Collaboration between NNGOs : a study about merged programme development between Hivos and Greenpeace

(1)

Research Project of the Master programme Political Science (track: International Relations)

Name: Esmée van der Ven Student number: 10386327

E-mail: esmeevanderven@gmail.com

Supervisor: dr. L.W. (Luc) Fransen Second reader: dr. R.J. (Robin) Pistorius

22 June, 2018

Collaboration between NNGOs

(2)

(3)

3

Abstract

The field of partnership relations between non-governmental organisations (NGOs) has been

growing for many decades. Much has been written about North-South NGO partnerships, while little research is done on Northern NGO (NNGO) partnerships. NNGOs operate in different sectors but since there is so little collaboration among those sectors, new organisations originate in the middle. Therefore, this research project contributes to theory about different factors that explain

partnership relations between NNGOs, which potentially stimulate the respective collaborations. The presented findings are based on a case study of a merged programme between Hivos and Greenpeace. This research identifies different factors that explain the emergence of merged programme development between large, substantively different NNGOs. The prospective programme donor, common interests, complementary strengths of Hivos and Greenpeace, and strong personal relations between the programme developers of both organisations, were important factors accounting for the emergence of the merged programme development. The findings are based on semi-structured interviews and (policy) documents about the development of the merged programme between the two NNGOs.

(4)

(5)

5

Preface

In front of you lies the master’s thesis ‘Collaboration between NNGOs: A study about merged programme development between Hivos and Greenpeace’. This research project was conducted in the period between February and June 2018 to meet the requirements for completing the Political Science master’s program, with a specialisation in International Relations, which I followed in the academic year 2017/2018.

My motivation to write this thesis stems from my strong interest in the work of NGOs, which I developed during my bachelor studies. This interest continued to grow when several years ago I began working at the Dutch Postcode Lottery. There I came into contact with the work of NGOs on a daily basis. After an internship at the Charity Department – where the communication with NGOs concerns general information, the visibility of their work, contracts, evaluations, and proposals of additional funds – I was offered a position at the Charity Department in November 2018. At first, I did not find the idea to write my thesis on the work of NGOs appealing because I wanted to keep my work and private interests separate. In the end, however, my strong interest in NGOs prevailed, and I started to look for an interesting topic within the field. The search led me to the topic of

collaboration between NNGOs. It is hoped that this research will contribute to the deeper understanding of this subject.

I would like to thank my supervisor, Luc Fransen, for guiding me through the research process. I am thankful for his advice on the subject of this thesis and for his assistance in making methodological decisions. Furthermore, I want to thank the respondents at Hivos and Greenpeace for their

willingness to take part in this study and their openness to establishing collaboration. I also want to thank the Dutch Postcode Lottery for making sources on the topic available for my research. Without this information and the respondents, I would not have been able to conduct my analysis. Lastly, I want to thank my boyfriend, family, friends, and colleagues for supporting me throughout this entire process.

I hope you enjoy reading my research project, as much as I enjoyed conducting it.

Esmée van der Ven Amsterdam, 22 June 2018

(6)

6

Abbreviations and Acronyms

COICA Coordinator of Indigenous Organisations of the Amazon River Basin DPL Dutch Postcode Lottery (Nationale Postcode Loterij)

INGO International non-governmental organisation NGO Non-governmental organisation

NNGO Northern non-governmental organisation ODA Official development assistance

OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development WWII World War II

(9)

9

The key actors

Greenpeace is an international environmental organisation active in 55 countries committed to

clean energy, strong forests, living oceans, clean production processes, and sustainable agriculture. Greenpeace conducts campaigns, based on its own research, in which environmental problems are made visible. Through these campaigns, Greenpeace aims to mobilise governments and companies to find solutions for environmental problems. Greenpeace describes itself as an innovative, creative, courageous, tenacious, and honest organisation. Together with approximately thirty million people worldwide, the organisation comprises a growing movement.

Hivos is an international organisation that seeks to find new solutions for persistent world problems.

With worldwide projects, Hivos aims to act as a positive counterbalancing force against discrimination, inequality, abuse of power, and environmental overload. According to Hivos, counterweight is not enough without integrative measures. Consequently, Hivos strives for structural change, and working together with innovative companies, citizens, and their

organisations. For example, in Latin America, Hivos has a long history of supporting the indigenous movement and it has access to a broad network of human rights and environmental organisations. Hivos is driven by the vision of sustainable economies and societies that are open to everyone.

The Dutch Postcode Lottery is the largest charity lottery in the Netherlands. Every month, lottery players stand a chance to win prizes and support charitable organisations working in the fields of people and nature in the Netherlands and abroad. The Dutch Postcode Lottery’s mission is to contribute to a greener and fairer world and to raise awareness for the work carried out by the supported organisations.

(10)

10

1. Introduction

Since the 1970s, NGOs have proliferated in number and become increasingly influential players in the world of politics. International institutions and regimes have increasingly promoted NGOs as their advocates and service providers as NGOs continue to expand and become involved with an increasing number of global issues. From the 1980s onwards, an increase in international

opportunities for funding and participation of NGOs has led to a new structural environment that is highly conducive to NGO growth. (Reimann, 2006)

To achieve lasting change in the fields where NGOs are participating, Meadows (in OECD, 2018) argues that organisations should be more effectively brought together in line with their expertise. The field of partnership relations has been growing as well for more than twenty years, but has only recently come into the spotlight from an academic perspective. Since then, the term ‘partnership’ has acquired a buzzword status in the context of NGOs (Ahmad, 2006). The main reason for this development is the agreement in the world community to pursue the Sustainable Development Goals. According to them, everyone needs to work together in order to deliver development. This makes partnership relations in the fields where NGOs participate even more important. (Promoting Effective Partnering, 2018) Also partnerships with NGOs in the North that seek to address social-ecological challenges in the South such as poverty, food insecurity,

biodiversity loss, or climate change are becoming more common (Bitzer & Glasbergen, 2015). The prospect of entering into partnership relations has become more attractive for NNGOs, since several forces – such as governmental pressures, the reductions of official development assistance (ODA), and changes in charitable sector – encourage NNGOs to generate revenues in other ways (Weisbrod, 1997).

When NGOs are planning on establishing collaborations, a variety of issues can arise. This is not surprising since many NGOs differ in their norms and values. Moreover, different ideas can arise regarding a project between NGOs pertaining to the common agenda, long-term plans, and

communications. (OECD, 2017) Those kinds of issues need to be resolved before establishing a partnership relationship in order to make the collaboration successful. This indicates a need to investigate further how collaboration between NGOs arises, even when the collaboration does not seem logical prima facie. Thus the specific purpose of this master’s thesis is to attempt to provide an answer to the following research question:

Which factors explain the emergence of merged programme development between large, substantively different NNGOs?

(11)

11

The attempt to answer this research question is based on a case study of the merged programme development between two international NNGOs, Hivos and Greenpeace. The collaboration is embedded within the project ‘All eyes on the Amazon: nowhere to run, nowhere to hide’, which includes a collaboration the aim of which is to stop deforestation in the Amazon (Hivos & Greenpeace doc. 1). The development of this merged programme is worth exploring because, although the field of partnership relations has been growing, most of the research on NGO partnerships has not looked into NNGO partnerships. Most of the studies on NGO partnerships focused on the partnerships between Northern and Southern NGOs (Ahmad, 2006).

The findings of this research project offer insights into the programme development process in the collaboration between Hivos and Greenpeace. The outcomes of the study show that the merged programme development between Hivos and Greenpeace is explained by the initiation of the donor, common interests, complementary approach developed between both organisations, and the strong personal relationship between the programme developers.

The research project is structured as follows. In chapter 2, the overall research framework is explained within a discussion on the existing literature. In this chapter, research questions are formulated and the key concepts explained. Chapter 3 comprises the theoretical framework of this research project. In this chapter, the theoretical approach with respect to the (sub-)research questions are explained. Chapter 4 provides an explanation of the methods used in this research project. Chapter 5 includes the empirical analyses. It first includes a short background summary of the important actors in this research and of the history of collaboration between Hivos and Greenpeace. Second, the empirical findings are presented that aim to shed light on the

(sub-)research questions. Chapter 6 includes the conclusions, reflections, and implications of the research project based on the findings of this research project.

(12)

12

2. Research framework

In this chapter, the overall research framework will be explained following a literature discussion on the topic of this research project. The literature discussion will be followed by introducing the (sub-)research questions of this study. At the end of the chapter, the key concepts are explained.

2.1 Literature discussion

The number of NGOs grew exponentially after World War II (WWII), and, currently, the quantity, reach, and influence of NGOs is unprecedented as a result. NGOs fill the breach where governments downsize their international activities, and new challenges crowd the international agenda.

(Simmons, 1998) With the rise in activeness and number of NGOs in the recent decades, growing literature has dealt with NGOs across several academic disciplines, including anthropology, sociology, and political science. Most of these studies have focused primarily on NGOs and international non-governmental organisations (INGOs), either in terms of functions that they perform or policy outcomes of their work. (Reimann, 2006) Since this research project focuses primarily on merged programme development between large, substantively different NGOs, this literature discussion will focus on collaboration between NGOs. Although NGOs both compete and cooperate with one another and may share resources, the traditional view has emphasised

competition over cooperation. (Prakash & Gugerty, 2010)

There are different ideas and assumptions regarding collaborations in the field of NGOs. Collaborations can be relevant for sharing knowledge or costs. The cost aspect is nowadays even more relevant since ODA has often seen a decrease. (OECD, 2018) Besides that, most of the funding that NGOs receive is earmarked and awarded on a short-term basis. Only eleven per cent of the funding is awarded for a period longer than five years, which means that the bulk 89 per cent is awarded for a period of between one and five years. This keeps NGOs in a constant battle to sustain their financial viability, while struggling with core costs, such as office space and management time. Expenses regarding NGOs resilience, sustainability, or efficacy are being cut. However, there are funders that provide unrestricted funding, such as the United Postcode Lotteries. They support the need to treat organisations as financially responsible partners. The United Postcode Lotteries believe that NGOs should be awarded unrestricted funding to achieve their objectives in the best possible way. However, collaboration can potentially help tackle the problem of financial viability. (OECD, 2018) NGOs play a central role in most advocacy networks by initiating actions and pressuring more powerful actors to assume positions on relevant issues. NGOs lobby for policy changes, provide information, and introduce new ideas. (Keck & Sikkink, 1999) In the respective field of research,

(13)

13

NGOs are seen as normative actors. On the other hand, NGOs can be seen as special types of firms and rational actors. NGOs make strategic choices in policy markets that, along with creating public goods, support organisational survival, visibility, and growth. Financial strategies of NGOs are thus explained as a response to opportunities for supplying distinct advocacy products to well-defined constituencies as well as a response to normative or principled concerns. (Prakash & Gugerty, 2010)

Much of the literature on NGO partnership is written in the context of North-South relationships. This often includes a ‘partnership’ between INGOs and NGOs that operate locally. Those local southern NGOs exist in many aid-recipient countries. (Lewis, 1998) Lister (2000: 228) thus explains the North-South partnership: ‘They are seen to enable more efficient use of scarce resources, increased sustainability and improved beneficiary participation in development activities’. North-South partnerships can envelope tailor-made projects adapted to the local needs and

concerns in a certain region. This results in leveraging the development expertise and resources of outsiders beyond the capabilities of NNGOs. (Lister, 2000) For a long time, it was common for many NNGOs to implement their own ideas on development projects and programmes in the region where their local NGO partner was operating. This arguably resulted in the local partner organisations undertaking most of the work, while NNGOs were responsible for the organisation support and project funding. The work of NNGOs often becomes irrelevant if they are only financially supporting southern NGOs. In other words, such a relationship is better described as ‘donorship’ than

‘partnership’. (Ahmad, 2006) More often than not a discrepancy can be observed between the rhetoric and the reality of NGO partnership. The most frequently cited constraint to the formation of partnerships is the control of money. This may make true partnership impossible, because it results in unequal relationships. Many will continue to claim, nevertheless, that transparency or mutuality still exists in the ‘partnership’. It results in an asymmetry of power: the ‘donor’ can do to the

‘recipient’ that what is not reciprocally possible. No amount of well-intentioned dialogue can remove the said asymmetry. (Lister, 2000)

In the literature on partnerships, a division is made between ‘active partnership’ and ‘dependent partnership’. The dependent partnerships have generally been more common than active ones (Lewis, 1998). Active partnerships are those built through the on-going processes of debate, negotiation, occasional conflict, and learning through trial and error. Within active partnerships, risks are taken. Roles and purposes are clear, but they may change according to the needs and circumstances. Dependent partnerships, on the other hand, have a blueprint character. Such partnerships are constructed at a project-planning stage and are often linked to the availability of outside funding according to assumptions on individual agency interests and comparative

(14)

14

and responsibility rather than creative conflict that emerges within active partnerships. (Ahmad, 2006)

The above overview reveals a literature gap regarding the collaboration between NNGOs, and a more in-depth form of partnership. As can be seen, the theory about collaboration between equivalent NNGOs is poorly developed. Consequently, this research project sets out to increase the understanding of this specific form of collaboration. Moreover, this research will also analyse how the programme development of a more intense form of collaboration sheds further light on this type of partnership. The partnership is seen as a more intense form of collaboration because it goes beyond sharing knowledge and expertise between organisations. It facilitates the creation of new knowledge and produces synergistic solutions through joint programme development (Hardy, Phillips & Lawrence, 2003). Therefore, the following research question is formulated:

Which factors explain the emergence of merged programme development between large, substantively different NNGOs?

The answer to this research question will be formulated based on a case study on collaboration between two NNGOs, which generally operate in different fields. The collaboration is established even though the NNGOs have the operational capacity to execute the work alone. This makes the case study worthy of further examination. On the other hand, the research findings will be of additional interest because the analysed partnership combines the characteristics of both an active and a dependent partnership. The nature of this partnership is more intense and in-depth when compared to the type of NGO partnership usually addressed in literature.

Even though much research has been done on NGO collaboration in the last decades, a specific focus on more in-depth NNGO partnership is lacking. In this light, this kind of partnership is interesting for further exploration. The next section introduces the additional sub-research

questions, which are based on the main research question.

2.2 Research question

The literature discussion showed that much remains unclear regarding to merged programme development between NNGOs. The theory about the collaboration between equivalent NNGOs is also underdeveloped. To provide an accurate answer to the research question, three sub-research questions are formulated. The first part of the empirical analysis will examine the initial reason(s) as to why NGOs are seeking collaboration. Are NGOs establishing collaboration to ensure a better work outcome (OECD, 2017), because of the donors who are driving collaboration (Mitchell, 2014), to

(15)

15

share expertise (Promoting Effective Partnering, 2018), for financial reasons (Bob, 2007: 4), or are there other reasons for collaboration? The first sub-research question is thus:

1. Why are NNGOs collaborating?

The second part of the empirical analysis explores the reasons for partner collaborations of NGOs. NGOs can look for a specific companion for collaboration, they can have specific preferences concerning a potential partner (Prakash & Gugerty, 2010), or make strategic or complementary choices on the subject (Elbers, 2004). This thus leads us to the second sub-research question:

2. What are NNGOs looking for in a potential collaboration partner?

When a partner NGO is found, the collaboration programme needs to be established. The third part of the empirical analysis will elaborate on further study about how development of the programme is done. NGOs may collaborate in several ways: they can network to exchange experiences and good practice, engage in joint advocacy, co-fund programmes and projects. In addition, a combination of these is possible. (OECD, 2018) Besides, while NGOs may eventually decide to proceed with the collaboration, it is possible that organisations will have to make concessions within the development of the programme (OECD, 2017). That is why the aim of the final part of the empirical analysis is to answer the following sub-research question:

3. How is the programme wherein NNGOs collaborate developed?

The next section clarifies different concepts that are used in the (sub-)research questions to establish a common ground on the basis of which this research project should be viewed.

2.3 Key concepts

This section provides definitions of the key concepts of this research project that require clarification. Furthermore, it will be explained how these concepts are used within this research project. In order to provide an accurate answer to the research question, the applicability of the concepts ‘collaboration’, ‘partnership’, and ‘merged programme development’ will be elucidated.

While collaboration can take different forms – regarding both what it entails and its result – the concept of ‘collaboration’ is defined in this thesis as follows: ‘A temporary social arrangement in which two or more social actors work together toward a single common end requiring the

(16)

16

transmutation of materials, ideas, and/or social relations to achieve that end’ (Roberts & Bradley, 1991: 212). According to this definition, the partners intend to retain organisational autonomy while joining forces to tackle a shared social problem (Selsky & Parker, 2005). This is an appropriate

definition in the context of this research project, because this is how the organisations studied in this research project perceived collaboration.

Another relevant concept is that of ‘partnership’. The terms ‘partnership’ and ‘partners’ have risen to prominence and are directly linked with both capacity-building and bridge-building (Lister, 2000). The term partnership is adequately summarised in this research project as: ‘A working relationship that is characterised by a shared sense of purpose, mutual respect and the willingness to negotiate’ (Pugh et al., as cited in Lister, 2000: 228). Precise definitions of terms ‘partnership’ and ‘partners’ have proven elusive, and it has been suggested to replace them with arguably more appropriate terms such as ‘collaboration’, ‘coalition’, ‘accompaniment’, and ‘development alliances’. However, the concept of partnership has a core value associated with it, which has been recognised within many social policies in both the developing and the developed countries. (Lister, 2000) That is why the term partnership is supplementary to the definition of collaboration, which is in the core of this research project. Because of the similar meanings of the concepts of collaboration and

partnership (or any of the derivatives of these words), they can be used interchangeably in this research project.

The concept of ‘merged programme development’ is used in this research project to describe the case study. While initially two separate programme proposals aiming to address deforestation were developed, they subsequently merged into a joint proposal on the same issue. Merged programme development can viewed as a more intense form of collaboration because it extends beyond sharing knowledge and expertise. Intense collaboration generates a learning process by creating new knowledge and synergistic solutions. Synergy in partnership is the interaction where the effect of collaboration is greater than the effect that each of the organisations could have achieved separately. Strong flows of information between organisations, a partnership between collaboration partners, and deep interactions that engage a number of employees from different organisations working together are all elements that indicate how such collaboration might be set up to achieve such intensity. (Hardy, Phillips & Lawrence, 2003) The concept of merged programme development is also related to acquiring new funds. For NGOs, new funds are the most important part of their work (OECD, 2018), and that is why NGOs often have to seek new opportunities to create new ways of funding. It is unsurprising that NGOs collaborate to raise new funds, but this process does not always appear to be straightforward. Therefore, the different factors that lead to establishing a partnership need to be viewed through a new lens.

(17)

17

3. Theoretical framework

This chapter explains the theoretical framework regarding NNGO collaboration in merged

programme development. An important theory utilised in this theoretical framework is the resource dependency theory, which focuses on dependency within collaboration. The relevance of the theory in the present project is in that the issue in the Amazon is arguably so pressing that a single

organisation is not able to generate sufficient resources to tackle the problem of deforestation. A merger increases resources, thus increasing the influence of Hivos and Greenpeace on this issue.

This chapter comprises three sections, which mainly focus on the single sub-research questions, although some overlap between the different sections is possible. Since all of the sub-research questions focus on different stages in the collaboration process, it is logical for the answers on sub-research questions to follow from the previous decisions made in the collaboration process. The aim was to divide the sections based on the theoretical background required for the single sub-research questions, although an overlap in topic addressed is arguably unavoidable.

The outline of this chapter is as follows. Section 3.1 focuses on the resource dependency theory. Section 3.2 provides a theoretically based explanation for the different motives behind the choice of the collaboration partner. Section 3.3 addresses the possible substantive choices regarding the creation of the programme. The final section 3.4 presents the hypotheses that are a product of a combined deductive and inductive research approach. The hypotheses can guide the empirical part of this research presented in chapter 5.

3.1 Resource dependency theory

In answering the main research question, it is important to consider the potential reasons for the collaboration between NGOs. This section provides a multifaceted explanation as to why NGOs collaborate, which is based on the resource dependency theory. Dependency and representation, which may both occur according to the resource dependency theory, are relevant for this research project because they can both act as driving forces behind collaboration between organisations. They can be, therefore, one of the factors that explain collaboration. This accounts for the

importance of the resource dependency theory in the context of this research project; that is why this section will elaborate on this theory further.

Typically, NGOs are viewed as members of the global civil society or international networks. They can also intermediate between donors and beneficiaries, or act similarly to institutions or firms that raise and spend resources. (Bob, 2007) NGOs perform in markets for resources as firms do. Guided by normative and instrumental concerns, NGOs struggle for organisational survival by

(18)

18

acquiring resources. (Prakash & Gugerty, 2010) NGO directors in fact consider resource acquisition to be their greatest obstacle to accomplishing organisational goals (Mitchell, 2014).

Many (transnational) NGOs engage in extensive fundraising activities in order to support their global operations. Organisations such as NGOs are expected to retain a degree of

independence from their donors, i.e. the individuals and institutions providing them with financial support. Nevertheless, the reliance threatens the autonomy and legitimacy of transnational NGOs and their role as authentic civil actors. This affects their reliability and exposes NGOs to resource dependence, which consequently may affect the representation of the NGO. (Mitchell, 2014)

‘Representation’ occurs when donors ratify past actions by giving (more) funds, or, conversely, reject them by withdrawing support. These (additional) funds from donors in fact provide only limited and primarily post hoc opportunities for influencing NGOs policy, with little possibility of shaping

leadership within the organisation (Bob, 2007). Bob (2007) argues that NGOs do not represent anyone nor should they be expected to do so. Nevertheless, participation of NGOs in international politics is often helpful, and, in some cases, unavoidable. That is why accountability is an important issue, although current means of achieving it are more efficient than is often assumed. (Bob, 2007) Power relations are widely recognised as an important driving force for organisations within a partnership. Many theories of power result from behavioural studies on partnerships. These behavioural studies reveal the degree to which actions of one person or group can have a discernible effect on the behaviour of others in the partnership. (Lister, 2000) However, frequently a disparity occurs between the rhetoric and reality of NGO partnership. The control of finances in the said context is the most frequently mentioned constraint to the formation of authentic partnerships. (Lister, 2000) Elliot (1987) stated that the dialogue in this kind of partnership is unequal. Although many arguments have been made in favour of mutuality or transparency, the lack of reciprocity is widely acknowledged, in other words, the donor can do to the recipient NGO what the NGO cannot do to the donor. No amount of well-intentioned dialogue can remove this power asymmetry (Elliot, 1987).

For NGOs, the dependency on ODA often correlates with greater revenue stability, but it may also result in goal displacement and institutional isomorphism (Froelich, 1999). Institutional isomorphism implies that organisations do not compete freely and openly only for customers and resources, but also for institutional legitimacy and political power (Radaelli, 2000). Institutional isomorphism occurs when NGOs adopt characteristics of the dominant organisational forms in their own organisations. These characteristics may include the preferences, procedures, and policies of relatively large donors. (Mitchell, 2014) To protect their legitimacy and character, organisations may limit the dependency on ODA or other donors.

(19)

19

In the same vein, Mitchell (2014) showed that the need for securing resources exposes NGOs to resource dependence and the possibility of being externally controlled. This might threaten the role of NGOs as unique institutional forms operating independently of state and market

institutions. Nevertheless, in response to resource dependence, international NGOs make use of a range of strategies that enable them to safeguard their operational independence. (Mitchell, 2014) Batley (2011) introduced three general categories of strategic responses used by NGOs against resource dependency. The first category is adaptation, which reflects the greatest vulnerability to external control. Adaption includes tactics such as alignment, which occurs when NGOs adjust their programming to suit donor preferences. The second category are subcontracting models, which can efficiently raise substantial resources from large funders but concurrently often include many financial restrictions. The last tactic within adaption is perseverance. NGOs adopt it when they want to secure grants and contracts simply to maintain the cash flow. NGOs thus spend down

endowments and secure cash reserves deliberately to minimise costs. (Mitchell, 2014)

As mentioned above, the second category of strategic response according to Batley (2011) is avoidance, which also comprises different tactics within itself. First, revenue diversification is an avoidance tactic that makes organisations less dependent on single resources through funding diversity. The second tactic is funding liberation, which liberates an organisation from restrictive sources of funding by securing a greater proportion of unrestricted support. Third, geostrategic arbitrage is based on the geographic distribution of fundraising activities to national entities or to partners that are best able to implement programs. Fourth, specialization as a tactic occurs when an NGO distinguishes itself by being active within a niche area that is the core competency of an organisation. The last tactic of avoidance is selectivity, which refers to the ability of NGOs to reject restricted funding when the conditions for receiving the funding are conflicting with the pre-existing goals of the NGO. (Mitchell, 2014)

The last category of strategic response according to Batley (2011) are shaping strategies, which reflect the ability of an NGO to resist and reverse the direction of influence by establishing themselves as knowledge brokers or by negotiating a compromise. When an NGO reverses the traditional flow of influence by leveraging the unique capabilities and advantages to condition the preferences of its funders, it shapes the views of the donor. NGOs thus demonstrate why it is that they pursue specific programs, and what their value is when compared to other organisations. Compromise as a tactic occurs when the donor and NGO mutually influence one another in reaching a consensus. (Mitchell, 2014) Adaptation, avoidance, and shaping strategies empower NGOs to maintain the organisational autonomy and resist the external pressures that may cater to

(20)

20

disproportionate competition, goal displacement, and other unwanted consequences of resource dependence. These responses may indirectly influence collaboration. (Mitchell, 2014)

In summary, this section showed that the resource dependency theory explains specific decisions that NGOs make regarding their work, which can thus influence the process of

collaboration. For all that, this theory provides a backcloth for this research project.

3.2 Motives for building partnership relations

Little has been written on the motives for establishing partnerships between NNGOs. Conversely, however, there is an extensive body of literature on management and organisational development that can be applied to the partnerships in the non-profit sector, of which NGOs are part. This section further elaborates on the arguments for choosing a specific partner.

Important divers for ensuring collaboration between partners is a common purpose, which may drive and underpin the collaboration endeavour, foster the emergence of collective intelligence, and generate energy and engagement. Moreover, partners should garner an explicit and clear idea as to the benefit to their own organisation resulting from the involvement in the partnering endeavour. This openness and transparency can be the basis for gaining support from other partners. The mutual benefit may provide a sound basis for an enduring commitment from partner organisations. (Promoting Effective Partnering, 2018)

There are different reasons for the NGOs to choose a specific partner for collaboration. Partnerships are often formed in the attempt of organisations to serve their own interests and only secondarily to address a social concern. The core argument for establishing partnerships is the lack of critical competencies that the organisation cannot develop on its own or in a timely fashion. Within partnerships, organisations can develop or sustain their competitive advantages by collaborating with partners with complementary characteristics. (Selsky & Parker, 2005)

Organisations can be complementary when they wield different sets of competencies and strengths. Partnerships can provide an effective mechanism to benefit from the strengths and peculiarities of the collaboration partners in pursuing common objectives. Through successful collaboration, organisations can complement each other and resources can be allocated better for the purpose of achieving a common good. (Jamali & Keshishian, 2009) A competitive advantage can be created by strategically sharing expert knowledge and information between organisations. Frequent exchange of relevant information and knowledge among high performance partners leads to closer

relationships as a result. (Lee, 2001) According to the knowledge-based theory of the firm,

information from a potential partner organisation can be relevant for collaboration. Moreover, these said theory states that organisational knowledge, such as skills, know-how, and operational routines,

(21)

21

are the most valuable resources of an organisation. The strategic management capability is a key factor in a more rapidly changing and dynamic environment, which means that, from the knowledge-based perspective, it is considered to be the key source of competitive advantage. (Lee, 2001)

Another argument for collaboration is that the environments of organisations are more uncertain, which is why NGOs strive to create new ways of acquiring expertise and access to necessary resources (Selsky & Parker, 2005). Partnerships are attractive for organisations that want to address certain challenges, but cannot do so on their own. Therefore, they need to learn and borrow from other organisations, which can result in both ‘substitution logic’ and ‘partnership logic’. In substitution logic, each actor in the partnership has its individual ‘natural’ roles and functions in society, just as NGOs have their different fields of expertise. However, in substitution logic, organisations seek to address a social issue and mobilise resources to address the issue within a partnership. The social issue and the partnership, however, are kept separate from core goals and activities of both organisations. In partnership logic, partners jointly seize ownership of a social issue. This issue will be integrated in the core set of activities and goals of the organisations. In this way, organisations are naturally inclined to establish partnerships with each other so that emergent societal issues can be addressed. (Selsky & Parker, 2005) Based on the substitution or partnership logic, a choice can be made on collaborating with a specific organisation.

The motives for partnership introduced in this section provide possible explanations for the realisation of collaboration, although some factors provide more solid explanations than others. Nevertheless, the insights from this section are deemed relevant for this research project.

3.3 Programme development

Partnership programmes can be developed in different ways. This section will flesh out the reasons for making specific choices in creating a programme.

It is common to share decision-making, information, best practices, and pooling resources to develop a common strategy in organising collaborations. However, their scope can be extended in developing further and deeper collaboration. With more elaborate forms of collaboration, NGOs can achieve greater impact. They also allow smaller or less experienced organisations to benefit from the expertise of the more established players. (Seldon, Tierney, & Fernando, 2013) NNGO partnerships can vary greatly in their size, scope, and purpose. They can focus on local as well as global issues, short- to long-term time frames, and can be completely voluntary to fully mandated. (Selsky & Parker, 2005) It is important to understand the nature of collaboration in order to gain insight into the choices made in the development of the programme. Strategic choices are made on issues

(22)

22

selected by the partners, and the reason for selecting specific issues are often related to supporting the core mission of the partner. (Elbers, 2004)

While collaboration is a working relationship that is characterised by a shared sense of purpose, mutual respect, and the willingness to negotiate, it includes a number of additional elements identified by practitioners and observers that should be included in the development of a collaboration to achieve synergy and a successful partnership (Lister, 2000). Mutual trust, joint decision-making, reciprocal accountability, complementary strengths, a two-way exchange of information, clear description of responsibilities, transparency with regard to financial matters, and mutual support, are only a select few of the elements identified by practitioners and observers that make up a ‘successful’ partnership (Lister, 2000). The creation of synergy through partnership – the process in which the combination of parts yields more than the sum of the parts – arguably produces results that partners could not obtain without collaboration (Lister, 2000).

An important element, which has often proven to be integral for success, are strong personal relationships developed in partnerships, also known as bonding. These strong personal relationships are fundamental to establishing good will that carries the day and enables

collaborations to continue in spite of the semantic gaffs, wrongs, and power plays. (Dichter, 1989) Brown and Ashman (1996) link this to the concept of ‘social capital’. They argue that the stronger the personal relations within a partnership, the higher the levels of social capital available for co-operative problem solving. Furthermore, in collaborations with stronger personal relationships, gaps on different levels of power and knowledge can be bridged more easily (Brown & Ashman, 1996), which is also important for the development of the programme.

Collaborative relationships between NGOs do not succeed by chance. There are several factors that deserve careful consideration in contemplating arranging a partnership. However, different studies have clearly demonstrated that there are no inherently successful NGO partnership arrangements (Jamali & Keshishian, 2009). There is a lack of consensus in literature on the

explanatory factors for successful collaboration, seeing that success is often due to a combination of different factors.

This section showed that there are many contradictory ideas regarding the factors that can contribute to the success of a partnership programme. It is clear, however, that the development of a collaboration programme rests on a number of different factors. Therefore, one of the aims of this research project is to study these important elements in the development of the merged

(23)

23

3.4 Hypotheses

This chapter provided a theoretical framework that will help to find an answer on the main research question of this research project, namely: ‘Which factors explain the emergence of merged

programme development between large, substantively different NNGOs?’ The hypotheses that are presented in this section are the product of a combination between the deductive and inductive research approach. Section 4.3 provides additional information on how the combined deductive-inductive research approach has been designed.

Based on the findings from the existing literature, the interviews were conducted and the documents analysed. In the research process, hypotheses were developed based on the insights that arose from the data. In other words, the hypotheses of this research project are a product of the theoretical framework, document review, and the conducted interviews. The hypotheses are proposed explanations made on the basis of evidence from the case analysed in this study. That is why the introduced hypotheses are potentially relevant for any further research focusing on partnership relations between other NNGOs. Even though these hypotheses precede the empirical analysis, they are based on the findings of this research project. The three hypotheses are as follows:

i. The donor on whom the NNGOs depend determines the merged programme development.

ii. Complementary strengths in terms of organisational background are important for a well-developed merged programme.

iii. Mutual trust and personal relationships between organisations responsible for the development of the programme are important for the outcomes of the merging process.

(24)

24

4. Methodology

This chapter will elaborate on the methodological choices made throughout this research project. This chapter starts with an explanation of the research elements, which is followed by an

explanation of the case selection. The discussion then continues on the methods, data gathering, and the operationalisation of this research project. The following section discusses the challenges of validity and reliability, and the final part of the chapter focuses on the theoretical and societal relevance of this research.

4.1 Elements of research

The unit of analysis of this research project are NGOs that collaborate with at least one other NGO. Seeing that the choice of analysing NGOs as actors is rather broad, a decision was made to narrow the scope of research to a specific population.

The universe of units from which the sample is selected will cover the inference of specific NGOs that will be studied further within this research project, namely NNGOs. So far, there has been little discussion on North-North relationships between NGOs. As stated in the research question, this research project aims to study large, substantively different NNGOs. In this case, ‘large’ refers to NNGOs that have received benefits greater than one million euro. The choice is based on the idea that greater benefits are generally awarded to larger NGOs that have more prominence among a wider audience and a great scope and strength that can lead to meaningful contribution in the respective field in which they are participating. The decisions they make are often more impactful and relevant to the field in which they are active, which can make their outcomes more effective.

‘Substantively different’ in this research denotes NNGOs that originally specialise in different fields. Their primary focus can be, for example, on climate action, reducing poverty or inequalities, promoting peace and justice, or stimulating a better healthcare system (Bitzer & Glasbergen, 2015). This research project assumes that even if the primary focus is placed on different topics within the core NGO activities, collaboration can still take place.

‘Substantively different’ can also refer to the different action repertoires used by NGOs. NGOs can be helpers, activists, guards, or inspirators (Dutch Postcode Lottery doc. 3). While NGOs can work on a same topic, they can pursue a different type of implementation of their work in their respective field. In this way, although NGOs can still operate differently, they can still complement each other through different ways of implementation.

Collaboration between two substantively different NNGOs is worthy of investigation because they will both have different interests in the process. Such a collaboration may be

(25)

thought-25

provoking, yet simultaneously difficult due to the different foci of the NNGOs involved. In addition to that, the analysis of collaboration between NNGOs of different backgrounds (i.e. which have a different primary focus on the topic, a different action repertoire, or both) can yield further relevant and novel insights.

4.2 Case selection

The case study in the centre of the present research project is the realisation of the collaboration between Hivos and Greenpeace within the project ‘All eyes on the Amazon: nowhere to run, nowhere to hide’. The reasons for choosing this specific collaboration are manifold. This

collaboration started in 2016 and it was funded in February 2017. The two foci of this project are the deforestation in the Amazon and the protection of their inhabitants, and the difficulties that the partnership faces with the inhabitants of the Amazon who are opposing the far-reaching

deforestation. The far-reaching goal of both Hivos and Greenpeace is to create a green and sustainable world and protect the environment.

The idea behind the project stems from two separate proposals made by Hivos and Greenpeace to the Dutch Postcode Lottery (DPL), both of which concerned funding a project focussing on the Amazon. The DPL consequently suggested that the two organisations exchange their ideas, which resulted in a new, joint application from the two organisations. This joint application had resulted in obtaining a fund of 14,825,000 euro for the project ‘All eyes on the Amazon’ from the DPL. The collaboration between Hivos and Greenpeace, therefore, can be classified as an exceptional case study, in which the donor brought the organisations together. Problematical here is that it may appear to be difficult to generalise beyond this case study, seeing that its representativeness is limited (Seawright & Gerring, 2008).

In this research project, the collaboration between Hivos and Greenpeace is explored as a single in-depth case. Seeing that there is little study on this specific collaboration, further research is necessary. As a result, this single case study is considered to be exploratory, seeing that the

observations stemming from it are based on a single case (Seawright & Gerring, 2008).

Besides focusing on Hivos and Greenpeace, the role of the DPL as the funder in this research project is further explored. This analysis is deemed relevant because it can provide insights on the role that the funder played in the realisation of the partnership between Hivos and Greenpeace.

4.3 Data, method, and operationalization

This research project applies qualitative methodology. For the gathering and analysis of the relevant data, qualitative descriptions are considered to be more appropriate than quantitative analyses.

(26)

26

Additionally, this research project focuses on the ideas and interpretations of Hivos and Greenpeace within their collaboration. This type of data exploration further supports the choice of qualitative research methodology.

As mentioned earlier, a combination of a deductive and inductive research approach is used in this research project. Based on the existing literature and theoretical considerations, the

interviews and document were analysed. Upon exploring the findings from the analyses of the interviews and documents, the topic is taken up again from a theoretical point of view. This means that some inspiration for the theoretical framework drew on the empirical analyses, instead of applying a purely deductive approach. This also means that, since the hypotheses were developed gradually, they did not precede the findings in this research project (as explained in section 3.4). This is why this research project is a combination of both a deductive and inductive research approach.

The epistemological consideration of this research project is positivist. This approach is deemed the most appropriate in the present case study, because it advocates the application of the methods of science to studying social reality and beyond (Bryman, 2012). Regarding its ontological position the study follows an objectivist approach. This approach is considered to be suitable in this research project because objectivism asserts that social phenomena and their meanings exist independently from social actors. This ontological position implies that social phenomena and the categories that we use in everyday discourse exist independently or separately from actors. (Bryman, 2012)

Different methods for collecting primary and secondary data were employed in this research project. The primary data were derived from different sources in order to obtain more information on the subject, such as organisational reports, official websites, public statements by other actors, and newspapers or newsletters. All of this information is made available to the larger public, which was not always the case with secondary data. As an internal organisation member, the researcher was granted access to valuable information concerning this research project, which resulted in gaining better insights into the merged programme development between Hivos and Greenpeace. The information included the official fund proposals from both organisations over two years, the feedback of the DPL on the proposals, the detailed collaboration proposal, and monitoring and evaluation documents of the collaboration. Triangulation was therefore employed in which multiple data sources were used to gain understanding on the research topic. Triangulation was particularly useful as it ensured that the research is comprehensive and well developed. Moreover, the analysis of policy documents related to the partnership in the project ‘All eyes on the Amazon’ further contributed to the process of triangulation. Next to that, semi-structured interviews based on the policy documents were conducted as well. The interviews were conducted to further contribute to

(27)

27

answering the research questions. Two of the interviewees were the employees of both Hivos and Greenpeace responsible for the programme development, whose answers, it was hoped, would contribute to exploring the genesis of collaboration within the project ‘All eyes on the Amazon’. The remaining two interviews were conducted with a DPL employee in order to have them elaborate on the company’s role as a negotiator of the partnership, and an OECD employee, who elaborated on the design and functioning of the partnership. Bringing different points of view together resulted in diversity within the research project, and it also created a firm starting point for the remaining analysis.

4.4 Challenges of validity and reliability

There are different challenges related to the validity and reliability that need to be addressed in this research project. As for validity, it may be argued that the decision to analyse the collaboration between Hivos and Greenpeace is biased seeing that the researcher is employed by the DPL, one of the largest donors of the two organisations. Consequently, researcher objectivity may be

jeopardised. Seeing, however, that the DPL initiated the collaboration, it is more likely that Hivos and Greenpeace are willing to openly share information on the process leading to the collaboration.

The professional role of the researcher within the DPL facilitated organising interviews with Hivos, Greenpeace, and the DPL. It was perhaps more difficult to explain the role of a researcher to the interviewee who was also employed by the DPL. Nevertheless, even though the person

interviewed in the DPL was formally a colleague, they had no direct relationship with the researcher carrying out this analysis. For all that, it was made clear that the information provided by all of the interviewees give would be used for the purposes of this research project, and not by the researcher personally, as an employee of the DPL.

Other challenges to the validity and reliability of this research project need to be considered as well. The defined research question with the specific case in mind helps to increase internal validity. The interviews and the lack of anonymity do not contribute to the internal validity.

Therefore, triangulation method was employed, which helps to increase the internal validity. When the meaning of a concept within the interviews was unclear, it was deemed important to tackle this issue prior to conducing the interview by explaining what is implied by the respective concept. This clarification is important for content validity.

Considering that this research project studies one case in which two NNGOs participate, extrapolation on the population at large is not considered to be reliable. However, when the

research and the concepts are delineated well, is it still possible to make provisional conclusions that may have implications on comparable collaborations, and provide valuable insights regarding

(28)

28

merged programme development between large, substantively different NNGOs, which again increases external validity.

The documents on the collaboration proposal have been drawn up by, among others, the interviewees. The documents that are written before and during the forming of the collaboration are thus valuable sources for analysis before conducting the interviews. When statements in those documents were unclear, it was possible to ask for a clarification during the interviews. This increased the validity of the documents as well. Finally, the interviews themselves are also used as sources for increasing the validity, reliability, and the robustness of this research project.

4.5 Theoretical and societal relevance

This research project is theoretically and socially relevant on different grounds. While many studies have focused on the processes of creating partnerships or partnering benefits, very few have attempted to understand the different drivers leading to partnership. It is in fact precisely these drivers that are likely to have a profound influence on both the processes and the benefits. Despite the influence of different drivers, literature is nearly silent on this topic. (Horton, Prain & Thiele, 2009) Studying different drivers that are leading to partnership thus contributes to closing an existing gap in research.

The collaboration between Hivos and Greenpeace has the potential to produce a more rapid solution for tackling the problem of deforestation. This makes the partnership highly relevant for researchers due to the link between science that exists in the partnership on the one hand, policy formation and enterprise decision-making within the collaboration on the other. The boundary between action and knowledge is crucial for science and technology to effectively contribute to sustainability (Horton, Prain & Thiele, 2009). This makes the societal relevance of this research project particularly prominent.

As mentioned above, there are surprisingly few in-depth, empirical case studies on the topic of partnerships (Horton, Prain & Thiele, 2009). This makes the case study of this master thesis relevant as such. In addition, the relevance of the chosen case is mainly due to the specific situation of the case. NGOs are not always open in their communication, especially in the context of specific collaborations. In the case of the ‘All eyes on the Amazon’ project of Hivos and Greenpeace, the initial idea of the collaboration was external to the organisations. This case has a background in the field of environmental justice. In the respective NGO collaboration, one of the organisations specialises in human rights and development, whereas the other specialises in the environmental aspect of the issue at hand, namely, deforestation. In exploring collaborations within the field of environmental justice, this case can serve as a starting point for similar collaboration in the field. This

(29)

29

research project focuses on the Dutch branches of Hivos and Greenpeace, both of which are part of larger international entities. Should a national branch share a similar vision and mission as its larger entity, it is possible to apply the findings from this research project to different national offices of the same organisation.

This specific case can be used to gain relevant insights into the field of collaboration

between NGOs. The relevance can be both social and theoretical because the insights can be used to formulate a new theoretical framework. The policy advice resulting from this research project can be of social relevance for future collaborations of NGOs that are participating in the field of

environmental justice. Therefore, there are different arguments, both theoretical and social in their nature, for highlighting the relevance of studying collaborations between NGOs in the future.

(30)

30

5. Empirical research

This chapter elaborates on the empirical analyses of this research project. First, more background information is given about the main actors of the case study, which is followed by a short summary of the history of the project. The sections that follow are elaborations upon the different sub-questions of this project divided into the reasons for the collaboration, the collaboration partners, and the development of the programme. Each of these sections finishes with a sub-conclusion that helps to answer the main research question.

5.1 The history of Hivos, Greenpeace and the DPL

To understand the empirical findings, is it important to understand the main actors in this research project. In the following paragraphs, more background information is given on Hivos, Greenpeace, and the DPL.

Hivos – a Dutch abbreviation for Humanist Institute for Development Cooperation – was founded in 1968 by three Dutch organisations called Humanistisch Verbond, Humanitas, and Vereniging Weezenkas. The humanist movement began after WWII, and Humanistisch Verbond and Humanitas are products of this movement. In the 1950s, the humanitarian movement began to think about whether they should create a humanist organisation that intervenes in precarious situations in poorer countries. Hivos was created by these two organisations with funding from Vereniging Weezenkas. (Bieckmann & Lammers, 2008) Over the years, Hivos has evolved from an aid organisation for the underprivileged in developing countries into a modern network organisation that strives for freedom, a multiform society, and the strengthening of local and cross-border social movements in a rapidly changing world. Hivos provides financial and political support to its partner organisations in Africa, Latin America, and Asia. Together with these local organisations, Hivos wants to contribute to a free, fair, and sustainable world in which women and men have equal access to resources and opportunities for development. (Bieckmann & Lammers, 2008) In 2016, Hivos had 384 employees, of whom 137 were based in their global office in the Hague and 247 worked in their satellite regions. Hivos’ largest sources of income are government subsidies, which totalled approximately 79 million euro in 2016. (Hivos, 2017)

Greenpeace originated in Canada in 1971 as the Do not Make a Wave Committee in response to the United States’ plan to conduct an atomic test on the islet of Amchitka off the coast of Alaska. The Do not Make a Wave Committee took action by venturing into the nuclear test area with small boats. The group hired an old fishing boat and christened the ship Greenpeace.

(31)

31

media attention. Today, Greenpeace is an international environmental organisation whose primary goal is to bring large-scale environmental problems to the attention of politicians and the public through lobbying and nonviolent actions. (Weyler, 2015) The international coordinating office of Greenpeace International and Greenpeace Netherlands are located in Amsterdam. In 2016, Greenpeace had 2,517 employees (Greenpeace International, 2017). In the Netherlands this was 92.6 full-time equivalent of 37.5 hours a week in that year (Greenpeace, 2018). Greenpeace does not receive any government subsidies to ensure their independence. Therefore, Greenpeace’s largest source of income comes from private donations. Greenpeace Netherlands received approximately 19 million euro from private donors in 2017 (Greenpeace, 2018).

The Dutch Postcode Lottery (DPL) was founded in 1989 by four men, including two former employees of Novib (now known as Oxfam Novib), to generate unearmarked structural funds for charity organisations that contribute to a better and liveable world (Holtwijk, 2015). Most of the money that NGOs receive in the form of ODA and from donors is earmarked, meaning that the money must be spent on specific items or initiatives. Often, staff and office costs are not taken into account, even though they are necessary to keep an organisation running. (Mitchell, 2014)

Unearmarked money is therefore important so that an organisation is also able to cover these costs. Roughly 2.9 million Dutch households participate in the DPL, and fifty per cent of each subscription goes to organisations that the DPL supports. The DPL has paid more than 5.5 billion euro to

charitable organisations since its establishment (Dutch Postcode Lottery, 2018). The minimum contribution from the DPL is 500,000 euro. In order to prevent excessive financial dependence, the lottery mandates that its fixed contribution may not exceed half of the organisation’s fundraising. This means that an applicant organisation must generate at least 1 million euro in income. Organisations that receive an annual contribution are called beneficiaries and receive an annual contribution for at least five years. In this way, the DPL is a reliable donor. Special projects from their beneficiaries are eligible for extra financial support. Each year, beneficiaries can submit a project proposal for support from the proceeds of the two extra draws of the lottery. The organisations then receive the special project contribution on top of the DPL’s annual contribution. From beneficiaries who receive a contribution of 1 million euro or more, ten per cent goes to the Dream Fund, which finances large, innovative, and groundbreaking initiatives. Those beneficiaries can submit a Dream Fund proposal. (Dutch Postcode Lottery, 2018)

In 2016, Hivos and Greenpeace sent a proposal to the Dream Fund regarding deforestation. The organisations stated that between 2000 and 2013, more than eight per cent of intact, forested areas had been destroyed at a speed of 20,000 hectares per day, an area roughly the size of Amsterdam, which is why deforestation is a global problem (Hivos & Greenpeace doc. 1). This

(32)

32

urgency partly explains the grant of 14.8 million euro that Hivos and Greenpeace received from the DPL for the anti-deforestation project ‘All Eyes on the Amazon’. This grant was announced at the DPL Charity Gala in February 2017 (Dutch Postcode Lottery, 2017).

In their proposal, Hivos and Greenpeace joined forces for the Dream Fund project ‘All Eyes on the Amazon’ to support indigenous populations in their fight against deforestation. In this way, the organisations want to show that cooperation between indigenous communities, human rights groups, and conservation organisations can lead to the effective protection of forests and indigenous peoples under pressure. (Dutch Postcode Lottery, 2017) Hivos and Greenpeace united their

organisations of environmentalists/human rights activists and state-of-the-art technology with the ancient knowledge of the indigenous peoples of the Amazon. Together, they are trying to create transparency and responsibility with regard to human action and rainforests. They state that, through this project, they are going to make it impossible for industry, governments, and

commercial agriculture to abuse their powers and destroy the forest. (Hivos & Greenpeace doc. 1) With the help of the DPL, a coalition of environmental organisations, human rights organisations, and an organisation of indigenous peoples of the Amazon (COICA) has been brought together for this purpose. This coalition tries to offer new opportunities to make an impact in forest protection and indigenous land rights, opportunities that have gone unused in the past. Now that Hivos and

Greenpeace have joined forces for this project proposal, they state that their collaboration seems so logical and obvious that they wonder why they have not done this before. (Hivos & Greenpeace doc. 1) That is what this research project seeks to determine. The following sections elaborate on the different sub-research questions of this project.

5.2 Reasons for collaboration

This section elaborates on the reasons that NNGOs collaborate. As explained before, Hivos and Greenpeace received a grant for their joint project, ‘All Eyes on the Amazon’. To understand which factors explain the emergence of merged programme development between these large,

substantively different NNGOs, it is important to understand why Hivos and Greenpeace

collaborated in the first place. Collaboration can be understood as ‘a temporary social arrangement in which two or more social actors work together toward a single common end requiring the transmutation of materials, ideas, and/or social relations to achieve that end’ (Roberts & Bradley, 1991: 212). This section answers the first sub-research question: Why are NNGOs collaborating?

The section is structured as followed. The reasons for the collaboration between Hivos and Greenpeace are discussed by making use of (policy) documents about the emergence of the