR practice integrated in strategy and day-to-day

(12)

business activities (Maon & Lindgreen, 2015). Therefore this study aims to analyse the CCR practice of Hermitage Amsterdam, within the context of Amsterdams creative industries.

Other work on CCR origins from Autstria, Gereon Schmitz spend a chapter of

his book CSR und Kultur on the role of corporations in cultural development and identified distinct forms of corporate engagement. First there is financial support such as sponsoring, partnerships or spending money at cultural organizations. The second category are services, products or logistics, which are paid by the corporation. The third category consists of intangible assets such as time, knowledge and experiences which can be shared. The last category of engagement consists of network contacts and influence (Schmitz, 2015). The corporate engagement should be explored from a industry or corporation specific perspective, since the intensity of cultural engagement can vary to a great extent (Schmitz, 2015). Further, is argued that the main emphasis of future research should be on the fianacial or relational dimensions of cultural engagement. The focus on the cultural industries in Amsterdam and Hermitage Amsterdam aims to learn about the relational perspective of corporate engagement in culture, on the industry level and at the level of the individual organization.

The role of culture also surfaces in the context of CSR integration management. Asif, Searcy, Zutshi, & Fisscher argue for simultaneous top-down integration and bottom-up community based stakeholder management in CSR practice (2013). Corporations often engage with community organizations to create deeper and stronger interaction with this community and to realize community oriented goals. Two main indicators of cultural engagement are: (1.) expression of culture through the arts and (2) Participation in the arts and cultural activities (Asif, Searcy, Zutshi, & Fisscher, 2013).

(13)

2.3 Partnerships

Next the notion of collaboration and partnerships in CSR is reviewed. The excellent Gray & Stites review of partnership literature forms the basis for the exploration of partnership motives at Hermitage Amsterdam.

The review presents a model of factors affecting partnering efforts (appendix 4) and possible outcomes for different types of organizations (appendix 5) (Gray & Stites, 2013). Social perception is one of the main drivers, which subsequently affect: motivations, partner and partnership characteristics and process issues and outcomes. In this model outcomes feed back into motivations, partner and partnership

characteristics and process issues, due to the reciprocal effects of time (Gray & Stites, 2013). Motivations affecting CSR outcomes are ligitimacy-, competency, resource- and society-oriented. Most applicable to this study are the society-oriented

motivations, which are designed to change how society deals with issues of

sustainability. The origin of these motivations are to be found in the firms vision or executives’ and employees’ perceptions towards CSR at the individual level. Partner and partnership characteristics like type of organization, representation, cultural fit and previous partnering experience are the next level affecting process issues. The process issues refer to implementation and subsequently flow into outcomes.

Moreover, Austin identified different types of specific business- NGO

partnerships, based on the dimensions shared responsibility and scope (2000b). When both dimensions are low a collaboration based on philantrophy and sponsorship emerges and when both are high collaborative governance is the case. Other relevant categories in the middle section of the model are: dyadic problem solving, sustained dyadic partnership and changes in supply chain. The model is expanded by labeling the categories of collaboration. Collaborative governance is labeled as tranformative engagement, which relates to stakeholder involvement in sustained interactions

(14)

designed to agree on and enact sustainability objectives (Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi, & Herremans, 2010; Austin & Seitanidi, 2012a). Philantrophy or sponsorship is labeled reactive engagement, which relate to threat-induced or charity-driven responses (Austin, 2000b). This model is used to identify different types of

partnerships of Hermitage Amsterdam, based on the dimensions shared responsibility and scope.

Later is noted that collaboration can either be a process or an outcome with specific characteristics, based on different motivation of partners to collaborate. These motives include: (1) Legitimacy related motivations (Brown, 2008), (2) competency-oriented motivations (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990; Kramer & Kania, 2006), (3) resource based motivations (Balderstron, 2012) and (4) society oriented motivations. Different motivations for sustainability relate to reactive or transformative engagement of firms. Even though a mix of motivations is expected to occur, in general businesses are moving from reactive motivations to proactive motivations for partnering, considering the shift from an adversarial relationship to a collaborative partner relationship

(Laasonen, Fougere, & Kourula, 2012).

2.4 Social networks

The consensus that networks matter is growing in social network literature, however the specific effects of network structure on firm performance remain unclear (Ahuja, 2000). First we willl introduce some terminoligy of networks and

subsequeently review major research streams. A network is a set of actors connected by a set of ties. The actors are often called nodes and for this study the actors are cultural institutions and partner organizations (Borgatti & Foster, 2003). Dichotomous ties (absent or present) are used to map the partnership network in the cultural

(15)

‘ego’. An ego-network consists of the ego actor and connected actors are called ‘alters’ (Borgatti & Foster, 2003). Networks provide actors with a variety of resources, including information and knowledge flows (Sorenson & Stuart, 2008), especially in dense networks (Hoang & Antoncic, 2003). The positive signal

associated with network membership relates to legitimacy and funding arguments as well (Hoang & Antoncic, 2003).

Network resources or social capital (Burt, 1997; Portes, 2014) and network attributes have been associated with distinct benefits based on the facilitating role of networks, which include trust, information and power (Ahuja, 2000). Social capital is a conceptualization of the value of ties in a network (Borgatti & Foster, 2003), which leads to an advantageous position for the actor (Burt, 2001). The discussion about the optimal form of social structure that constitute social capital remains ongoing (Ahuja, 2000). Two oposing views have emerged in literature. The first view is based on Burt’s work on structural holes, in which people can broker connections between disconnected segments (Burt, 2001). Burt argues that structural holes provide the mechanisms which relate weak ties to positive outcomes in Granovetter’s (1973) strength of weak ties theory. The opposing view is based on the closure argument, which is based on work by Coleman (1990) and Putnam (2001) and aims for highly interconnected elements within a network. Burt combines both views by identifying the difference in sources of added value and how value is realised. He argued that brokerage across structural holes is the source of added value and closure is required to realise this value (Burt, 2001).

Next the subject of board interlocks is reviewed. Board interlocks literature origins from sociology and management research and evaluates ties among

(16)

The current perspective views board interlocks as a means to reduce uncertainties and share information about acceptable and desireable corporate practices (Borgatti & Foster, 2003). Board interlocks between cultural institutions and partner organizations are used to map the network in Amsterdams cultural industries. The dominant

perspective for this study is information sharing, since uncertainty reduction benefits and the relationship to performance are hard to measure using qualitative research methods.

Economic theory related to interoganizational relationships proposes that such relationships are used when this is the most efficient governance form (Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2011). This stream of research is based on economic key theories such as transaction cost theory (Williamson, 1979) and the resource based view (Barney, Wright, & Ketchen, 2001). Considering that partnerships with cultural institutions are not often guided by efficiency arguments, we will explore organization theory to identify partnerships that aim for effectivity.

From the perspective of organization theory social structures and relationships are of great importance (Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2011). Prior relationships, trust and history between partners are determinants of partnership formation. Since

organizations are embedded in a wider social stucture, partners are motivated by status, reputation and legitimacy in selecting potential partnerships, which is induced from stakeholder theory (Laplume, Sonpar, & Litz, 2008). Further there is also a power related argument based on resource dependence theory (Hillman, Withers, & Collins, 2009), which aims to reduce dependency and uncertainty through powerfull partners. Even though this perspective identifies distinct motivations for

interorganizaitonal relationships, the goal of such relationships is improved

(17)

and how CCR relates to improved performance. The effect of CCR on performance might exist based on improved reputation, status or legitimacy, but remains untested due to measurement difficulties. Motivations for partnerships based on organizational theory propose a direction towards relational features to identify drivers for

partnerships with cultural institutions.

Organization theory is typically used to analyse cross-sector partnerships as well (Selsky & Parker, 2005). So-called social alliances consist of firms, NGO’s and governmental organizations to adress a social issue such as health care, economic development, or sustainability of the environment (Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2011). Relationships can vary in scope, length and number of partners, but the focal issue is often social, instead of business related. Partners in such a relationship have very different goals and approaches to adressing the issue due to the distinctly different stakeholders (Selsky & Parker, 2005). Firm motives can be enhancement of llegitimacy or image, and nonprofits may strive for social change while improving their own status (Parmigiani & Rivera-Santos, 2011). In addition to the motivations based on interorganizational relationships literature, these motives are the foundation for identifying drivers for partnerships with cultural institutions. Even though

different perspectives repeat certain motives such as legitimacy, this list is not exhaustive and might be expanded.

2.5 Creative industries research

Even though creativity received a lot of attention in Business research (Amabile, 1996), the creative industries in general did not. Creative industries are a new category in academic, policy and industry research (Cunningham, 2002). The British Creative Industries Task Force defined the creative industries as: ‘activities, which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent

(18)

And which have the potential for wealth and job creation through generation and exploitation of intellectual property’ (CITF, 2001). Sub-sectors are advertising, architecture, arts, antique, crafts, design, fashion, film, interactive leisure software, music, television, radio, performing arts, publishing and software (CITF, 2001). This wide definition of creative industries is based on the knowledge-based economy and society, and the service industries (Cunningham, 2002). To narrow down the scope of the research a focus on cultural industries is selected, due to the social perspective of CCR. The concept of cultural industries is defined as: “the (subsidised) arts with the contemporary goals of audience development, community involvement and

professionalization” (O'Regan, 2001). The cultural industries are considered to be an acting part of the content-rich services industries, which include education,

publishing, design, communications and e-commerce (Cunningham, 2002). In other words cultural institutions can be bridges for knowledge transfer between, firms, NGO’s, non-profits and governments in todays society. Gaining knowledge about partnerships of cultural institutions helps us understand how cultural institutions fulfil this role.

2.6 Conceptual framework

We propose a conceptual framework of CCR’s network context, in order to integrate different research themes and provide guidance to the reader. The

conceptual framework (on the next page) is a simplified model of the network constructs we investigate. The framework incorporates CCR partnerships as lines connecting actors. The actors consist of cultural organizations and firms, which engage in CCR through the network. The framework integrates the major themes: CSR through CCR, partnerships and networks. In this chapter we have evaluated the motivations for partnerships per theme and the conceptual model ties it all together.

(19)

3. Methods

Firstly, this chapter elaborates on the research design and motivates the multi-method approach. Second, the samples for the network analysis and case study are discussed. Next, there is a detailed description of instruments and procedure, and finally, the strengths and limitations of the methods are justified.

3.1 Design and sample description

CCR is a novel subject in CSR research (Maon & Lindgreen, 2015) and therefore requires an explorative and inductive approach (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). The objective of the study is to explore stakeholder networks consisting of cultural institutions and firms, so the first part of this study consists of a network analysis of cultural institutions and partners in Amsterdam. Subsequently the study aims to identify drivers for Cultural Responsibility through a case study of the Hermitage Amsterdam. The case study design is selected considering this approach fits the goal of building theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). A sequential multiple case study design (Thomas, 2011) fits to focus in the first place on the big picture and networks

surrounding CR. The second part aims to gain in depth knowledge about motivations

CCR Network

Cultural

organization X

Firm A

Firm B

Firm C

(20)

for partnerships, through interviews (Yin, 2009). The multi method approach allows studying the ‘big picture’ eco-system of CCR and simultaneously attaches meaning to the subject. Both methods are required to explore CCR efforts in the cultural industry. We need to know how firms and cultural organizations engage in CCR and why they do so. The former research question relates to the structure of CCR networks and the latter zooms in on motivations to attach meaning to this network structure. The combination of methods allows for a multi-level approach to CCR.

To attain interesting findings for the network analysis, an area with a dense population of cultural institutions and corporations is required. The Amsterdam area is selected considering the high concentration of cultural organizations and large international corporations. Considering those aspects we argue that this is the most interesting area in The Netherlands to perform this research. Furthermore there is a convenience argument related to gaining access, which is easier when organizations can be approached personally.

The sample of cultural institutions is selected using the non-probability sampling technique purposive sampling to focus on particular characteristics of the target population (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). Specifically this will be a combination of critical case sampling and homogeneous sampling. Homogeneous sampling aims to select a sample of organizations, which share certain characteristics (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). Here, the focus is on the size and budgets of the cultural organization, considering that a certain size is required to attract sponsorship from large firms. In addition critical cases are added based on reputation and image of the cultural institution, since this might promote sponsorships too.

(21)

The sample is based on a list of cultural organizations in Amsterdam, which is obtained from the municipalities and cross-referenced with lists from I Amsterdam and GVB. The largest organizations were selected based on size and budgets.

The second case of the study focuses on perceptions and drivers of

partnerships that facilitate CR. For this part, one extreme case is selected to gain in depth knowledge of motivations for partnerships (Yin, 2009). The case of Hermitage Amsterdam is selected considering their unique business model: they do not own any art collection and are not subsidized by the government. Due to these circumstances partnerships are essential for The Hermitage to survive and Hermitage possesses valuable knowledge considering their and partners’ drivers. To increase the validity of the research the snowball sampling technique was used to gain access to a partner as well (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). Due to time restrictions and sensitivity of the

financial aspect of sponsor agreements, access to employees of partner organizations was denied. Future research could expand the perspectives of this study by

emphasising on the partner perspective.

3.2 Description of instuments and procedures 3.2.1 Network analysis

The network analysis focuses on cultural organizations and relationships to companies, non-profits and Non Governmental Organizations (NGO’s). The relationships are divided in two categories: board interlocks and partnerships. This division allows analysing partnerships at different levels; board interlocks represent a deep connection and partnerships are defined as a shallow connection.

The initial list of cultural institutions is based on funding from the national and local governments. The Amsterdam municipalities subsidize 147 institutions and the national government supports key institutions such as ‘Rijksmuseum’ and ‘Van Gogh Museum’ (Gehrels, 2012) (Ministerie van OCW, 2015). Based on the study’s focus

(22)

on large organizations the funding criterion is 500.000 euro, so cultural organizations with local or national funding over half a million euros are included in the sample. The result was a list of 33 large cultural institutions in Amsterdam.

The list is checked based on popularity and is checked by an expert .The popularity check is based on popularity lists of IAmsterdam (IAmsterdam, 2016) and the rail map of GVB. IAmsterdam is responsible for city marketing and GVB

transports lots of visitors in Amsterdam, so their judgement of popular institutions is presumed to be accurate. Based on the popularity check 12 organizations were added. Professor J.J. Ebbers from the University of Amsterdam performed the final expert check. Based on his recommendation The Waag Society is excluded from the list, since their focus is on science and technology. The final list of 45 cultural institutions is enclosed in appendix 6.

Web sites, annual reports and CSR reports of the cultural institutions were analysed to identify partnerships and board members. Please note that boards of directors as well as advisory and supervisory boards are included in the analysis, since all types of board interlocks were found during the preliminary study and they

represent a connection in the organizations network. Reported partnerships were added to an excel matrix.

After the board members of an institution were identified, a Google search was conducted for every board member. Board memberships of other organizations or firms were uncovered based on personal websites, LinkedIn profiles, and websites of management and governance associations such as mt.nl and managementscope.nl. The relationships were tracked in separate excel matrices.

During the process of data gathering some cultural organizations were excluded, since some institutions operate several organizations under the same

(23)

umbrella. Music venues ‘Paradiso’ and ‘Melkweg’ are united in one production firm Melkweg Paradiso Productions (Melkweg Paradiso Productiehuis). The National Ballet (Het Nationale Ballet) is part of the organizations of The Music Theater Amsterdam (Het Muziektheater Amsterdam). Youth theatre ‘de Krakeling’

(Jeugdtheater de Krakeling) is part of the organization of The Theatre Makers (De Toneelmakerij). ISH Dance Collective and Theatre Affairs Amsterdam (Theaterzaken Amsterdam) are excluded since no data on board members and partners was present. This limits the list of cultural institutions to 40 organizations.

Next, data is visualized using stakeholder-mapping software UCINET (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 2002). The separate data files were imported to UCINET and a centrality analysis was conducted for both board interlocks and

partnerships. This yielded an overview of relationships between cultural organizations and large corporations in the Amsterdam area. The maps from UCINET and analysis are presented in the next chapter.

3.2.2 Interviews

The second part of the study consists of in-depth interviews at Hermitage Amsterdam. The interviews are conducted at various levels within the organization: board,

management team, and marketing department and sponsor development. The

interviews were designed to last for 45 minutes and were recorded. The interviews are semi-structured, so freedom is maintained to ask follow-up questions and to follow the logic flow in the interviewee’s story. The interview consists of five topics: interviewee background, institutional perspective, Hermitage perspective, partner perspective and the cultural industry. For each topic several subjects and questions are prepared based on partnership literature. You find the interview protocol attached in appendix 7 and the list of interviews is enclosed in appendix 8.

(24)

The first question is how the interviewee would define a partnership between a cultural institution and a firm. Afterwards the definition that is used for this study will be explained as well as the subject of CCR. The conversation followed the

interviewee’s flow; subjects covered were checked on the protocol form.

After the interviews the data was transcribed and processed using thematic analysis (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane, 2006). The transcript were evaluated and divided in relevant chucks of text, which were merged for each theme. Two themes were determined in advance: drivers of partners and drivers of Hermitage Amsterdam. Furthermore, the themes, managing relationships, attracting new partner’s, the role of the board and cultural entrepreneurship emerged during the process of analysis. Managing relationships, attracting new partner’s and the role of the board were integrated in the topic collaboration as a core value. The other final categories are cultural entrepreneurship, drivers of Partners and drivers of Hermitage Amsterdam. Finally, participants validated the quotes for in text use to reduce the probability of biased results.

3.3 Strengths and limitations of methods 3.3.1 Network analysis

The purposive sampling technique imports the limitation to be not generalizable to the full population. This is accepted considering some smaller cultural organizations would have no connections to large firms, so this sampling method is required to select relevant organizations. Furthermore, the case of the cultural industries in Amsterdam might be comparable to other geographic regions, an example in the Netherlands would be Rotterdam or any European capital. Comparable areas might have been interesting to investigate as well, but due to resource

(25)

restrictions the scope is limited to Amsterdam. Even though, findings should be empirically tested in different areas to make general statements about the population.

The network analysis focuses on board interlocks and partnerships. The partnership data tends to be ambiguous, since firms mention partnerships on websites and reports, but financial data about partnerships is sensitive and hard to get.

Furthermore, different institutions report partnerships differently. Some organizations only mention a main sponsor and other organizations have very extensive lists of partners (e.g. Artis with over 60 partners). Other organizations only communicate main sponsors publicly. This makes it hard to value ties in this network and to attach meaning to the findings, so partnership and board interlocks analyses are separated.

3.3.2 Interviews

The interviews aimed to identify underlying motivations for partnerships, which engage in CR. Analysing qualitative data is by definition prone to bias. Considering the expenses and time required for third party validation, this is not an option as time and resources are limited. To minimize the probability of a biased analysis, participant validation is employed (Horsburgh, 2003). This involves

returning the quotes to the respondent and request to validate the interpretation. This helps refining the motivations and arguments, and increases the validity.

Due to the limited amount of interview data, the thematic coding strategy fits the purpose well. Since we were able to maintain the overview over the data, open and axial coding was not required. The subject of interviews was rather specific, so fragments of text were easily assigned to the relevant topic. Due to repeated

evaluation of the transcripts and participant validation, this is a rigorous data analysis method to include all relevant data and to avoid errors.

(26)

4. Results

It is common that large corporations sponsor cultural organizations. One of the Dutch largest banks ABN AMRO is sponsoring a wide range of cultural

organizations, such as ‘Stedelijk museum Amsterdam’, (City Museum Amsterdam), ‘Hermitage Amsterdam’, Europeans largest art fair TEFAF and the bank owns a contemporary art collection (ABN Amro, 2016). Whether this is based on

philanthropy, supporting the firms’ core values or what other motivations are relevant remains unclear. Motivations and perceptions are explored in the second part of this chapter. It makes sense logically to link sponsorship programs to CSR objectives or programs, so links to CSR are expected.

The network structure is mapped based on board interlocks and reported partnerships. A small preliminary study (n=5) was conducted, to identify whether a network of cultural organizations can be linked to corporate sponsors. The

preliminary study confirmed that board interlocks and partnerships between cultural organizations and firms exist and this yields sufficient data for a network analysis. ABN AMRO is sponsoring ‘Hermitage Amsterdam’ and ‘City Museum Amsterdam’ and there is a board member of ABN AMRO sitting on the board of the

‘Rijksmuseum’ (ABN Amro, 2016). ING Group sponsors the ‘Rijksmuseum’ and the Royal ‘Concertgebouworkest’ (ING, 2016) and has board interlocks with the Royal ‘Concertgebouw’, ‘Openluchtmuseum’ and the ‘Nationale toneel’ (ING, 2016).

This chapter provides detailed descriptions of CCR networks in Amsterdam. First, we will discus the board interlock network and subsequently the partnership network. Afterwards the case of Hermitage Amsterdam is described and motivations for partnerships are identified.

(27)

4.1 Mapping the relationships of Amsterdam’s Cultural Industries

Social networking software is used to draw visual maps of the network surrounding cultural institutions and helps us understand the way institutions interact with firms and other organizations. Social network maps have been used by a variety of fields to gain insight in relationships among groups of people or organizations (Hoffman, 2009; Carrington, Scott, & Wasserman, 2005; Burt, 2001; Burt, 1997; Valente, 1995). The board interlock network and partnership network unveiled relationships with companies, NGO’s, specialized funds, foundations, governmental, educational and healthcare organizations.

4.1.1 Board interlocks

The first network map (on the next page) represents board interlocks of cultural institutions and other organizations. The cultural institutions are visualized as blue shapes on the map and other organizations are depicted as red shapes. Lines between two actors represent a tie. The board interlocks map shows the connections of 38 cultural institutions with 310 organizations and 362 ties. Two cultural

institutions are not visible in this map, since no board interlocks were found for the Heineken Music Hall and Ziggo Dome. The left side of the network map shows isolated individual networks. At the right side an interconnected network is visible, with centralized cultural institutions: ‘Rijksmuseum’, EYE Film institute Netherlands, ‘De Balie’, ‘Het Concertgebouw’ and ‘Artis’.

If we take a closer look at this map, we can see different positions and roles in the network. First, we can measure centrality in the network. Organizations in the core of the network are expected to have greater influence, than organizations in the periphery through their connections (Hoffman, 2009; Burt, 2001; Burt, 1997; Valente, 1995).

(28)

Figure 1

There are several measures to value centrality: degree centrality and eigenvector centrality are used. Degree centrality simply relates to the number of connections a cultural institution has to other organizations. In the network map this is visualized by the size of the shape representing an organization, the greater the

number of ties, the larger the shape. The second measure for centrality is the

eigenvector centrality; this measures interconnectedness of the relationships. In other words eigenvector centrality could be viewed as a popularity contest or Google’s page rank. It is not just the number of connections, but also how connected those

(29)

connection are (Hoffman, 2009; Burt, 2001). The shape of the node is determined by the eigenvector centrality measure. The up triangle represents the highest value in the network, which represents the Prince Bernhard Culture fund. The circle in box shape represents other high eigenvector values such as: EYE Film institute, ‘De Balie’ and partners organizations AMC, Sarphati institute and the Big Data alliance. Next the box with a plus inside is the next level which consists of partner organizations such as: Siemens Netherlands, ABN AMRO, Ymere, Waternet, Utrecht medical centre en VU medical centre. The regular squares represent low eigenvector values and are the connections to the periphery. Artis and the Royal concert hall and their partners fulfil this role. Finally, circles represent the periphery, which are poorly connected to the centre of the network.

Eigenvector values are grouped based on the ratio to the next largest value. To conduct a robust analysis the ratio of the largest eigenvector to the next largest should be at least 1.5 (Bonacich, 1972). Based on this eigenvector values were grouped among one type of shape, which met the criterion ratio of 1.5 or more.

On the next page a map of the centre of the network is presented (figure 2). To create this map isolates and pendants are excluded. Pendants are nodes with degree equal to one, so this map only shows interconnected organizations. Squares represent the cultural institutions in this map and circles represent other organizations. The size of shapes is related to the eigenvector centrality measure.

First should be noted that most of the large circles are funds or foundations with a social, cultural or society oriented purpose. Some exceptions are medical oriented organizations such as Amsterdam Medical Centre (AMC), Dutch Diabetic Association and ‘Cliniclows’. Furthermore Siemens and ABN AMRO are

(30)

examined. Some society-oriented funds show up in this category as well: GIRO 555, Pink ribbon, Dance4Life and the Ronald Macdonald Children Fund. Three Dutch Universities represent the ties to educational institutes: University Twente, University Utrecht and VU University Amsterdam. The other small circles consist of mostly multinational firms founded in the Netherlands: Aegon, IMC, Ahold, ING Group, Heineken, Schiphol group, Randstad Holding and SHV Holdings. Furthermore two international corporations are found in this map: Statoil and Solvay SA.

(31)

4.1.2 Partnerships

Partnerships are defined as: “Initiatives where public-interest entities, private sector companies and or civil society organizations enter into an alliance to achieve a common practical purpose, pool core competencies, and share risks, responsibilities, resources, costs and benefits” (Gray & Stites, 2013). In terms of the network analysis, this relates to partnerships reported on websites of cultural institutions and

partnerships reported in CSR related or annual reports.

The partnership network analysis included 39 cultural institutions, 474 partner organizations and 636 ties. The map on the next page (figure 3) visualises cultural institutions as blue shapes, red shapes refer to partners, lines represent ties and the size of a shape relates to degree centrality. The eigenvector values are visualized in a similar fashion as the board interlocks network map, in descending order: triangle, circle in box, plus in box, square and circle. ‘Orkater’ did not report any partnerships, so this institution is isolated and excluded from the analysis.

A closer look at this map reveals a higher degree of interconnectedness compared to the network map of board interlocks. Considering degree centrality the most central cultural institution in the partnerships map are ‘De Balie’,

‘Muziekgebouw aan ‘t IJ’, ‘Artis’ and ‘Het concertgebouw’. This is quite similar to the board interlocks map, the main differences is that ‘Rijksmuseum’ and EYE Film Institute are part of the periphery in the partnerships map.

The eigenvector centrality measure yields interesting findings. The triangle (largest eigenvector value) centred in the map represents the Amsterdam

municipalities; this makes sense considering the role as facilitator of the cultural basic infrastructure.

(32)

Figure 3

The shape for the next group of largest eigenvector values is the circle in box. Most of the partners in this group are funds or foundations with the purpose of cultural stimulation. Please note that all partners of Artis represent a circle in a box shape, this attributes to the eigenvector centrality of Artis. Since Artis represents a large eigenvector centrality, due to the connection to Artis the eigenvector value of its partners is increased.

For a closer look at the eigenvector centrality, a similar procedure is used as

with the board interlocks network map. First pendants (nodes with degree equal to 1) were excluded and subsequently isolates were excluded. Using this procedure, the partners of Artis were excluded, since their eigenvector values are not representative for their actual position in the network.

(33)

The network map (figure 4) provides a closer look at the centre of the partnerships network. In this maps the size of shapes represents the eigenvector value. It is clear that in terms of eigenvector centrality The Royal Concert hall is the most centralized cultural institution, due to it’s image and reputation this is no surprise. The Royal Concert hall is well connected to funds supporting cultural initiatives as well as to large corporations such as KLM, Heineken and Akzo Nobel. Other cultural institutions that represent a high eigenvector centrality are: The National Maritime Museum (Het Scheepvaartmuseum), ‘Frascati’, ‘Stadsschouwburg Amsterdam’, Holland festival, ‘Muziekgebouw aan ‘t IJ’, ‘De Balie’, ‘NBE’, ‘Verzetsmuseum’ and ‘Rembrandthuis’.

Next, the partner organizations are analysed. Like mentioned before the Amsterdam municipality is the most centralized actor in the network.

(34)

Other centrally located partners are funds and foundation with a social or cultural purpose such as: VSB fund, Prins Bernhard Culture fund, Ammodo fund, Fund 21, Mondriaan fund, fund for Performing Arts (Fonds podiumkunsten) and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science (Ministerie van OCW). The ‘BankGiro Loterij’ is very well connected, this relates to their charity funding activities similar to the funds mentioned before. All these organizations do purposefully support cultural initiatives, so their central role in the partnerships network makes sense. The most central corporations are: Heineken, AkzoNobel, KLM, Philips and Rabobank. The table on the next page (table 1) shows the division of partners from different industries. Most abundantly present are foundations with a social and or cultural purpose. Furthermore, the financial services industry; media, services and consumer goods industries are represented strongly. Finally, some educational institutions and technology-oriented firms are present.

Foundations Financial services Media Technology

5 days off ABN AMRO BUMA Cultuur Google

Amsterdam Art AON De Volkskrant Booking.com

Amsterdam Dance Event

De Nederlandsche

Bank Het Parool WeTransfer

Amuze Delta Lloyd MAX

Diorapthe Deutsche Bank NPO Radio 4 Education

European Cultural Foundation

ING

KPMG Trouw HVA

Goethe Institut Rabobank VPRO UvA

Holland Festival Van Lanschot

Iamsterdam Services Consumer goods Miscellaneous Institut Francais Effektief Groep Heineken AkzoNobel

N8 Fugro Philips Royal Dutch Shell

SNS Reaal Fonds Gispen Olympus KLM

Turing Foundation KPN Hanos Schiphol Group

VandenEnde

Foundation Loyens & Loeff Vrumona

Vfonds Waternet

(35)

4.1.3 Network observations

Some patterns emerged during data gathering for the network analysis, and will be discussed in short in this section. First was noted that many former politicians hold a board position at a cultural institution in Amsterdam and they are often holding a board position at a health or educational institute as well. This might be explained by previous position in politics, but this claim should be tested for robustness.

Second, a pattern emerged considering the size of organizations. Small

organizations tend to communicate more partnerships than large organizations, which tend to focus on presenting the most important partners. For example, large

organizations present a main sponsor and a few partners, opposed by lists up 60 partners for smaller organizations.

Third, the board interlock data showed some pattern regarding the redistribution of board positions. The Royal Concert Hall serves as example.

Currently a board member of the royal concert hall is sitting at the boards of ING and Statoil. Two other board members of the royal concert hall were previously in the boards of these firms. It seems that something is going on here, board members seem to ‘switch seats’ or use their network to recommend candidates for available

positions. Organizations such as ‘Muziekgebouw aan t IJ’, EYE Amsterdam and the Holland festival show a similar pattern. This observation could be explored by integrating past board positions into the board interlock analysis.

Fourth, there was a pattern observed considering the strength of a relationship with a main sponsor. When organizations communicate a main sponsor, this firm is often represented in the board of the cultural institution. For example, ING is main sponsor of theatre Carré and an ING director is on the board of Carré.

(36)

4.2 The case of Hermitage Amsterdam

This section will present interview data and identify drivers for partnerships from a cultural perspective. First, analysing current collaborations explores the context, subsequently we discus the relationship to cultural entrepreneurship and

developments in society. Last, we will discus the drivers for partnerships of Hermitage Amsterdam and partners.

4.2.1 Collaboration as a core value

The Hermitage Amsterdam is well known for the collaboration with its Russian counterpart, The State Hermitage in Sint Petersburg. The Hermitage Amsterdam was founded in 2004 as a dependence of the Russian State Hermitage. This unique concept involved collaboration ever since the take off, since the Russian counterpart owns collections that are presented in Amsterdam. Therefore,

collaboration is a requirement for viability of the Hermitage Amsterdam. However, the range of collaborations varies from strategic level and long-term commitment to operational level and project-based collaboration. All types of collaboration are discussed, starting at the strategic level and working the way down.

The Hermitage Amsterdam generates up to 75% of the budget themselves, but is still depending on sponsorships for the last quarter. “The dependence on

sponsorships is reducing, but it is still present. Considering this dependence we have to keep collaborating” (Interviewee 4). This represents the financial incentive for collaboration. Furthermore sponsoring in the sense of giving a large cheque and expecting nothing in return does not exist anymore. Firms want to identify themselves with sponsored organizations and search actively for added value in sponsorships. Most of these sponsorships involve long-term commitment and require intensive relationship management.

(37)

The relationship of Hermitage and main sponsor ABN AMRO took off when the Hermitage Amsterdam opened and is still lasting and evolving. Sponsoring used to be something directed by preferences of top executives, but nowadays sponsoring involves engagement with every level within an organization.

“ It used to be the CEO of a firm who decided which organizations to sponsor. ‘I really like this project, so let’s do it!’ Nowadays that won’t happen anymore, since partnerships are owned by the whole organization and not just based on the

preferences of a CEO for a certain museum, golf or hockey. In this case, the rest of the company would respond like: ‘okay, golf, hello? What is the connection to our company?’ Instead, firms are looking for new combinations, which fit organizational preferences and support strategy. Sponsoring used to be a bit of ‘showing off’, now it is revolving around the question how can we do something good with our money?” (Interviewee 1)

A successful sponsorship requires some click and even more important alignment of strategic interests. This is clearly visible in the latest sponsor agreement with ABN AMRO, in which the banks role changed from main sponsor in general to main sponsor of Hermitage Amsterdam and main sponsor of “De Hermitage voor kinderen” (The children Hermitage). This relates closely to the new strategic vision of ABN AMRO: “Partner van de toekomst” (Partner of the future [generation]) (ABN Amro, 2016), which can be promoted actively through this collaboration. ABN’s focus on future generations matches the Hermitages project The Children Hermitage focusing on artistic talent development among 10.000 children from Amsterdam.

Heineken is another sponsor at the strategic level. In return for financial sponsoring Heineken can organise events and congresses at Hermitage for reduced

(38)

tariffs. Heineken can show partners and customers how they are involved in Dutch culture and society, next to the benefits of an historical and centrally located event venue. Next to the strategic sponsor agreement, Heineken and Hermitage engage in operational collaboration too. This initiative aims to engage with sponsors through different channels and levels of the organization, in order to increase engagement and finally increase revenues as well.

“Heineken is a large sponsor so there is an on-going conversation to identify possibilities to expand our collaboration. The Heineken Experience is marketing focused, so we figured they could help promoting the collection Dutchmen in the golden age. Well, next we discussed the plan with the responsible manager from Heineken and now this collaboration is active. We are taking the initiative to expand our partnership to multiple channels and increase the frequency to ensure more events are organized here. By organizing events Heineken can show to relations that they are partner and of course this generates revenue.” (Interviewee 2)

The Plantage Amsterdam is a collaboration of 17 cultural institutions in the Plantage neighbourhood, aiming to regulate temperatures in a sustainable way. Museums, a zoo and theatres in this area started to collaborate for marketing

purposes, but this collaboration evolved to buying green power collectively. Heat and cold surpluses are stored in the ground and regulated among different buildings. Again, the excitement about this project is sparking and followed by the comment: “We always try to maintain an open attitude and this is how our collaboration at The Plantage Amsterdam got started. What started as a marketing collaboration evolved to regulating energy, how cool is that! Moreover, most importantly it was very much fun to do. This illustrates the infinite possibilities in collaboration.” (Interviewee 1)

(39)

Next to long-term and sponsor commitments, the Hermitage participates also in short term and project based collaborations. Such partnerships are mostly connected to a temporary collection or project. Several examples of temporary collaborations are analysed and interdisciplinary collaborations are introduced in the next part.

Currently Hermitage Amsterdam exposes a unique Dutch collection of portraits in collaboration with ‘Rijksmuseum’ (State museum) and the Amsterdam Museum. This collection of portraits was not shown to the public yet, even though it consists of influential work. There is simply not enough space to show every piece. By means of collaboration, this collection is presented to local and international guests. An important consideration for this project was the existing museum infrastructure of Hermitage Amsterdam. This partnership increases the diversity in exposed art and yields efficiency advantages to all parties. The Amsterdam Museum does not have to build a new building to house the collection and there is already traffic at the Hermitage, which relates to savings in marketing budgets.

“The best part of this collaboration is that the portrait gallery attracted 200.000 visitors, but the Amsterdam Museum had not one less visitor at the original location at ‘Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal’”. (Interviewee 3)

This partnership represents a new way of thinking about collaboration and a new business model. The exploitation of the collection is fully shared, even though no ones business is cannibalized.

The success of the portrait gallery inspired to start more tri-party partnerships for temporary exhibitions. The next project is already on the way, this time in

collaboration with a museum from Haarlem ‘Het Dolhuys’ and health care organization Cordaan. The concept is similar to the portrait gallery. This poses

(40)

party’ collaboration adds another perspective and especially the connection to the health care organization is interesting.

“The Outsider art museum presents art made by mentally disabled people, which can not be displayed at ‘Het Dolhuys’. This is similar to the case of the portrait gallery, but we added a social perspective. We figured: ‘let us build a creative studio for clients of Cordaan, within the building with art studios for the children Hermitage. This completes the proposition; we have a museum displaying outsider art, we facilitate ‘outsider artists’ to create art within the context of Hermitage and this relates to talent development what is the focus of the children Hermitage.” (Interviewee 1)

Interdisciplinary collaboration poses a wide range of opportunities, causes excitement and novel combinations. The collaboration with Amsterdam Marketing seems obvious, especially through the promotion or marketing lens. Nevertheless, this partnership is focusing on knowledge owned by the Hermitage Amsterdam.

Amsterdam Marketing opened an Amsterdam Brand Store in the renovated Central Station. Since Amsterdam Marketing’s field of expertise is marketing and not retail, advise from Hermitage was requested considering how to run a shop. Furthermore, this partnership takes advantage of Hermitages network of suppliers, in which economies of scale can be achieved through increasing volume. The Hermitage purchases for the museum shops of ‘De Nieuwe Kerk’ (The New Church) and Hermitage, add another partner and the volume increases. This is not a typical collaboration, but posed an opportunity to Hermitage. Due to the open attitude towards partnerships, this worked out positive.

(41)

The Hermitage Amsterdam collaborates as well with a variety of partners to yield operational efficiencies and synergies. The marketing focused partnership with the Heineken Experience is an example of expanding partnerships to multiple channels. Another example is the collaboration based on ticket sales with Tours & Tickets, which sell tickets all over Amsterdam for different activities such as canal tours and museums. However, these collaborations are not limited to the cultural industries.

“To realise organizational goals it is required to collaborate in the creative world, but this is not limited to the creative world. You should also look at involving other types of organizations. We are currently talking with GVB to facilitate transport from the schools to the Children Hermitage. So we can use all types of partners, I think collaboration is the key to development. If we keep thinking within the context of the creative industry we are limiting ourselves and we would have never thought of working with GVB.” (Interviewee 2)

We have discussed each type of collaboration Hermitage Amsterdam engages in and draw conclusions regarding the organization’s attitude towards collaboration and partnerships. First is concluded that collaboration is a core value of Hermitage Amsterdam. Collaboration is embedded deep in the organizations DNA and surfaces as an open and positive attitude towards new projects and opportunities.

“People often say: you are so nice to collaborate with. However, we have to be like that; otherwise, it would pose a huge problem, since without collaboration nothing happens here. It is kind of my first nature to connect to everything surrounding me, otherwise nothing happens” (Interviewee 1).

The role of stakeholder networks and motivations in Corporate Cultural Responsibility : an analysis of Amsterdam’s Cultural Industries