Master Thesis
NGO-business collaboration: music to our ears?
Author: Roel Verlaan
Student ID: 6124488
Date: 24-06-2016 (Final version) Study: MSc Business Administration
Track: International Management Supervisor: Dr. Michelle Westermann-Behaylo Second reader: Dr. Lori DeVito
Institution: University of Amsterdam
Faculty of Economics and Business Amsterdam Business School
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Roel Verlaan (6124488), 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.
Abstract
NGO-business collaboration takes places in different forms, on different levels and on different issues. This study combines the expanding research field of NGO-business collaboration, and connects it to the research field of NGO-business ethics. This study examines collaborations, wherein an NGO fosters peace by using music. The study is conducted using a qualitative multiple case study research design, where collaborations between two NGOs and five business partners are analyzed. The data is gathered through semi-structured interviews.
The main findings indicate that the collaborations between the NGOs and its business partners are no longer a traditional relation between a donor and a recipient, with only financial resources exchanged. Different resources, financial, expertise, and network, form the collaboration between an NGO and its business partners. Moreover, challenges are present in collaboration between the NGOs and its business partners. Communication, professionalism, and different visions can cause challenges. However, they do not seem to differ substantially from challenges in business to business collaborations. Furthermore, different types of trust in the NGO-business relationship explain the motivations behind the collaboration, and business experience from NGOs employees has positive influence on the collaboration.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my parents, brothers and sisters, and girlfriend, for the support during my studies and during the process of writing this thesis. A thesis is considered a concluding piece of work, and my time at the University of Amsterdam has come to an end by completing it. Completing the thesis and therefore graduating is a personal milestone, of which I’m very proud, it has not always been easy.
I would like to thank my supervisor, dr. Michelle Westermann-Behaylo, for the introduction to this topic and her supervision. Also, I’m grateful for the help from professor Fort with the interview guideline. Moreover, I would like to express gratitude for the interviewees of this study. Without them this thesis was not possible. And finally, I would like to thank the University of Amsterdam, for unintentionally teaching me extra independence.
The underlying topic of this thesis, business ethics, is a great bridge to an eventual future career in business. Hopefully, this thesis can function as inspiration for future acting, not only in my professional career, but also for life in general.
Roel Verlaan June 2016
Table of content
Abstract ... iii
Acknowledgements ... iv
Index tables & figures ... vii
1. Introduction ... 1
2. Theoretical background ... 5
2.1 Peace & conflict ... 5
2.2 Business & peace ... 6
2.3 Business NGO collaboration ... 8
2.4 Business ethics ...12
2.5 Music & peace ...14
2.6 Analytical model ...17 3. Methodology ... 18 3.1 Research methodology ...18 3.2 Data gathering ...19 3.3 Data analysis ...21 3.4 Quality criteria...26 4. Results ... 27
4.1 Within case analysis: MasterPeace ...27
4.1.1 MasterPeace & Meijers Assurantiën ... 28
4.1.2. MasterPeace & ThiemeMeulenhoff ... 30
4.1.3. MasterPeace & Aegon ... 31
4.1.4. MasterPeace & its collaboration with business partners ... 32
4.2. Within-case analysis Musicians without Borders ...34
4.2.1. Musicians without Borders & Rockacademy Tilburg ... 34
4.2.2. Musicians without Borders & Hogan Lovells ... 35
4.2.3. Musicians without Borders & its collaborations with business partners ... 37
4.3 Cross-case analysis: MasterPeace & Musicians without Borders ...39
4.4 Discussion ...41
5. Conclusion ... 45
6. References ... 48
8.1 Interview guidelines ...53 8.2 Quote lists ...54
Index tables & figures
Table 1 NGOs
Table 2 Business partners Table 3 Coding scheme “how” Table 4 Coding scheme “why” Table 5 Coding scheme “music”
Table 6 Within-case analysis: MasterPeace
Table 7 Within-case analysis: Musicians without Borders Table 8 Cross-case analysis
Figure 1 Analytical model NGO-business collaboration Figure 2 Units of analysis
1. Introduction
Non-governmental organizations (hereafter “NGOs”) have always played an important role in forcing (business) leaders to pay attention. In the early 1800s, the British Anti-Slavery Society and the U.S. Foreign Anti-Slavery Society were the driving force behind government action against the slave trade. Later, in 1945, NGOs were mainly responsible for including human rights language in the United Nations (UN) Charter (Simmons, 1998). For a long time, NGOs have been associated mainly with the traditional watchdog role, pushing both governments and businesses to act and reform in environmental and social issues in today’s interdependent world (Austin, 2000; Laasonen et al., 2012). In 2006, The U.S. NGO National Labor Committee (today known as the Institute for Global Labour and Human Rights) wrote a report wherein they described how the U.S. company Walmart, used child labor in two factories in Bangladesh. Not long before that, the Canadian programme Zone Libre, in collaboration with NGO Maquila Solidarity Network, made public news that Walmart was using child labor (Cedillo Torres et al., 2012). Walmart was forced to give explanation, and ceased business with the two factories immediately. Not long after, the first general report, “Report on Ethical Sourcing”, assessing suppliers, customers and associated, was generated by Walmart (Cedillo Torres et al., 2012). This is a clear example of how NGOs demanded action and adjustments of business.
However, since the turn of the century, the famous maxim “opposites attract” is more applicable; the number of collaborations between NGOs and businesses has increased significantly over the last two decades (see for example Lucea, 2010; Kolk & Lenfant, 2012; Austin, 2000; Seitanidi & Crane, 2009). James Austin (2000, p.69) provides an interesting explanation of this development: “the search for new resources and more effective organizational approaches is bringing NGOs and corporations together. These alliances are also emerging because businesses are increasingly reexamining their traditional philanthropic practices and seeking new strategies of engagement with their communities that will have greater corporate relevance and higher social impact”.
It was Kofi Annan (1999), Secretary General of the UN, who addressed the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, when he invited businesses to join the UN to “initiate a global compact of shared values and principles, that will give a human
face to the global market”. Not long after, at the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit for Sustainable Development (WSSD), “multi-stakeholder partnerships” was the main topic of discussion in achieving sustainable development (Biermann et al., 2007). Jane Nelson (2000) develops five principles of corporate engagement in her book The Business of Peace. The fourth principle is “Partnership and Collective Action”, where mutually beneficial and transparent partnerships between business and NGOs can be formed.
Businesses and their collaboration with NGOs are not only contributing to environmental or child labor issues. Businesses can contribute to peace as well. Business and peace is not a new concept. Montesquieu states in De l’esprit de Lois ([1758], 2008) that, “the natural effect of trade is to bring about peace. Two nations which trade together, render themselves reciprocally dependent; for if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interest in selling; and all unions are based upon mutual needs”. Or to use the famous expression by Richard Cobden, the 19th
century classical liberal and textile manufacturer: “commerce is the great panacea” ([1835] 1978, p. 357). Moreover, Kant believed that economic trade lessened the likelihood of war. In his book Perpetual Peace he writes “The spirit of trade cannot coexist with war, and sooner or later this spirit dominates every people” (Kant, [1795] 1970).
But rather than focusing on a broader (macro) economic level, this research focuses on the meso-level, the business level, and concrete actions firms can undertake to promote peace. Moreover, this research focuses on the individual, managerial level, and the motivations for managers. As Godfrey and Hatch (2007, p. 87) remark: ‘‘in a world that is increasingly global and pluralistic, progress in our understanding of CSR must include theorizing around the micro-level processes practicing managers engage in when allocating resources toward social initiatives’’. Although some economist state that “the business of business is business” (Friedman, 1970), businesses today are more likely to engage in practices that go beyond profit maximization or pursue shareholder value. They can pursue broader social benefits (Nelson, 2000; Arenas et al., 2013). A certain form of business, ethical business, can pursue those benefits (Fort & Westermann-Behaylo, 2008).
Businesses can do this by collaborating with NGOs that are active in the peace fostering process. But why would they do this? What is the motivation? Is it because of the reputation or legitimacy NGOs have within society (Austin, 2000; Lucea, 2010)? And how do businesses actually collaborate with NGOs? What resources are
involved? Business-NGO collaboration can be both strategic and relational, where mutual goals can be identified and articulated, and a strong cooperative path can be followed (Austin, 2000).
But how, and why, is it done? To answer these questions, concepts such as Hard Trust, Real Trust, and Good Trust are used. They can form a model of business-NGO partnerships (Fort, 2008; Fort & Westermann-Behaylo, 2008). Hard Trust focuses on how to make people or business do what they are supposed to do, with the threat of sanctions or punishments; this means complying with external laws (government regulation and lawsuits). Real Trust is transactional, where both parties engage for mutual self-benefit. The NGO and business partner can benefit from collaboration. Empirical evidence suggests that in the long run, a business practicing virtues such as honesty, truth-telling, promise-keeping, and the production of high quality goods and services tends to be more profitable – or at least as profitable – than companies that take short cuts by violating such ethical principles (Fort, 2015). Last, Good Trust is when people or businesses want to be good, trustworthy, and/or valued by their community. Good Trust is where a higher purpose unites the parties pursuing the relationship for the greater good (Fort, 2007; Fort, 2015; Fort & Westermann-Behaylo, 2008). A broader explanation of these forms of Trust will follow in section 2.
Fort and Westermann-Behaylo (2008) believe that further research and case studies are necessary to identify the possible intangible benefits of a Good Trust relationship between NGOs and businesses. Furthermore, Den Hond et al. (2015) state that more research in how corporations and NGOs interact and why some businesses choose to establish relations with some NGOs rather than others is necessary. In addition, Selsky and Parker (2005) call for theory-building by the way of large scale empirical research. This study attempts to address these gaps by conducting a comparative case study wherein two NGOs and their business partners are the topic of research; the two NGOs use music in the peace fostering process. They use the power of music in peaceful and effective conflict transformation (Urbain, 2008). Can music strengthen peace building activities? Can music’s capability of connecting a given individual to a wider sense of impact (Fort, 2015) influence an NGO-business collaboration? Can music be an agent of Good Trust (Fort, 2015)?
The main question addressed in this study is:
How, and why, do businesses collaborate with Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that use music in the peace fostering process?
It is important to study these questions in the broader scope. Ethical business can foster peace, and in a more integrated and complex world, single-party solutions are no longer sufficient (Austin, 2000, Kolk & Lenfant, 2012). On a different, meso-level, businesses actually have the potential to collaborate with NGOs and foster peace through commerce (Fort & Westermann-Behaylo, 2008). It requires no explanation that peace is something to strive for.
This study consists of six sections. The following section (2) reviews the relevant literature and theoretical background of business and peace, NGO-business collaboration and its motivations and forms, as well as music and peace. Following this, section 3 describes the research methodology. Section 4 presents the results and findings of this study. Section 5 discusses these results and the research implications for theory. The conclusion, managerial implications, and recommendations for further research are discussed in the final section, section 6.
2. Theoretical background
This section gives a brief overview of the important concepts and theories in the literatures on peace, business & peace, business ethics, NGO & business collaboration, and music and peace.
2.1 Peace & conflict Peace
Peace is defined in many different ways. There is for example a distinction between negative peace and positive peace (Galtung, 1969). Negative peace is when there is absence of violence. Positive peace is when there is absence of violence and this is coupled with social justice. However, more notions of peace exist. Peace can be more than only the absence of violence, it can be sustainable peace. This can be explained as a broader notion of peace. This includes not only the absence of violence, but also an ongoing sense of stability within a particular community or society (Dunfee & Fort, 2003). The definition of peace however, can be an ongoing debate. Johan Galtung, the founder of the Peace Research Institute, states that the term peace should always be considered problematic, like the medical profession’s approach to the term “health” (Galtung, 1985). Health can be seen as the absence of diseases (or the symptoms of diseases), but is at the same time about building a stronger body that is capable to resist diseases. The most common use of the term peace is when it is defined as the absence of bloodshed. This definition is maintained in the majority of the peace through commerce literature (Oetzel, Westermann-Behaylo, Koerber, Fort, Rivera, 2010). However, in this research, a broader scope of conflicts than only bloodshed is studied.
Conflict
Many forms of conflict can occur. Different definitions are used throughout literature. The Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research (HIIK) researches international conflicts, and defines conflict as follows:“[…]positional difference between at least two assertive and directly involved actors regarding values relevant to a society (the conflict items) which is carried out using observable and interrelated conflict measures that lie outside established regulatory procedures and threaten core state functions, the international order, or hold the prospect of doing so” (Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research, 2015, p. 8) Galtung (1985, 1990) distinguishes three types of violence: direct, systematic, and
cultural. Direct violence is the intended harm done to human beings, usually quick, sometimes called the presence of bloodshed (killing). Systematic violence is the unintended harm done to human beings, usually working slow, as a process. With cultural violence, to conclude, is meant the aspects of culture, for example the aspects of religion and ideology, that can be used to justify direct or structural violence.
In 2015, the HIIK reported 409 (political) conflicts globally, of which 280 were intrastate conflicts, and 74 were interstate conflicts. Other conflicts were sub state conflicts. An interstate conflict is conducted between two or more states whereas intrastate conflicts are primarily conducted between non-state actors and national governments (HIIK, 2015). So, as in previous years (Oetzel et al., 2010), over 80 percent of the global conflicts were internal conflicts. More and more Multinational Enterprises (MNE’s) are operating in conflict-prone countries, where governmental deficits are most pronounced (Westermann-Behaylo et al., 2015). This might explain the fact that corporate diplomacy is becoming more important in the Business & Peace literature. Corporate diplomacy is defined as “a process whose consequences might include recognition of the corporation as responsible mainly by the foreign publics. On the other hand, while social responsibility is a practice toward all stakeholders, corporate diplomacy tries to change the role of the corporation as an institution in society and thus implies mainly dealing with public institutions when taking over some of its roles. Finally, corporate diplomacy uses social responsibility practices as one of its tactics to grow the legitimacy and influence of the company, thus depending on corporate social responsibility to pursue its own objectives” (Ordeix-Rigo & Duarte, 2009, p. 559). Oetzel et al. (2010) describe it as what action corporations can do and undertake in the context of peace through commerce. Today, corporations are expected to take larger roles in the world (Westermann-Behaylo et al., 2015). This expanded political and social role of businesses in the world economy is called corporate diplomacy (Westermann-Behaylo et al., 2015).
2.2 Business & peace
A lot has been written about business and peace. In the twenty-first century, economic globalization will continue to increase the power of corporations vis-à-vis the nation-state (Fort, 2007). Today, in a post 9/11 globalized world, businesses can have clear influence on the impact of violent conflicts, and they can assist in conflict mitigation and peace promotion (Oetzel et al. 2009). However, even in history as well, business
have been involved in violent conflicts (Nelson, 2000). Think of the British East India Company (Oetzel et al, 2009), or the Dutch East India Company, and their role in the colonial past. So the question remains whether business actually contribute to peace.
One could argue that business is not fostering peace because it benefits from conflict or even war. In his farewell address, president Dwight D. Eisenhowever warned the United States about the Military Industrial Complex. Particular businesses gain from a state of war or conflict. However, less than 5% of the world’s gross product can be attributed to armaments (Fort, 2015). The opposite can be stated. Kant, Montesquieu, and Hayek all argue that trade promotes peace. There is a reciprocal relationship between trade and peace (Fort, 2007).
Trade and peace show a reciprocal relationship. However, the question remains to what extent businesses ought to be active in the peace fostering process. In his book, originally published in 1962, Milton Friedman argues that business has no social responsibility, and that its only goal is to increase profits for itself and its shareholders. The shareholders in their private role are the ones who are having social responsibility (Friedman, 2009). “The business of a business is business” (Friedman, 1970). Later the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR) gained more importance. Salzmann, Ionesu-Somers and Steger (2005) even write about the business case for sustainability. It can be defined as “a strategic and profit-driven corporate response to environmental and social issues caused through the organization’s primary and secondary activities” (Salzmann et al, 2005 p. 27). The business case of CSR means would mean that it would be eventually beneficial for the corporation to engage in CSR. This would fit in definition of what a business should do, as described by Friedman (2009).
Still, a central function of business is profitability. So why should businesses be held responsible for peace? The idea is not to make or have businesses responsible for peace, but to let businesses see what role they can play in fostering and furthering peace (Oetzel et al.2009). There are at least five activities businesses can be engaged in to manage their own risk and at the same time foster and promote peace: (1) promoting economic development; (2) promoting the rule of law and principles of external valuation; (3) contributing to a sense of community; (4) engaging in
track-two diplomacy; and (5) engaging in conflict-sensitive practices and risk assessment (Kolk & Lenfant, 2012; Oetzel et al. 2010; Fort, 2007).
Jane Nelson (2001) argues that there are five principles of corporate engagement: (1) strategic commitment to developing and embedding policies that address human rights, corruption, and security issues, (2) risk and impact analysis with respect to the nature of the conflict in which the company does its business, (3) dialogue and consultation with the relevant stakeholders, (4) developing mutually beneficial and transparent partnerships with governments other companies, and NGOs, and (5) developing accountability metrics in order to evaluate corporate action. The fourth principle will be investigated deeper in this study. Cross-sector partnerships, as Nelson (2001, p.33) names it, can be valuable mechanisms for addressing some of the complex, resource intensive and integrated issues associated with conflict prevention and resolution. NGO-business partnership can be such a cross-sector partnership, and will be discussed furthermore in this section.
2.3 Business NGO collaboration
In 1999, former secretary-general of the United Nations Kofi Annan, addressed the World Economic Forum (WEF). He challenged business leaders to join an international initiative, the Global Compact, “to give a human face to globalization”. With the start of this UN Global Challenge in 2000, Annan stated “let’s combine the power of the markets with the authority of universal values, and the creative power of the entrepreneur with the needs of the left-behind and future generations”. It was stated that for all of the 10 principles that the Global Compact described, collaboration between business and NGOs (and CSOs) was needed.
NGO
NGO is a broad term that refers to all organizations that are neither an official part of a government, nor a private for-profit enterprise (Yaziji & Doh, 2009). Terms as “NGO”, “Civil Society Organization, CSO”, for-profit” or “non-governmental” are used interchangeably; this depends on the framework of discussion (Seitanidi, 2010). In this study the term “NGO” will be used.
In addition to NGO-business collaboration, other acronyms like NPO-BUS collaboration (Non-Profit-Organization-Business – collaboration) (Seitanidi & Crane, 2009), cross-sector collaboration, or different forms of partnerships are sometimes used to describe the phenomenon of NGOs and businesses working together.
Cross-sector collaboration is defined as partnerships involving government, business, non-profits and philantropics, communities, and/or the public as a whole (Bryson et al., 2006). However, because a specific type of cross-sector collaboration is topic of this study, the term NGO-business collaboration will be used. This is defined by Selsky & Parker (2005, p.850) as “relationships formed to explicitly address social issues and causes that actively engage the partners on an ongoing basis”. In this research this definition is used. No collaboration with third parties, or partnerships including governments are part of this research, so no a very basic definition of NGO-business collaboration is used.
In his article James E. Austin (2000) predicts that the 21st century will be an age of accelerated interdependence. Cross-sector collaboration between NGOs, corporations and governments will intensify. There is more literature on cross-sectional collaboration and partnerships, but most of this literature has been focused on stable countries. There is somewhat of a gap in the literature when collaboration in the context of (violent) conflict (Kolk & Lenfant, 2012). What kind of collaboration is possible? There is a collaboration continuum (Austin, 2000). This continuum describes three types or stages of collaboration: philanthropic, transactional, and integrative. Philanthropic is the most “traditional” stage. It can be described as a relationship between a charitable donor and a recipient. The second stage is the transactional collaboration type. This is when specific resources are given, focused on specific activities. This can be, for example, event sponsorship. This type of collaboration is also called the engagement type (Kolk & Lenfant, 2012). A distinction between engagement with funds and engagement without funds is made. The last stage of collaboration between business and NGO can be described as the integrative stage. This is when the human resources, missions and activities of both sides of the partnership begin to merge. It can be compared to a joint venture, and is considered the highest strategic level of collaboration (Austin, 2000). In other literature, this is called the transformation stage. Transformative partnerships have a strong sustainable community development focus (Kolk & Lenfant, 2012). Moreover, businesses need to have a certain “moral maturity” (Fort & Westermann-Behaylo, 2008). Moral maturity is derived from the model of moral development (Kohlberg, 1981). This is a model that explains moral development of a child. There are three stages in this model; the first stage is about punishment avoidance. The second stage is about moral behavior because it is in the self-interest
of a child. This is rewarding of good behavior. The third stage is the conventional level of moral development. This is the stage where the individual shows moral behavior based on social conformity or law and order. Lastly, the postconventional stage of moral behavior can be reached, when the individual sees herself as a member a wider society with an obligation to contribute (Kohlberg, 1981, Fort & Westermann-Behaylo, 2008). This model of moral development can also be used for corporations. A comparison between toddlers and corporations is made by Fort & Westermann-Behaylo (2008). Some corporations my only engage in ethical business when there is a threat of sanctions. Other corporations may engage in ethical business because in can be beneficial for purposes of economic gain. Or engage in ethical business because of social conformity, where they want to maintain a good reputation in the eyes of peers and investors. Lastly, some corporations reach the postconventional stage, wherein they recognize their role in society, and wherein they contribute to the interests of a wider range of stakeholders, not only shareholders. (Fort & Westermann-Behaylo, 2008). In other words, in a model of moral development, businesses need to “grow up” to reach the engagement- or integrative type of collaboration.
How are the collaborations started? There are three stages in a partnership between an NGO and a business partner, state Seitanidi & Crane (2009). The first is partnership selection. Both NGOs and businesses can have goals and objectives, but collaboration does not start automatically. Both parties have to choose a partnership over other forms of community involvement. The second stage is partnership design (Seitanidi & Crane, 2009). This is how the two parties actually collaborate. There can be partnership objectives, sometimes a memorandum of understanding (MoU) is signed. Furthermore, it is decided what resources are used in the collaborations. Usually collaborations are considered “resource intensive” (Austin, 2000), meaning that several resources, financial, human, expertise, are mobilized. The final stage of collaboration, or a partnership, is institutionalization (Seitanidi & Crane, 2009). In this stage it is determined to what extent the partnerships, its programs, and processes become accepted as part of the organizations involved.
A related perspective of NGO-corporate partnerships is the linkage that Fort and Westermann-Behaylo (2008) develop between the three levels of Trust and the possibilities for partnerships. This is the moral maturity, wherein businesses can become an ethical corporation. The first way NGOs and corporations deal with one
another is in the form of Hard Trust. It is not really a “partnership”, but the NGO fulfills its role as watchdog. It is about holding firms accountable for social justice issues, avoiding corruption and bribery, and compliance with the law (Fort & Westermann-Behaylo, 2008). The next level is a partnership on the level of Real Trust. This is when a business case is made for firms to engage in socially responsible activities wherefrom society can benefit. With real Trust, business can partner up with NGOs for several instrumental reasons, like improving the firm’s reputation or developing new markets or marketing techniques (Fort & Westermann-Behaylo, 2008). The final level on which NGO-corporate partnership is possible is the level of Good Trust. This is when a corporation sees itself as a member of the wider society, and sees its obligation to contribute to its stakeholders. NGOs can help to make the corporations start to care intrinsically. NGOs can make the corporations aware of the positive impact their ethical behavior can have (Fort & Westermann-Behaylo, 2008). Different forms of NGO-business collaboration can occur. It is important to study the motivation for both parties to actually engage in a partnership with one another?
Motivation
As written above, there can be the motivation of exploring new markets and new marketing, “the economization of goodwill” (Fort & Westermann-Behaylo, 2008, p.67). Furthermore, improvement of the reputation of a business can be a motivation to engage in a collaboration with an NGO. NGOs usually have more public trust attached to them, and by being active in a partnership, that public trust can be beneficial for the business (Byiers, Guadagno & Karaki, 2015; Shumate et al., 2016). In this way, partnering with NGOs can be economically rewarding for companies, so good ethics can mean good business (Cohen, 1999). Another motivation is learning, or knowledge acquiring (Fransen & Kolk, 2007; Kolk et al., 2008; Byiers et al. 2015). Groups with various backgrounds can learn from each other, and NGOs can have valuable and unique knowledge on, for example, target groups. Businesses can gain that knowledge by partnerships. Additionally, businesses can recognize that some issues are too challenging for only one stakeholder (Kolk et al., 2008). Multi-stakeholder initiative can be more successful. More Multi-stakeholders means more knowledge, which, when brought together can lead to synergies. It can also include higher credibility, better quality of rules and a lower risk profile (Fransen & Kolk,
2007). In addition, human-resource motives can play a role in the collaboration as well. A collaboration can help to retain and recruit employees (Shumate et al., 2016). Vice versa, what are motivations for NGOs to collaborate or partner with businesses? There might be ideological differences, but more NGOs have chosen a pragmatic approach and collaborate with the private sector (Byiers et al. 2015). At the same time, NGOs face financial constraints, so they are more forced to collaborate. This financial constraint can be explained due to reduction in donor programs, and fiscal austerity in the global North (Byiers et al., 2015). So the acquiring of financial resources is often a motivation for NGOs to partner with the private sector (Shumate et al., 2016). The learning and gathering knowledge argument that is present as a business motivation is also present from an NGO perspective. A partnership or collaboration can be about access to knowledge, marketing expertise, a greater network or greater visibility (Kolk et al., 2008).
The above written might give the impression that collaboration between the public sector (NGO) and the private sector (businesses) always comes easily and smoothly. This might not be the case. As mentioned before, there can be ideological differences, since NGOs and businesses usually come from completely different worlds. This unfamiliarity can result in lack of initial trust, which might make collaboration more difficult (Rivera-Santos & Rufín, 2010). Another challenge that might occur in collaboration between NGO and business is when the business partner in the collaboration is forced to upgrade their commitment to social development (Dahan et al., 2009). Because the business is already in the partnership, demanding more commitment is easier for the NGO. This might cause friction with the classic “business of business is business” notion (Friedman, 1970). NGOs and businesses usually have fundamentally different structures and values, which can lead to different visions. Moreover, lack of common experience and communication can sometimes result in conflict, even when both parties appear to have shared values and commitments (Dahan et al., 2009).
2.4 Business ethics
Businesses can be ethical. As stated above, a central role of business is profitability, and expecting businesses to work on fostering peace on a daily basis might be too much, but daily work done by business can be ethical (Fort, 2007).
Fort suggests that there are three levels of Trust that together form Total Integrity Management: Hard Trust, Real Trust, Good Trust (Fort, 2007). With Total Integrity Management business ethics can be analyzed holistically, historically, and hopefully. This integration of contemporary approaches to business ethics can contribute to sustainable peace. Hard Trust is about how to make people do what they are supposed to do. It is law, legislation. There are several notions to it. First, a part of Hard Trust is about protection. “Were it not for laws, we would be subject to the whims of the powerful with no checks against them” (Fort, 2007, p. 132). Secondly, Hard Trust can also create order. It sets rules, and makes obeying those rules important. Punishment is a part of Hard Trust, and is the explanation for “Hard”. There is an enforcement mechanism (Fort, 2007). Organizations, companies, people can get punished if they don’t obey the law and follow the set rules. Accountability is an important part of Hard Trust. Hard Trust makes people accountable for the rules of the organization and forces them to live up to those rules. However, Hard Trust, with its laws, legislation, rules, enforcement and punishment, could give the impression that good ethics is only enforced, and that by Hard Trust good ethics is completely enforced. This is not the case. Other dimensions of ethical behavior are needed. Other dimensions of Trust are necessary, this is defined as Real Trust and Good Trust.
Real Trust is what most people mean when referring to “trust”. It is about being honest; about living up to promises made, creating enough quality in products and service so that customers are satisfied and rewarding people for doing the things the company claims are important (Fort, 2007). Real Trust is based between Hard Trust and Good Trust. It can build on Hard Trust, and can be generated by for example a fair, consistent compliance program (Fort, 2007). Real Trust can “pay”, because there is notion of reward. This is the “good ethics is good business” argument (Cohen, 1999; Cohen, 2007). In the long run, good ethics tend to be economically rewarding (Margolis & Walsh, 2001). This is the reciprocal relationship between business and peace (Fort & Schipani, 2002). So businesses do not only have normative reasons to enhance, obtain or enlarge Real Trust, they can also have a clear self-interest.
Sometimes however, it is not only self-interest or (law) enforcement that explains ethical behavior. Sometimes people, and with that organizations, want to be good, trustworthy and/or valued by their community. This is the third form of Trust: Good Trust. Good Trust is when people find a sense of their own well-being in the
welfare of others. It is about setting free or fostering passion, it is about the human quest for moral excellence and spiritual identity. It is going beyond self-interest to foster a common good (Fort, 2007). In Good Trust, three dimensions are important. Firstly, a notion of “music”. Secondly, a notion of “mediating institutions”, and finally a notion of “more mediation” (Fort, 2007). The first, the notion of ‘music’, is deserves extra explanation in this research. It is defined as “a sense of spiritual and aesthetic, harmonic artfulness that defines a quest for moral excellence” (Fort, 2007, p 200). The “music” dimension of Good Trust will be researched further in this paper. The question whether music can be an agent for Good Trust is important in this study (Fort, 2015). The second notion, mediating institutions, is an organizational dimension where there are communal identities formed and which dialectically interact with individuals. The third notion is a bigger sense of mediating institutions, hence the name “more mediation”. This is how, as a teleological goal, corporations can contribute to sustainable peace.
2.5 Music & peace
It was not long after the Paris terrorist attacks that the song “Imagine” from John Lennon was played at the Place de la Republique to honor the victims of the attacks (The Guardian, 2015). The arts, in this occasion in the form of a song, contributed to peace, to a sense of community and unity. Olivier Urbain (2008, xviii), director of the Toda Institute for Global Peace and Policy Research, states that “It is high time for the human brain and heart to join forces to explore and apply the power of music for peaceful and effective conflict transformation”. Given all the conflicts between groups and countries in the world, it is important to draw on the widest possible range of peacemaking instruments and mechanisms to solve these issues. The potential contribution of the arts has traditionally been ignored or marginalized (Van den Dungen, 2008). Of the arts, music is undoubtedly the art form with the potential to affect people more immediately and more deeply than any other. Cobussen and Nielsen (2012, p. 375) agree: “it seems self-evident that music play more than just an aesthetic role in contemporary society”.
So what makes music powerful? Music can be a universal language (Bergh & Sloboda, 2010). Is it that the power of music derives from the ability to create and strengthen feelings of affinity and group cohesion? Well, one should keep in mind that this can be used for good or for evil (Cohen, 2008). As Urbain (2008) puts it:
“(…) like any other human endeavor, music can be used to enhance human life, or to destroy it”. For example, cultural violence, part of Galtung’s (1990) typology of violence, can consist partly out of music. Anthems, parade songs can legitimize or justify direct or structured violence. Furthermore, one can imagine musical torture, used in US prisons (Swash, 2008), where loud music is played to put pressure on, or getting confessions of detainees. The way music is used can tell us whether it is peaceful or unpeaceful. In addition to its contribution to the positive side, like peace, music can celebrate war, killing, hate or humiliation and therefore contribute to the negative (Kent, 2008). Music can contribute to reconciliation efforts, for example by using music to understand the narrative of the other, or by using music in a mourning process (Cohen, 2008). Music can be uplifting and uniting. Art uproots into a virtual reality, listeners or practitioners can be touched, moved, uplifted. Music can also be uniting. It can create a sense of belonging to the same unity. We can sense communality, feel that we are one (Galtung, 2008). In addition, as Fort (2015) argues, music has the strong potential to be an agent of Good Trust. Music is one dimension of Good Trust that is “a sense of spiritual and aesthetic, harmonic artfulness, that defines a quest for moral excellence” (Fort, 2007, p.200). It can bypass the mind and go straight to the heart (Vinader, 2008).
Adding to a sense of community is one of the five things business can do to foster peace (Oetzel et al., 2010; Fort, 2007). Music can add to that sense of community. This can be done through reconciliation. Reconciliation is defined as a set of deep processes designed to transform relationships of hatred and mistrust into relationships of trust and trustworthiness (Cohen, 2008). Music can contribute to reconciliation in two ways, appreciating the narratives of the other, and mourning losses. Music can make sure that two sides embrace their interconnectedness, or provide enough support in mourning (Cohen, 2008).
Music is not only listening. It is much broader, and the term “musicking” is coined by Christopher Small (2011). It is the verb music, to music, and it is defined as: “to take part, in any capacity, in a musical performance, whether by performing, by listening, by rehearsing or practicing, by providing material for performance (what is called composing), or dancing” (Small, 2008, p.8). In “musicking” people form relations, and feel empathy (Cohen, 2008). This verb musicking can contribute to a sense of community, as described by Galtung (2008), and Oetzel et al. (2010). Amongst others, these actions show a form of ethical conduct, it can have a positive
impact on peace, even when that connection is not immediately apparent (Fort, 2015). Lastly, it is important to be aware of the difference between collective music and individual music, where participating together can have a different effect than personal consumption of music (Fort, 2015). This is directly related to the difference between consumption of music, and actually participating in music. For the first, an individual can for example listen individually to music on his musical device. For the latter, someone needs to be active in for example singing or playing a band (Fort, 2015).
Fort and Westermann-Behaylo (2008) state that further research and case studies are necessary to identify the possible intangible benefits for a Good Trust relationship between NGOs and businesses. Den Hond et al. (2015) state that more research in how corporates and NGOs interact, and why some businesses choose to establish relations with some NGOs rather than others is necessary. In addition, Selsky and Parker (2005) call for theory building for cross sector partnerships by the way of large scale empirical research. Kolk and Lenfant (2012) state that there is somewhat of a gap in the literature on collaboration in the context of (violent) conflict. Furthermore, the questions on the potential of music are part of this research. Can music’s capability of connecting a given individual with a wider sense of impact (Fort, 2015) be of influence on NGO – business collaboration? Can music be an agent of Good Trust (Fort, 2015)? This study attempts to address these gaps, and answer the calls for more research. The main question addressed in this study is:
How, and why, do businesses collaborate with Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that use music in the peace fostering process?
2.6 Analytical model
Figure 1: analytical model NGO-business collaboration
Figure 1 shows the analytical model to explain the research into the collaboration between NGOs and their business partners. The thick arrow represents the collaboration, with the “how”-question in the dotted box related to it. How NGOs and business partners collaborate is described in section 4. This “how” question is answered by research into the specific resources that are used in the collaboration. For more information, see the coding tables in the following section.
Businesses have motivations to participate in a collaboration, which is shown in the dotted box in the right hand top corner. The “why” question is answered by research into the motivations of businesses to collaborate with NGOs. This is done via the different measures of Trust. See the coding tables in the next section for more
information. In addition, the arrow between the “why” dotted box to the “how” dotted box indicates influence of the motivation for the collaboration on how the collaboration is executed. In other words: do different measures of Trust correlate with different resources? Lastly, in the left lower hand corner, the music dotted box represents music that is used by the NGOs in their activities in the peace fostering processes, and the line to the business partner shows the influence of music on this business partner. The question whether music is of influence on the motivation of business partners, and on the collaboration itself is also researched in this study.
3. Methodology
This chapter elaborates on the research methodology used in this thesis, including the data collection, interviews, data analysis and coding. Last quality criteria concerning this research are discussed.
3.1 Research methodology
This research focuses on how and why business can collaborate with NGOs, in using music in the peace process. As there is little existing research on this topic, this research is exploratory, measuring beliefs, perceptions and motivations (Eisenhardt, 1989). This research also takes a qualitative approach, as Yin (2013) states that in answering “how” and “why” questions qualitative research is the most suitable.
Along with the scientific division between quantitative and qualitative research, there is also a distinction between the inductive and deductive approach. Deductive approach uses a theoretical or conceptual framework subsequently tested using data. Inductive approach explores data to develop theories and subsequently relates them to literature (Lewis et al., 2009). This research takes an inductive approach, since the theory is built on the basis of the gathered data.
This research is a multiple case study. A case study is an in-depth exploration from multiple perspectives of the complexity and uniqueness of a particular situation in “real life” or not controlled context (Simons, 2009). Case studies are particularly useful when answering “how” and “why” questions (Simons, 2009; Yin, 2013). This research examines cases of two NGOs. The NGOs and their collaboration with business partners are topic of research. This multiple case study design allows an identification of similar results, and therefore “repetition logic” can be tested (Yin,
2013). Using multiple cases strengthens the theoretical implications of the findings and facilitates external validity (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2013).
3.2 Data gathering
This study is a multiple case study of two NGOs: “MasterPeace”, and “Musicians without Borders”. There are no confidentiality issues with both NGOs. The criteria for selecting the cases were that the organization was non-profit and collaborated with businesses. The criteria also included the organization’s location, availability, and activity in fostering peace using music. Both MasterPeace and Musicians without Borders are non-profit organizations that collaborate with business partners, although Musicians without Borders prefers to refer to them as “project partners”. MasterPeace and Musicians without Borders are both located in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, and are active in projects globally. They were available and
willing to share their experiences and contacts. Lastly, both NGOs use music in fostering peace: MasterPeace uses music as a part of their broader cause of using different forms of arts to foster peace and prevent armed conflict. Musicians without Borders uses mainly music in their activities in the peace process.
The author approached the NGOs, which were willing to participate, and their business partners via the NGO. Table 1 shows specific information about NGOs. In addition, there are no confidentiality issues with the business partners. Table 2 shows information about the business partners. There are countries named between brackets when a business partner has several offices globally, the country named in Table 2 is the location of the office that collaborates with the NGO.
Table 1. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)
Name of NGO Slogan No. of
Countries
Job title interviewee
MasterPeace Creating Peace.
Together.
40+ 1. Founder
2. Global Lead Musicians without Borders War divides. Music
connects. 10+
Table 2. Business partners
Figure 2. Units of analysis
Figure 2 shows the units of analysis. The left box shows Musicians without Borders, with its business partners Rockacademy Tilburg and Hogan Lovells. The right box shows MasterPeace and its business partners Meijers Assurantiën, Aegon, and ThiemeMeulenhoff. The smaller, black arrows within the boxes indicate collaboration Name of business
partner
Business No. of employees
Job title interviewee from organization Meijers Assurantiën Insurance broking 180 Director
ThiemeMeulenhoff Educational publishing
200-500 Chief Financial Officer [CFO]
Aegon (The Netherlands)
Insurance 4,000+ Chief Customer Officer [CCO] Rockacademy Tilburg University of Applied Science 300+ Head of Studies Hogan Lovells (Germany)
Law 200+ Intellectual Property
between the NGOs and business partners. The two boxes are the within-case analysis. The larger, blue arrow between the two boxes indicates the cross-case analysis between the two NGOs and its business partners.
The data is gathered using semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured refers to a more one-sided interview in which the respondent is allowed free rein, as long as the interviewer considers what being said is or might be relevant. The interviewer brings a list of topics and questions to be covered (Fylan, 2005; Leech, 2002). He or she can choose to elaborate on certain topics or ask more questions if it seems appropriate (Lewis et al., 2009). The interviews are conducted with an interview guideline to ensure the audit trail and reliability (Shenton, 2004; Yin, 2013). Appendix 1 provides the used guideline which focuses on the peace fostering process, NGO & business collaboration, and music and peace. The interview guideline was formed after discussion with leading experts in this field of research.
Most interviews were conducted face-to-face, with the exception of those conducted via telephone or Skype because of the physical distance. All the interviews were recorded with permission and later transcribed. All the interviews were conducted in English, except one interview, which was conducted in Dutch, the interviewee’s first language, on his request. Appendix 8 provides the quote list of this interview in Dutch, with translations in English.
3.3 Data analysis
After the interviews are transcribed, the transcripts are coded in a descriptive manner, listing the quotes to summarize the interview. Appendices 2-9 show these quote lists to strengthen the audit trail (Shenton, 2004). The transcripts are coded using Atlas.ti, a qualitative data analysis and research software. Coding means allocating a specific part of content, assigning a word or short phrase (the code) that captures the essence or summarizes the specific part of the written text of the interviews (Saldana, 2012) Afterwards, the data is coded in an analytical manner. Common words and typical quotes were highlighted and coded through an iterative process based on literature and the data itself. The coding combines an inductive and deductive approach, so some codes are created before the interviews, some codes are after the interviews (Bourque, 2004). See table 3, 4 and 5 for the coding schemes.
Table 3: Coding scheme “how”
Code Sub-code Example
Resources Money Donor – recipient
Expertise Business expertise used for NGO and vice versa
Network Access to groups and
people
Challenges Communication Communication between
NGO and business differs Professionalism Professionalism at NGO
differs from business
Vision NGO and business do not
have the same vision
Measurability Good Are there measurable
results, and are they needed?
Not good Are there no measurable
results? Are they needed?
Start Coincidence NGO and business started
collaboration by coincidence
Business initiative Business pro-actively searched for collaboration NGO initiative NGO pro-actively
searched for collaboration
Table 3 shows the coding of the responses to the question, “How do businesses collaborate with NGOs that use music in the peace fostering process?” First, the codes are resources, challenges, measurability and start. There are many resources used in a collaboration: for example, Austin (2000), and Kolk and Lenfant (2012) describe a philanthropic collaboration involving only financial resources. Another resource used in collaboration is a specific resource focused on specific issues, such as expertise or knowledge about a specific business subject, or network, where one party in the collaboration can use the network of the other party (Kolk & Lenfant, 2012). The sub codes for the code “Resources” – money, expertise, and network – are based on the literature.
Along with resources, challenges are also important in collaborative efforts. Challenges do not form a standard part of literature on NGO-business collaboration. However, Oetzel et al. (2015) describe that businesses and NGOs have fundamental different structures and values and lack shared experience. In the data gathered from interviews, the differences between NGOs and their business partners in
professionalism and communication are indicated. Both NGOs and business partners describe challenges during collaboration because of these differences. Moreover, the interviewees from the NGOs describe the most significant difference that can cause challenges as the difference between the visions of the NGO and of the business partner.
Third, measurability is important in how NGOs and businesses collaborate because of potential differences in defining success. A collaboration exists of exchanging of certain resources, the collaboration faces certain challenges, and has certain outcomes. These outcomes define the success of the collaboration. The “Measurability” code and sub-code is created by the author, after interviewees from the NGOs mentioned differences in how success was quantified or measured. Also, next to resources, challenges, and measurability, it is important to study who initiated the collaboration.
Fourth, the initiation of the collaboration between NGOs and businesses is important. This code is created after the interviews. In some interviews, the business partners stated that they wanted to collaborate with an NGO, while in other collaborations, the collaboration started by coincidence. Seitanidi and Crane (2009) also state that the first phase of a partnership between an NGO and a business partner is the partnership selection. Moreover, in the interviews, it becomes clear that the starting phase, the initiation of the partnership, is important because it can indicate the motivation behind that partnership. One could argue that initiating a partnership indicates more, or another motivation.
Table 4. Coding scheme “why”
Code Sub-code Explanation
Real Trust
Reputation Collaboration with an NGO results in reputational benefits
Market A stable consumer market is good for business Human
Resources
Improve organizational commitment. Improve quality of employees
Network Access to groups and people
Good Trust
Repayment For-profit organizations should do something back for society
Intrinsically Contribution to peace and a better world Personal Personal relationships
Table 4 shows the coding scheme for the question, “Why do businesses collaborate with NGOs that use music in the peace fostering process?” The two codes Real Trust and Good Trust are derived from literature (Fort, 2007). Hard Trust is not part of the coding scheme and research because this study does not focus on the traditional watchdog function of an NGO. Real Trust is sub-coded as Reputation, Market, HR, and Network. Reputation is a sub-code as a part of the “good ethics is good business” argument (Cohen, 1999; Cohen, 2007) in which businesses can improve their reputation in the long term by collaborating with an NGO: thus good ethics tend to be economically rewarded (Margolis & Walsh, 2001). Another self-interested motivation for businesses to collaborate with NGOs is to ensure more stability in an existing market or in exploring new markets (Fort & Westermann-Behaylo, 2008). The second sub-code under Real Trust is therefore Market. Moreover, businesses can use the collaboration with NGOs for the development of their employees – for example to recruit and retain employees (Shumate et al., 2016). In some interviews, the self-development of the employees is stated as an important motivation for the collaboration. The third part of the Real Trust motivation is therefore Human Resources (HR). Lastly, businesses may collaborate with NGOs because of the NGO’s network. Several interviews show that the network of an NGO is important. Also, the NGO may want to use the network of the business partners
(Kolk et al., 2008). The sub-codes for Real Trust are Reputation, Market, HR, and Network.
However, motivations based on another basis of Trust are also possible. The second code in answer the question “Why do businesses collaborate with NGOs that uses music in the peace fostering process?” is Good Trust (Fort, 2007). In interviews, business partners stated their reason for the collaboration as “doing something back,” or “repaying society.” Because of the profit they make, some business directors feel guilty and feel they should repay society. The sub-code is therefore called Repayment. The author has inductively created this sub-code, after the interviews, based on his own logic. The next sub code is Intrinsically: some people can feel an intrinsic sense of well-being in helping and caring for the welfare of others that goes beyond self-interest and fosters a common good (Fort, 2007). They find this motivation within themselves, without self-interest. Lastly, several interviews give the indication that the motivation for some business partners is personal; they support the cause of the NGO because they know someone in the NGO and like his or her work on the cause. This is not a Real Trust motivation, since there is no self-interest or reward for the business partner. Maintaining, or improving the friendship or relationship is not the goal. The personal relationship between persons from the NGO and persons from the business partner in these cases connects the cause of the NGO and the business partner. The author has created this sub code inductively, based on data from interviews.
Table 5. Coding scheme “music”
Sub-question Concept Explanation
To what extent is music of influence on the
collaboration between businesses and NGOs that use music in the peace fostering process?
Influence on “how” Music influences the resources, challenges, measurability, and/or start Influence on “why” Music influences Real Trust,
and/or Good Trust motivations
Finally, various answers the question “To what extent is music of influence on the collaboration between businesses and NGOs that use music in the peace fostering process?” are categorized and coded. Music can influence how the NGOs and businesses collaborate – for example, specific expertise in the field of music can be an important motivation. Moreover, music can influence why the NGOs and businesses
collaborate. For example, music can enhance the intrinsic motivation for Good Trust because a business partner understands the power of music. Fort (2015) argues that music has the potential to be an agent of Good Trust. By categorizing the responses to questions in interviews related to music, the influence of music is researched. In that way, this study can indicate to what extent the potential of music is realized.
3.4 Quality criteria
Four tests are commonly used to establish the quality of empirical social research: construct validity, internal validity, external validity, and reliability (Yin, 2013; Lewis et al., 2007). First, construct validity is about identifying correct operational measures and the extent to which the measurement questions actually measure the constructs intended to measure (Yin, 2013; Lewis et al., 2007). For example, triangulation can improve construct validity. However, as the research only uses semi-structured interviews for data, the subjectivity of the author might bias the findings. Construct validity is improved in two ways. First, the appendices provide the interview guideline, transcripts and quote lists. Second, key informants reviewed the draft of the case study report (Yin, 2013).
Second, internal validity examines the causal relationship between variables and results (Yin, 2013; Cook & Campbell, 1979). Internal validity refers to inferences made in the case study. For events that cannot be directly observed, an investigator can infer from earlier events (Yin, 2013). Internal validity is about causality. This research enforces internal validity by using pattern matching, a measure to compare the theoretically predicted and empirically observed patterns, in this research patterns matching of how and why there is collaboration between NGOs and business partners (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).
Third, external validity, or generalizability, is the extent the findings of the study are generalizable. However, it is difficult to generalize in a case study, even a multiple case study, because of the small sample size (Yin, 2013; Eisenhardt, 1989). However, generalizations are possible in multiple cases (Eisenhardt, 1989) through analytical generalization, instead of statistical generalization (Yin, 2013), particularly in a comparative case study analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989). Generalization can be done for example with replication logic: a significant finding from a single case may have replication in other cases (Hersen & Barlow, 1976; Yin, 2013).
Lastly, reliability refers to the extent to which the data collection technique, transparency and analysis procedures will yield consistent findings (Lewis et al., 2007). It is the possibility of replicating the study (Yin, 2013). To increase reliability, the researcher created an interview guideline so that the interviewees are asked similar questions, within the semi-structured interviews. Next, the audit trail is documented in the interview guideline, transcripts and quote lists available in appendices two to nine (Shenton, 2004).
4. Results
This section provides the results retrieved from the data. There are three sub-sections. In the first sub-section the within-case analysis of the both NGO MasterPeace and Musicians without Borders is discussed. In the second sub-section, both NGOs and their collaborations with business partners are compared in a cross-case analysis. Finally, in the third sub-section the results are discussed.
4.1 Within case analysis: MasterPeace
MasterPeace is an NGO founded in 2011, with the aim to mobilize people around the world to use their talent and energy for peace building and togetherness (MasterPeace, 2014). Through music, sports, arts, and dialogue, MasterPeace strives to lead the way to a more sustainable world with less (armed) conflict.
MasterPeace has offices in Utrecht (the Netherlands), Cairo (Egypt), and Mexico City (Mexico). Their network also consists of local clubs in more than 40 countries, and they organize global and local events, campaigns, leadership trainings, and capacity-building events to encourage the active involvement of the youth throughout the world in social change, peace-building, and community cohesion. By 2013, MasterPeace was awarded by the Secretary General of the United Nations, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, the “innovation in peace building” award on behalf of the United Nations Correspondents Association (UNCA) (MasterPeace, 2014). For further information please see Table 1.
MasterPeace has several business partners, amongst others are Aegon, ThiemeMeulenhoff, and Meijers Assurantiën. For further information please see Table 2. The basic collaboration between MasterPeace and their business partners
