Lost in donations: Different ways of handling
in-kind donations during the European refugee
crisis.
Master Thesis Supply Chain Management
University of Groningen
Faculty of Economics and Business
First Supervisor: Nonhlanhla Dube, M.Sc.
Second Supervisor: Dr. ir. Paul Buijs
Johanna Kellermann | S2962543 | j.s.kellermann@student.rug.nl |26
thJune 2017
2
ABSTRACT
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would first and foremost like to thank my thesis supervisor MSc Nonhlanhla Dube of the Faculty of Economics and Business at the University of Groningen for her patience, motivation, and immense knowledge. Mrs Dube always had an open ear whenever I ran into a trouble spot or had a question about my research. She consistently provided me with useful comments, remarks, and encouragement.
I would also like to thank the experts who participated in my multiple-case study research and who shared their valuable time with me. Without their committed participation and input, this multiple-case study could not have been successfully conducted. Some of the involved Humanitarian Organizations were the following: Diakonie Düsseldorf, Diakoniewerk Essen, Deutsches Rotes Kreuz (DRK) Leer, Doctors of the World Greece, Heart of Mercy, Moabit hilft e.V., and Willkommen in Mülheim (WIM).
I would also like to acknowledge Dr. ir. Paul Buijs of the Faculty of Economics and Business at the University of Groningen as the second supervisor of this master thesis and thank him for his valuable comments during the research.
Finally, I must express my very profound gratitude to my boyfriend and to my family for providing me with support and continuous encouragement throughout my studies and through the process of writing this thesis. This accomplishment would not have been possible without them. Thank you!
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ... 5
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND... 8
2.1 Humanitarian Organizations and their Views on In-Kind Donations _________________________ 8 2.1.1 In-kind Donations... 8
2.2 Processes and Practices in Handling In-kind Donations ________________________________ 10 2.3 Conceptual Model ______________________________________________________________ 12 3. METHODOLOGY ...13 3.1 Research Design _______________________________________________________________ 13 3.2 Research Setting _______________________________________________________________ 13 3.3 Case Selection ________________________________________________________________ 14 3.4 Data Collection ________________________________________________________________ 15 3.5 Data Analysis _________________________________________________________________ 16 4. RESULTS ...18 4.1 Within-Case analysis ____________________________________________________________ 18 4.1.1 Case 1 – Buttercup ... 18 4.1.2 Case 2 – Daisy ... 19 4.1.3 Case 3 – Edelweiss ... 23 4.1.4 Case 4 – Foxglove... 23 4.1.5 Case 5 – Jasmine ... 24 4.1.6 Case 6 – Lavender ... 25 4.1.7 Case 7 – Marigold ... 25 4.1.8 Case 8 – Orchid ... 26 4.1.9 Case 9 – Rosemary ... 29 4.1.10 Case 10 – Tulip ... 29 4.2 Cross-Case Analysis ____________________________________________________________ 32 5. DISCUSSION ...37
5.1 Key Research Insights __________________________________________________________ 37 5.2 Implication for Research and Practice ______________________________________________ 41 6. CONCLUSION, RESEARCH LIMITATIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH ...42
REFERENCES ...43
APPENDICES...49
5
1. INTRODUCTION
Since 2015, more than 1.5 million individuals have escaped from civil war, political instability, violence and conflicts in Syria and Iraq among others, and fled to European countries seeking refuge (Moorthy & Brathwaite, 2016; UNHCR, 2016a; Wirth, 2016). Most refugees are entering Europe through Greece and its islands, and continue the onerous journey by foot, bus, and train to their end destinations, usually Germany or Sweden (IOM, 2015; UNHCR, 2015). During the busiest times, more than 6,500 people arrived in Greece per day, while up to 5,000 of those reached Germany, which emphasizes the cruciality of quick access to a wide range of resources (IOM, 2015; REACH, 2016; UNHCR, 2016b). Humanitarian organizations (HOs) play a major role in providing medical aid, shelter, food, water, and clothing to refugees, and rely heavily on volunteers and contributions of the population (Schulz, 2009; Tomasini & Van Wassenhove, 2009b). These contributions consist of in-kind donations, made by private individuals and companies to satisfy urgent demand (ARC, 2016; Micklewright & Wright, 2004). However, in their desire to help refugees, unsuitable goods or items in poor state are frequently donated, impeding the work of HOs (ARC, 2016; Holguín-Veras, Jaller, Van Wassenhove, Pérez, & Wachtendorf, 2012a, 2012b; OCHA, 2013; PAHO, 2010).
6 incomplete or faulty paperwork and can even be unusable due to poor quality (The Logistics Cluster, 2014). This issue intensifies, when in-kind donations are non-fitting or non-priority items (Holguín-Veras et al., 2012b; The Logistics Cluster, 2014). The problem of managing in-kind donations is not addressed in literature and field reports, as the normative approach has been focused on changing the behaviour of the donor (ARC, 2016; OCHA, 2013; PAHO, 2009). However, in-kind donations neither stopped, nor decreased, which is mostly based on deep-rooted psychological factors of the donor, such as the level of trust in an HO, and the intrinsic motivation to help tangibly, which makes them prefer in-kind over monetary donations (ARC, 2016; Ülkü, Bell, & Wilson, 2015). Subsequently, there is a need of making the most out of the situation by developing efficient processes and practices for receiving, handling, and distributing in-kind donations.
The management and handling of in-kind donations were not in focus of researchers and, hence, did not improve since the 1960s (Holguín-Veras et al., 2012b). Consequently, not much is known about the processes and practices used by HOs to deal with in-kind donations (ARC, 2016; Holguín-Veras et al., 2012a, 2012b; Van Wassenhove & Martinez, 2012). Practices are well-known and accepted procedures (“Best Practice”, n.d.) (e.g. the practice of resource sharing in form of two organizations that borrow a transportation vehicle from each other), used to enhance supply chain performance (Carpinetti, Buosi, & Gerolamo, 2003). Both processes and practices are connected and go hand in hand and were explored in the functions of goods receipt, inventory management, and distribution (Croxton, 2003). Their alignment is essential as processes act as the infrastructure on which practices build upon (Hammer, 1990). Literature lacks an overview of these processes and of suitable practices on in-kind donations, and a systematic approach that investigates their joint impact on organisational efficiency (ARC, 2016; Holguín-Veras et al., 2012a, 2012b; Tomasini & Van Wassenhove, 2009b). Hence, insights are drawn from commercial supply chains (Christopher & Tatham, 2014; Shukla, 2016), but, adaption to the specific characteristics of the humanitarian context is needed to create performance improvements (Van Wassenhove & Martinez, 2012). This study investigates the handling of in-kind donations during the European refugee crisis (ERC) and its influence on organisational efficiency. Thus, it seeks to answer the following research question (RQ) and sub-questions (SQ):
RQ: What processes and practices are used in handling in-kind donations by HOs in the European Refugee Crisis and how do they jointly influence organisational efficiency?
7 SQ2: What are the performance implications of (mis-)alignment between processes and
practices in relation to organizational efficiency?
A multiple-case study approach is used, centring around HOs dealing with in-kind donations in the ERC, to discover the exact processes and practices used in handling in-kind donations, and to investigate how their alignment impacts organisational efficiency in order to develop an understanding of this phenomenon (Eisenhardt, 1989; Voss, Tsikriktsis, & Frohlich, 2002). The main contributions of this research paper are that we address the rather negative narrative on in-kind donations by weakening the critics, that we offer novel insights into the alignment of processes and practices, and that we draw novel connections to other factors influencing the choosing of practices and, therewith, affecting the organisational efficiency of HOs. Additionally, practitioners receive insights of how processes and practices can reduce supply and demand uncertainty, and, in turn, increase organisational efficiency.
8
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This section examines the views from HOs on in-kind donations, in-kind donations itself, processes and practices, the alignment of the two latter and their joint influence on organisational efficiency.
2.1 Humanitarian Organizations and their Views on In-Kind Donations
The humanitarian landscape is characterized by “various actors with inter-dependent relations” (Davies, 2003: 16), and while long existing HOs intervene on a global level during the ERC (EUPHRA, 2013), many local support groups and movements were founded in response to it (Dearden, 2015). The latter can have the advantages of local and cultural knowledge and easy access due to proximity (Borton & Berkhamsted, 2009; EUPRHA, 2013), while the former can have a reliable network and structure in place (Freeman & Engel, 2007). Furthermore, organizations can be either faith-based or secular, which implies not only a different motivation in providing aid but also a different network and structure to fall back on (Ferris, 2005). Differences among these HOs exist in the range of services offered and in their stances on in-kind donations (e.g. OCHA, 2013, Schulz, 2009). Often, local groups are rather positively inclined towards solicited and unsolicited in-kind donations from private individuals and companies and are likely to accept them (Moline, 2012). In contrast, internationally operating HOs usually work according to general guidelines and a code of conduct, which includes instructions regarding in-kind donations and, therewith, decreases the likelihood of unsolicited in-kind donations being accepted (ARC, 2016; OCHA, 2013; PAHO, 2009). However, local subsidiaries might make exceptions and accept in-kind donations despite their general guidelines (DRK, 2017).
2.1.1 In-kind Donations
Humanitarian organizations receive two kinds of in-kind donations, namely solicited and unsolicited ones (e.g. OCHA, 2013). The differences and contemporary views on them are discussed in the next three paragraphs.
9 Literature does not state any disadvantages of solicited in-kind donations as the demand is known and donations can be allocated quickly (Hellenius & Rudbeck, 2003). However, one donor does not always fulfil one donation appeal at once, nor on its own. Additionally, the requested quality might not be fulfilled and, thus, not cover the demand (Weisbrod & Domingues, 1986). Often, several donors are needed to reach the desired quantity of goods, which requires HOs to have processes and practices in place that handle solicited in-kind donations in an efficient way, supplying material aid to refugees in a timely manner.
Unsolicited in-kind donations are all donations that arrive without being explicitly requested (OCHA, 2013). These donations cause disruptions in the supply chain and account for up to 70% of in-kind donations, therefore, challenging HOs in their daily work and complicating the flow of goods (Balcik et al., 2010; Holguín-Veras et al., 2012b; Kovács, 2009). Holguín-Veras et al. (2012b: 3) describe unsolicited in-kind donations as “inappropriate or useless goods”, causing major complications, such as jamming the entries of disaster areas and therewith, blocking essential supplies of prioritized goods. Additionally, unsolicited in-kind donations occupy valuable storage space, lead to a higher workload for humanitarian workers, and can even endanger beneficiaries due to expired medicine or food (Holguín-Veras et al., 2012b; Logistics Cluster, 2014; Thomas & Fritz, 2006; Van Wassenhove, 2006). Consequently, many items need to be disposed of, creating again additional workload and costs (e.g. ARC, 2016; Holguín-Veras et al., 2012b). Unsolicited in-kind donations are highly criticised by many authors (e.g. Balcik et al., 2010; Van Wassenhove, 2006), however, some emphasize the advantages such as a higher market value of in-kind donations compared to actual cash donations from the same donor (Hellenius & Rudbeck, 2003). Still, Balcik et al. (2010) advise HOs to not accept unsolicited donations and, in fact, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2017) pursue this strategy; but, local Red Cross subsidies still receive huge amounts of unsolicited in-kind donations. Additionally, Holguín-Veras et al. (2012a, 2012b) suggest educating the donor about useful and useless in-kind donations by means of the media. In contrast, Tomasini, Stapleton, & Van Wassenhove (2009a) and Besiou, Stapleton, & Van Wassenhove (2011) claim that media campaigns will increase unsolicited in-kind donations instead of making donors thoroughly aware of the consequences.
10 feeling of which items are fitting and important. This leads to the assumption that parts of the unsolicited in-kind donations are appropriate and useful for the organizations and, therewith, for the beneficiaries. Consequently, but also based on one’s psyche to donate tangible (Ülku et al., 2015), it can be assumed that HOs receive a high amount of unsolicited in-kind donations, requiring them to find efficient ways of processing these items.
2.2 Processes and Practices in Handling In-kind Donations
This study concentrates on the point in time when donations enter the humanitarian system until the point when they are distributed to the beneficiary. Therefore, processes and practices, and the alignment thereof, that are “involved in receiving, processing, and delivering [donations] to [refugees]” (Bulger, 2013: 3) are explored.
The processes are roughly categorized into the following: goods receipt (receive and register incoming donations, quality check), inventory management (storing of donations accordingly to prior determined categories, monitoring ins and outs of donations), and distribution (delivery of donations to refugees) (e.g. Balcik & Beamon, 2008; Mangan, Lalwani, & Butcher, 2008; Rushton, Baker, & Croucher, 2014). While little is documented about these processes in relation to in-kind donations, it is known that additional workers, storage, transportation vehicles, and other resources are often required to unload, sort, inspect, store, and distribute them (Gazley & Abner, 2014; Holguín-Veras, Taniguchi, Jaller, Aros-Vera, Ferreira, & Thompson, 2014; Van Wassenhove, 2006).
11 participating HO can log in to share information, ask questions, and discuss initiatives. Secondly, sharing resources among HOs has potential, which is related to transportation, warehouse, and staff resources (Balcik et al., 2010; Van Wassenhove & Martinez, 2012), and to exchanging in-kind donations. Though, the uncertainty of humanitarian operations (e.g. Balcik et al., 2010; Christopher & Tatham, 2014) might complicate determining which resources are ample and available to share. If an HO starts to share resources, e.g. with exchanging excess in-kind donations, they need to extend their goods receipt, inventory management, and distribution process. When registering the incoming donations, the own demand but also the demand of partners need to be checked, to match supply with demand. If any demand at the collaboration partner exists, it has an impact on the route of the item as the transportation to the other organization needs to be organized. This includes many extra process steps and requires the process to be changed. Thirdly, the concept of buffering flexible capacity is defined by Hopp (2008: 85) as excess “capacity that can be shifted from one process to another”. This can be a cross-trained worker (Hopp, 2008), being assigned to the distribution process from the good receipt process for a fixed period. If an HO starts to buffer flexible capacity, the training employees undergo needs to be adapted.
In general, processes form the basis on which practices build upon, however, implementing practices requires the processes to change either incrementally or even radically (Hung, 2006). When processes and practices are well-aligned, an increase in organisational efficiency is ensured (e.g. Carpinetti et al., 2003). Consequently, processes that are misaligned with practices can cause confusion, mistakes, and unnecessary delays during operations (Hung, 2006). Due to the lack of process and practice documentation, which might be rooted in the fact that humanitarian workers usually rely on their experience (Fernando & Hilhorst, 2007) and on lessons learned based on previous disasters and emergencies (Carnegie & Dolan, 2015; Ching, 2011), speculation about them and their alignment is necessary, which was illustrated in the prior paragraph.
12
2.3 Conceptual Model
The above literature review resulted in the following conceptual model. Within an HO, the processes goods receipt, inventory management, and distribution take place, which should be aligned with selected practices, such as collaboration, resource sharing, and capacity buffering. This alignment influences the organizational efficiency and was, together with the processes and practices itself, investigated during this research.
13
3. METHODOLOGY
In this section, the multiple-case approach used in this research is elaborated upon. The research design and research setting is described, the selection criteria and the cases are presented, and the data collection and data analysis is outlined.
3.1 Research Design
Due to the lack of studies investigating the processes and practices of in-kind donations, we used exploratory multiple-case research as a methodological approach (Karlsson, 2016; Voss et al., 2002; Yin, 1994, 2003). Multiple-case studies are particularly useful in investigating ‘how’ and ‘what’ questions (Eisenhardt, 1989; Voss et al., 2002; Yin,1994, 2003), therefore, it is used in this research to examine how HOs process in-kind donations, which practices they use, how these are aligned with the processes, and what the effects are on the organizational efficiency. Case study research allows for identifying general concepts and for understanding the dynamics of a single research context to then translate these into a new theory (Strauss & Corbin, 1990; Eisenhardt, 1989). Additionally, the researcher’s interaction with humanitarian workers fostered the generation of managerial implications (Amabile et al., 2001; Leonard-Barton, 1990). Furthermore, this qualitative research method enabled studying the unique phenomena in its natural setting and gaining a deep understanding of the complexity (Pettigrew, 1973; Yin, 2003), which is applicable to the intricate nature of humanitarian operations (e.g. Rey, 2001).
3.2 Research Setting
14
3.3 Case Selection
In this research, the unit of analysis is an HO, which is active in the European refugee crisis and handles in-kind donations. Ten cases were selected, which falls into the suggested range of four to ten cases for a meaningful multiple-case study (Eisenhardt, 1989). A theoretical replication (cases are selected to cover different theoretical conditions) was chosen and organizations were purposely selected based on their founding date, faith, country, and handling in-kind donations during the refugee crisis (Karlsson, 2016; Voss, 2009). Within Germany and Greece, ten HOs were approached that match those criteria. The distinction between firmly and recently established organizations is made as longer existing organizations can usually rely on existing processes, on a certain know-how, and on experience, whereas, newer organizations, founded after 2011, are rather inexperienced and at times still in the discovery phase. Differentiating between faith-based and secular organizations is based on the assumption that the first group can fall back on the network and support of the church, while the latter group has no such contacts. The characteristics of each case are described in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Case Descriptions
< or > 2011
Faith vs.
Secular Country In-kind donations
Active in refugee crisis 1 Buttercup > Secular Greece Clothing, hygienic and household goods,
medicine and medical supplies, furniture, food
Yes (launched in response to ERC)
2 Daisy < Secular Germany Clothing, household goods Yes
3 Edelweiss > Secular Greece Clothing, hygienic goods, food Yes (launched in
response to ERC)
4 Foxglove > Secular Germany Clothing, hygienic and household goods Yes (launched in
response to ERC)
5 Jasmine > Faith-based Germany Clothing, hygienic and household goods, furniture Yes (launched in
response to ERC)
6 Lavender < Faith-based Germany Clothing, household goods Yes 7 Marigold < Faith-based Germany Clothing, hygienic and household goods Yes 8 Orchid < Faith-based Germany Clothing, hygienic and household goods, furniture Yes 9 Rosemary < Secular Greece Clothing, hygienic goods, medicine and medical
supplies, food Yes
10 Tulip > Secular Germany Clothing, hygienic and household goods Yes (launched in
15
3.4 Data Collection
16
Table 3.2 Data Collection Details
Case &
Interviewee Position
Interview
duration Additional documents 1 Buttercup Store manager 96 minutes Website
2 Daisy (A) Head of location, pedagogue 61 minutes 4 leaflets, field observations (1 visit), website
2 Daisy (B) Pedagogical staff member 40 minutes
3 Edelweiss Secretary (volunteer) written Website, social media content
4 Foxglove Project coordination (volunteer) 42 minutes Website, social media content, pictures, videos
5 Jasmine (A) Initiator, project coordination
(volunteer) 76 minutes
11 newspaper articles, 3 videos, field observations (1 visit), website, social media content, employee guidelines
5 Jasmine (B) Logistical staff member 25 minutes
6 Lavender Deputy operations manager 41 minutes 4 leaflets, field observations (1 visit), website
7 Marigold (A) Social pedagogue, consultant 47 minutes Field observations (1 visit), sample e-mail
7 Marigold (B) Social pedagogue, fundraising 45 minutes
8 Orchid Head of location, deputy operations
manager of other locations 66 minutes
1 leaflet, field observations (1 visit), website
9 Rosemary Fundraising staff member 40 minutes Website
10 Tulip Initiator, project coordination
(volunteer) 141 minutes
40 newspaper articles, 5 videos, field observations (1 visit), website, social media content
3.5 Data Analysis
17 fragments (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The data was sorted and grouped accordingly to the codes with the tool Microsoft Excel, starting with a single interview and extending it to the additional data belonging to each case. We became familiar with each case and their circumstances and identified patterns in the within-case analysis (Eisenhardt, 1989). Afterwards, we conducted a cross-case analysis comparing the ten cases in relation to processing in-kind donations and practices used. These analyses aimed to provide analytical generalization and, therewith, external validity (Eisenhardt, 1989; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Voss et al., 2002; Yin, 1994, 1999).
Table 3.3 Coding Tree
Concepts &
Variables Starting Codes
First-Order Codes (Examples)
In-kind Donations
Solicited “If we don't have enough of something, we start an appeal, e.g. via social media or our website." (Jasmine)
Unsolicited “The majority are unsolicited in-kind donations. Some are actually really good.” (Marigold)
Processes
Goods Receipt
"Donors don’t come unannounced. The reason why we do that, is that I might not be in the warehouse. But other reason is also we want to have as much as possible control on what is coming in our warehouse. " (Buttercup)
Inventory Management
“The in-kind donations are pre-sorted according to our quality requirements and then diligently sorted. Some things need to be washed and ironed. Then, it will be folded and sorted into the shelves.” (Daisy)
Distribution “The beneficiaries let us know what they need by means of a form. We arrange an appointment of 15 minutes per family and can pre-work, preparing the items that they need.” (Tulip)
Practices
Collaboration
“We have contact with several other organizations. Mainly with groups like ours that work solely with non-paid volunteers, and with official NGOs sometimes. We exchange information through [a digital network].” (Edelweiss)
Resource Sharing
“If we have excess items or something we don’t need, we distribute it to another cause. We work with other NGOs together.” (Rosemary)
Capacity Buffering
“Flexibility is important. We have two separate areas, within these functions I expect flexibility from m employees.” (Orchid)
Organizational Efficiency
Challenges “To have enough in-kind donations for beneficiaries is the biggest challenge. The [potential] donors need to be aware that it is a constant demand.” (Foxglove)
Time-consuming activities
18
4. RESULTS
This section contains the within-case and cross-case analyses of all ten cases and is structured according to the conceptual model. In the within-case analyses, each case starts with a small description on their policies on in-kind donations, shows a process map of the processes goods receipt, inventory management, and distribution, explains the practices that are used, and how the alignment of these processes and practices influences organizational efficiency. During the interviews, different themes emerged that were prior not considered in the conceptualization of the concepts, such as other practices, processes, and a point of emphasis, which each case has and which affects some part of their operations. Next, the cross-case analysis draws comparisons and contrasts between the cases. The results show that processes are well-aligned with the chosen practices and that the emerged point of emphasis plays a big role when choosing certain practices.
4.1 Within-Case Analysis
4.1.1 Case 1 – Buttercup
Buttercup operates as a middleman between donors and other HOs. They decided to specialize in in-kind donations and not to provide the direct contact to beneficiaries as there are already many other HOs who aim for specific target groups and have different expertise. Buttercup accepts solicited as well as unsolicited in-kind donations, but items need to be of good quality.
19 respect are values of utmost importance for Buttercup and incorporated in their processes when keeping the donor until the very end in the loop. Furthermore, they keep the disposal share small as due to the strict policy only rarely low-quality items are donated. This, in turn, increases their organizational efficiency as the workload is reduced and volunteers are not occupied with a high number of unusable in-kind donations. However, the acceptance of unsolicited in-kind donations causes problems with the space management as it is not clear for how long they will be stored. Additionally, the registering and documenting of in-kind donations requires a lot of time but usually does not disturb the normal operations at the warehouse.
4.1.2 Case 2 – Daisy
Daisy interacts directly with beneficiaries and provides in-kind donations to them. They accept solicited and unsolicited in-kind donations in good quality and publish donation appeals on their website if required. Additionally, Daisy is not afraid to communicate refusal to donors, who bring low-quality items.
20 = start point
= decision point
= process step / activity
21
Figure 4.2 Process Map. Daisy.
22
Figure 4.4 Process Map. Foxglove.
23
4.1.3 Case 3 – Edelweiss
Edelweiss interacts directly with beneficiaries and provides in-kind donations to them. They accept solicited and unsolicited in-kind donations, and publish donation appeals if demand exists.
Figure 4.3 illustrates Edelweiss’ processes in handling in-kind donations and how the practices are integrated into these. They use the practices collaboration, resource sharing, and to some extent capacity buffering. Edelweiss has some volunteers, who are cross-trained for more than one process, but it depends highly on how long volunteers stay and how motivated they are. This increases organizational efficiency as they can fill-in at different workstations if needed. Next, they collaborate with many other organizations regionally and exchange general information via a digital network. Additionally, they allocate excess items that are most likely not needed in the future to other organizations and causes, however, exchanging in-kind donations is not necessarily beneficial as usually the same items at the contacted HOs are in surplus. However, if they have a match, organizational efficiency is increased as either Edelweiss’ ability to fulfil demand increases or their limited storage space becomes emptier. Moreover, they state that especially unsolicited in-kind donations often cause problems as those are the ones they usually already have in surplus and not the ones on which they have shortages. This makes it difficult to meet the needs of the refugees and to match supply with demand, which slows down operations and therewith decreases organizational efficiency. Additionally, solicited donations are often not sufficient and do not match their requests in terms of quality or quantity. Thus, they often find themselves in a supply deficit situation as frequently dirty and destroyed items are being donated, which again decreases organizational efficiency as demand cannot be fulfilled. Among Edelweiss’ processes, sorting takes the most time, which is also caused by a too small workforce.
4.1.4 Case 4 – Foxglove
Foxglove interacts directly with beneficiaries and provides in-kind donations to them. They accept solicited and unsolicited in-kind donations, and publish donation appeals on social media and their website if demand exists. They only refuse donations that they cannot accept like bulky items because of the lack of a storage room.
24 without network and that preferably all HOs should belong to one big entity. Furthermore, general information and knowledge on various topics are exchanged as each organisation has different core competencies and strengths. Capacity buffering is used to a certain extent in form of some flexible trained volunteers, which increases organizational efficiency as they can fill-in at different workstations if required. Among Foxglove’s processes, sorting and maintaining a certain tidiness consume the most time as beneficiaries can try on clothing and choose from the whole range. During the interviews, one point of emphasis emerged, which was previously unaccounted for in our conceptualisation of the constructs: respect. Foxglove treats beneficiaries in a respectful and dignified way and engages with them in a trusting environment. This is also aligned with Foxglove’s processes as beneficiaries have choice and a full say.
4.1.5 Case 5 – Jasmine
Jasmine interacts directly with beneficiaries and provides in-kind donations to them. They accept every in-kind donation despite clearly non-functional items and some pieces of furniture, for which simply no demand exists anymore due to fashion reasons. Occasionally, they publish donation appeals on their website and on social media, based on urgent demands and supply deficits.
25 compensate the time the sorting department takes. Moreover, the acceptance of almost every donation leads to a higher workload for volunteers, to higher disposal costs and, therewith, to a decrease in organizational efficiency.
4.1.6 Case 6 – Lavender
Lavender operates several branches and provides in-kind donations to them. These branches distribute in-kind donations to beneficiaries. Furthermore, they have no policy on in-kind donations and literally accept every item being donated.
Figure 4.6 illustrates Lavender’s processes in handling in-kind donations and how the practices are integrated into these. They use the practice collaboration and internal resource sharing. They collaborate with upcycling artists, local businesses such as shopping malls, and within its own organisation with different branches across the city. Lavender states that two of their process steps cost the most time, namely cleaning the household goods and giving instructions towards the employees for clothing. The latter is a result of the short product lifecycles of some brands, the little knowledge about those from most employees, and the degree of motivation from employees. This essential supervision and instruction of the employees slow down operations and causes the organizational efficiency to decrease. Additionally, their policy leads to a higher workload for employees, to higher disposal costs and, therewith, to a decrease in organizational efficiency. During the interview, one point of emphasis emerged, which was previously unaccounted for in our conceptualisation of the constructs: exploitation. Lavender states that the danger of being exploited as disposal centre is rather big and that the waste management of in-kind donations is a huge disadvantage and problem.
4.1.7 Case 7 – Marigold
Marigold is interacting with donors and a company specialized in logistic services. They have a rather strict policy in terms of quality of in-kind donations and accept despite solicited in-kind donations, which are mainly made in cooperation with companies, also unsolicited in-kind donations belonging to clothing and household goods.
26 each organisation and use in different shops. During the interviews, one new practice and one new point of emphasis emerged, which were previously unaccounted for in our conceptualisation of the constructs: outsourcing and exploitation. Marigold outsources its processes centring around the handling of in-kind donations to a daughter company, which provides a warehouse and performs the goods receipt, inventory management, and distribution process. This way, the impact of in-kind donations can be maximized and, in turn, Marigold can specialize in providing social services, which increases their organizational efficiency. Next, they state that the danger of being exploited as disposal centre is rather big and that the waste management of in-kind donations is a huge disadvantage and problem.
4.1.8 Case 8 – Orchid
Orchid interacts directly with beneficiaries and provides in-kind donations to them. They operate a few other branches, which distribute in-kind donations to beneficiaries as well. Orchid accepts everything despite broken or too old-fashion pieces of furniture as no demand exists for those. They do not publish donation appeals and, subsequently, only work with unsolicited in-kind donations.
27
Figure 4.6 Process Map. Lavender.
28
Figure 4.8 Process Map. Orchid.
29
4.1.9 Case 9 – Rosemary
Rosemary interacts directly with beneficiaries and provides in-kind donations to them. They operate several branches, to which they also distribute in-kind donations. Rosemary mainly accepts solicited in-kind donations. Unsolicited in-kind donations occur in small quantities and are only accepted, if still in a like-new state or/and with a long expiration date. They are not afraid to communicate refusal to donors, who bring low quality and broken items.
Figure 4.9 shows Rosemary’s processes in handling in-kind donations and how the practices are integrated into these. Rosemary uses the practices collaboration, resource sharing, and to a small extent capacity buffering. They collaborate with other organizations and companies on an international level, receive in-kind donations from local businesses and multinational companies, and exchange in-kind donations for which they do not have any demand with other organizations and causes. However, this is not often necessary as mainly donations are accepted for which Rosemary has demand themselves. During the interview, one new practice, one new process, and one point of emphasis emerged, which were previously unaccounted for in our conceptualisation of the constructs: inventory pooling, fundraising, and respect. Inventory pooling is used to maximize the impact of in-kind donations and, in turn, to balance out the supply and demand uncertainty. Subsequently, Rosemary has a wide range to choose from when delivering in-kind donations to their branches. Next, fundraising emerged as it is Rosemary’s most time-consuming activity with seeking suitable donors and donations. They treat donors and beneficiaries in a respectful and dignified way and engage with them in an open and trusting environment. Lastly, Rosemary keeps the disposal share small as due to the strict policy only rarely low-quality items are donated. This, in turn, increases their organizational efficiency as the workload is reduced and volunteers are not occupied with a high number of unusable in-kind donations.
4.1.10 Case 10 – Tulip
Tulip interacts directly with beneficiaries and provides in-kind donations to them. They accept literally everything, make some donation appeals on their website and on social media, but are simply very known regionally and beyond that.
31
32
4.2 Cross-Case Analysis
The cross-case analysis shows the similarities and differences between all ten cases. Their policies, processes, practices, and emerged themes are compared. Table 4.1 summarizes the main findings for each of the ten cases.
First, all cases accept solicited as well as unsolicited in-kind donations, despite Orchid, who does not ask for any specific items. Daisy, Rosemary, Buttercup, and Marigold are stricter in their policies on in-kind donations than the other cases, which results in fewer donations that are unusable and that need to be disposed of. This, in turn, results in an increase in their organizational efficiency as the workload is reduced and volunteers/employees are not occupied with a high number of unusable in-kind donations.
Second, the goods receipt process varies between the cases: Buttercup and Rosemary require prior announcement, while the others have fixed opening times in which donors can drop by. Additionally, Buttercup, Jasmine, Lavender, Marigold, and Orchid offer the collection of donations from individuals. Working with an announced good receipt process enables HOs to prepare and to plan ahead, which reduces supply uncertainty and, in turn, increases organisational efficiency.
Third, all cases have similar activities in the inventory management process, such as pre-sorting, diligent sorting, and sorting into shelves. However, the degree of digitalization differs. Buttercup has the most digitalized processes, with containing a database of every item and documenting the ins and out of the warehouse. In contrast, Daisy, Orchid, and Rosemary keep rough estimations of donations, while the other six cases keep no overview. Despite these differences of arranging the processes, 8 out of 10 cases have the activity with the largest time investment in inventory management. Considering the huge volumes and manual labour required to diligently check each individual in-kind donation for deficiencies this outcome is not rather surprising.
33 beneficiaries and ensures that enough staff members are planned in. This can reduce demand uncertainty and simplify operations, which, in turn, increases organisational efficiency.
Fifth, the fundraising process emerged during the interview with Rosemary but was prior to this research not considered in our conceptualisation of the constructs. Fundraising includes activities such as seeking potential donors, convincing them and the public about the value of the HO’s work, and requesting in-kind donations for which demand exists. All other cases, despite Orchid who publishes no donation appeals, also have an established fundraising process.
Sixth, all cases, despite Lavender, collaborate in one or another way with other HOs. Buttercup, Daisy, Edelweiss, Foxglove, Jasmine, Rosemary, and Tulip have a big network with other organizations and share information, refer to each other, and learn from each other. They state explicitly the importance of a network and of working together towards one goal to be able to provide aid. Furthermore, Lavender, Orchid, and Rosemary collaborate within their own organization with other branches as they are working towards the same goal. All cases, despite Orchid, cooperate with companies, who are their commercial donors and with whom often special agreements take place. Moreover, differences between the longer and shorter established HOs were detected, namely that all HOs established after 2011 mention the importance of collaborating in a network, while only two of the earlier founded HOs agree on this significance (Daisy & Rosemary). Additionally, learning from each other and sharing information can increase the organizational efficiency as processes and practices are reconsidered.
Seventh, all cases, despite Marigold, share resources with other HOs or own branches. Lavender and Orchid share in-kind donations within their own organization, while Buttercup, Daisy, Edelweiss, Foxglove, Jasmine, Rosemary, and Tulip exchange in-kind donations with other HOs. Additionally, all secular HOs exchange in-kind donations with other HOs, while only one faith-based has such a network in place (Jasmine). Sharing in-kind donations increases organizational efficiency as either their ability to fulfil demand increases or their storage space becomes emptier.
34 Nine, the practices outsourcing/specialisation and inventory pooling emerged during the interviews with Buttercup, Lavender, Jasmine, and Rosemary, but were prior to this research not considered in our conceptualisation of the constructs. To outsource or to specialize a certain part of the business provides more focus on core activities and increases the efficiency of the processes kept in-house. Additionally, inventory pooling maximizes the impact of in-kind donations and, in turn, balances out the supply and demand uncertainty.
Ten, all cases apply some practices, which directly influence their processes on handling in-kind donations, however, have both well-aligned. The chosen practices, e.g. resource sharing, require changes in an HO’s processes as they must check in with other HOs about their supply capabilities and their demands. All cases do this consistently, which increases their organizational efficiency.
35
Table 4.1 Summary Table I: Overview of findings.
Summary Table I: Overview of findings
Buttercup Daisy Edelweiss Foxglove Jasmine1 Lavender Marigold2 Orchid Rosemary Tulip
Policy U&S, good
quality
U&S, good
quality U&S U&S U&S U&S
U&S, good quality U U&S, need assessment & good quality U&S Donors Private individuals & businesses Private individuals & businesses Private individuals & businesses Private individuals & businesses Private individuals & businesses Private individuals & businesses Private individuals & businesses Private individuals Private individuals & businesses Private individuals & businesses Descriptions /
Handbook Yes No No No Partly Partly - Partly Partly No
Database of donations
Yes, also of clients
No, but rough
estimations No No No, but of beneficiaries No, but of clients No, but of commercial donors
No, but rough
estimations Yes, partly
No, but of beneficiaries
Storage Capacity Good
Very limited, only seasonal goods Fairly limited Very limited, only seasonal goods Good Fairly limited, mainly seasonal goods
- Good Fairly limited Good
Most time-consuming Documenting of donations Pre-sorting & sorting into shelfs
Sorting out Keep shelfs tidy & sorting
Diligent sorting
Value-adding
& instructions -
Diligent
sorting Fundraising* Sorting
36 Proc e s s e s
Fundraising3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Goods Receipt Announced
drop by Unannounced drop by Announced mail & Unannounced drop by Unannounced drop by Collection & Unannounced drop by Collection & Unannounced drop by - Collection & unannounced drop by Announced drop by Unannounced drop by Inventory Management Sorting, registering Sorting, value-adding Sorting Sorting, value-adding Sorting, value-adding Sorting - Sorting,
value-adding Sorting Sorting
Distribution Delivery &
Collection Appointment Drop-by
Drop-by & appointment
Delivery &
Collection Delivery - Drop by
Drop by & delivery Appointment Prac tic e s Collaboration Yes with HOs & companies
Yes with HOs & companies
Yes with HOs & companies
Yes with HOs & companies
Yes with HOs & companies Yes with own branches & companies Yes with HOs, companies Yes with HOs &
own branches Yes with HOs, companies & own branches Yes with HOs & companies
Resource
sharing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - Yes Yes Yes
Capacity buffering Partly: cross-trained workers - Partly: cross-trained workers Partly: cross-trained workers Partly: cross-trained workers - - Yes: cross-trained workers Partly: cross-trained workers - Outsourcing /
Specialisation³ Yes - - - Yes - - -
Inventory
Pooling³ Yes - - - Yes Yes - - Yes -
Point of emphasis³ Transparency,
respect
Transparency,
respect Transparency Respect
Transparency,
preparedness Exploitation Exploitation Exploitation Respect
Media, preparedness Largest impact on time investment Inventory Management Inventory Management Inventory Management Inventory Management Inventory Management Inventory Management - Inventory Management Fundraising Inventory Management
37
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 Key Research Insights
By studying ten humanitarian organizations, which are active in the European refugee crisis and handle in-kind donations, this study attempted to answer the question What processes and practices are used in handling in-kind donations by HOs in the European Refugee Crisis and how do they jointly influence organisational efficiency. The processes and practices that HOs use, are displayed in Table 4.1 and described in section 4 in detail. It stands out that all cases naturally align the processes and practices well, and that an increase in organisational efficiency was mainly dependent on the chosen practice and policy. Additionally, HOs choose practices based on the emerged points of emphasis, which have a great impact on how they handle in-kind donations and how they interact with donors, beneficiaries, and other HOs.
38 and staff resources (e.g. Balcik et al., 2010) are shared among the studied cases, the majority shares and exchanges inventory in terms of in-kind donations. Determining which items are ample and available to give away is based on demand and inventory assessments, but still sensitive to the uncertain supply and demand fluctuations in humanitarian operations (e.g. Christopher & Tatham, 2014). Moreover, capacity buffering is only used to a certain extent by HOs as it is quite limited usable due to the employment length, motivation, and skills of the employee/volunteer. However, when it was used it resulted in an increase in flexibility, and in turn in an increase in their organisational efficiency (Hopp, 2008). Regarding the alignment of processes and practices, we observed that processes had to be well adapted to the chosen practices (Hung, 2006) to result in an increase in organisational efficiency (e.g. Carpinetti et al., 2003). Misalignment was not apparent and processes seemed to be naturally adapted when choosing certain practices to work with.
During the research emerged that the process fundraising and the practices inventory pooling and outsourcing/specializing are used across HOs. Fundraising includes the direct contact with the donor, whose behavior and awareness was the focus of many studies before (e.g. Holguín-Veras et al., 2012b; PAHO, 2009). Additionally, donors can be educated about appropriate in-kind donations from the fundraising department. Next, inventory pooling is the combining of separate inventories to a single point of stock. It then serves several places of destinations, and benefits the organisation due to smaller stock levels, centralized operations, and reduced demand uncertainty (Birmpikis & Markakis, 2016; Van Wassenhove & Martinez, 2012). This is a practice only relevant for HOs with several subsidies and on-site storages as the limited financial means of HOs make long-term warehouses unlikely to afford (Balcik & Beamon, 2008; Salisbury, 2007 IN Saeyeon, Kwak, Beresford, & Pettit, 2015; Van Wassenhove & Martinez, 2012). However, four cases in our research are using inventory pooling, and bundle the donations at a central point and distribute them from there to beneficiaries, other HOs, or own branches to minimize demand and supply uncertainty. The practice outsourcing/specializing enables HOs to focus more on core activities and to increase the efficiency of the processes kept in-house (Dinu, 2015). Two cases in our research are making use of this practice in order to maximize the impact of in-kind donations and, in turn, to increase organisational efficiency.
39 interact within the supply chain to improve performance” (Tomasini & Van Wassenhove, 2009b: 94), however, our cases do no explicitly use it to improve performance but to openly demonstrate the continuance of in-kind donations towards donors, beneficiaries, and the society to remain credible. Furthermore, beneficiaries are commonly treated with respect, which is embedded in guidelines from HOs (Slim, 2015), however, it is not applied in the processes and practices used on handling in-kind donations. Preparedness rather focuses on planning ahead and preparing for the next disaster in a larger scope (Tomasini & Van Wassenhove, 2009c), but not on how to use it on processes on in-kind donations. Exploitation is less applicable to the processes and practices itself but on the policy of in-kind donations, which in turn influences the processes goods receipt and inventory management. While HOs are advised to decline unsolicited in-kind donations in general (Balcik et al., 2010), our research showed that unsolicited in-kind donations can be of value. However, the studied cases with stricter policies on in-kind donations had fewer problems with being exploited as disposal place, along with a decrease in disposal costs and an increase in organisational efficiency. Additionally, media is less applicable to the processes and practices as well, but it greatly impacts the donation amount, which in turn influences the operations (Tomasini & Van Wassenhove, 2009b) and ability to fulfil needs. Therefore, HOs should communicate in a smart way and use the media to their advantage.
The point of emphasis varies between the cases, however, has a huge influence on the choosing of practices and the out carrying of the processes. While the values and concepts on its own are known in literature, the explicit link between processes, practices, and the points of emphases has not been made yet. Our findings lead to the following propositions:
Proposition 1. The point of emphasis of an HO has great impact on the choosing of practices.
Subsequently, practices are not only used for performance enhancement but to integrate values to which importance is attached.
Proposition 2. The emphasis in transparency is incorporated in processes and practices to
openly demonstrate the continuance of in-kind donations towards donors, beneficiaries, and the society in general in order to remain credible.
Proposition 3. The emphasis in respect is incorporated in processes and practices to create
ethical ways of handling in-kind donations, to show appreciation towards the donor, and to create trusting and dignified ways of distributing in-kind donations to beneficiaries.
Proposition 4. The emphasis in preparedness is incorporated in processes and practices to be
40
Proposition 5. Stricter policies on in-kind donations result in smaller shares of unusable items
and, therewith, in an increase of organizational efficiency as disposal costs and workload are reduced.
Proposition 6. HOs should keep the media in the loop, communicate openly about do’s and
don’ts regarding the donation of in-kind donations.
Based on our findings across all ten cases, we propose a revision of the original conceptual model, which was presented in section 2 as Figure 2.1. Figure 5.1 includes the public, consisting of donors, society, and the media, which stands in relationship with an HO. This relationship is influenced by the points of emphases such as transparency, respect, exploitation, and the media coverage. On the right-hand side are the beneficiaries, who stand in a relationship with an HO as well, and which is impacted by the points of emphases like transparency, respect, and preparedness. Within an HO, the processes fundraising, goods receipt, inventory management, and distribution take place, which should be aligned with practices, such as collaboration, resource sharing, capacity buffering, outsourcing/specialization, and inventory pooling. This alignment, but also the relations with public and beneficiaries, influence organizational efficiency.
41
5.2 Implication for Research and Practice
Concluding, the views and the handling of in-kind donations among HOs are more positive than previously assumed based on the narrative in literature (e.g. Balcik et al., 2010). This paper addressed the problem of in-kind donations from a different angle than other researchers, who focused extensively on changing the behaviour of the donor (e.g. OCHA, 2013). We discovered processes and practices used on the handling of in-kind donations and created process maps providing systematic overviews of the alignment of processes and practices. Furthermore, we contribute to the ongoing discussion about in-kind donations and their handling (e.g. Holguín-Veras et al., 2012b) and address the rather negative viewpoint on unsolicited in-kind donations by weakening the critics and scepticism (Kovács, 2009).
In terms of practice, HOs can use our findings to increase their organizational efficiency by implementing one or another change in their policies, processes, and/or practices. HOs are encouraged to have a transparent and honest stance towards donors combined with a rather strict quality requirement of in-kind donations, which will result in a smaller disposal share and in quicker inventory management processes as fewer unusable items are donated. Despite this change in policies on in-kind donations, HOs can reconsider their goods receipt and distribution process as these two are areas that can decrease supply and demand uncertainty and, therewith, enhance organizational efficiency immensely. Additionally, the communication towards media and public should be kept open and honest about demands and challenges in handling in-kind donations in order to educate the potential donor but also to encourage him/her to donate. Donors should feel appreciated for supporting the cause, while beneficiaries should be faced with dignity and respect during the distribution of in-kind donations.
42
6. CONCLUSION, RESEARCH LIMITATIONS & FUTURE RESEARCH
The handling of in-kind donations is rather unexplored but acknowledged as critical to humanitarian operations. This paper provided an overview of different ways of handling in-kind donations in the European refugee crisis and explored how the alignment of processes and practices on in-kind donations impacts organizational efficiency. We came up with six propositions based on our findings and on current literature, which can be tested and verified in future research.
Investigating the policies, processes, and practices on in-kind donations from ten HOs, we observed that processes and practices are naturally aligned and that rather the emerged points of emphases, such as transparency and preparedness, have an impact on the chosen practices and, therewith, on the organizational efficiency. Due to little documentation on processes and practices, let alone on their alignment, it was rather challenging to unravel the exact process steps and how practices were integrated into those. Consequently, it represents a limitation of this research and it would be valuable to conduct further research and select cases that can provide access to written process descriptions. Another limitation refers to the literature available on handling in-kind donations. It mainly centres around disaster and emergency relief in conflict zones with more unstable and uncertain conditions compared to the slow onset disaster that we investigated. Hence, opportunities exist to expand on our findings in the disaster and emergency relief context.
43
REFERENCES
Amabile, T. M., Patterson, C., Mueller, J., Wojcik, T., Odomirok, P. W., Marsh, M., & Kramer, S. J. (2001). Academic-practitioner collaboration in management research: A case of cross-profession collaboration. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 418-431.
Aram, J.D., & Morgan, C.P. (1976). The role of project team collaboration in R&D performance. Management Science, 22(10), 1127–1137.
Australian Red Cross. ARC. (2016). The challenges of Unsolicited Bilateral Donations in Pacific humanitarian responses. Retrieved February 11, 2017, from http://www.redcross.org.au/files/161220_Report_-_Challenges_of_UBD_in_Pacific.pdf
Balcik, B., & Beamon, B.M. (2008). Facility location in humanitarian relief. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Application, 11, 101–121.
Balcik, B., Beamon, B. M., Krejci, C. C., Muramatsu, K. M., & Ramirez, M. (2010). Coordination in humanitarian relief chains: Practices, challenges and opportunities. International Journal Of Production Economics, 126(1), 22-34.
Barratt, M. (2004). Understanding the meaning of collaboration in the supply chain. Supply Chain Management: an international journal, 9(1), 30-42.
BBC. (2016). Migrant crisis: Migration to Europe explained in seven charts. Retrieved March 24, 2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34131911
Besiou, M., Stapleton, O., & Van Wassenhove, L. N. (2011). System dynamics for humanitarian operations. Journal of Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management, 1(1), 78-103.
Best practice. (n.d.). Retrieved April 23, 2017, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/best practice
Bimpikis, K., & Markakis, M. G. (2016). Inventory Pooling Under Heavy-Tailed Demand. Management Science, 62(6), 1800-1813. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2015.2204
Bitros, G. C. (2017). Germany and Greece: A mapping of their great divide and its EU implications. MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 79039, 1-32.
Borton, J., & Berkhamsted, U. K. (2009). Future of the humanitarian system: Impacts of internal changes. Medford, MA, 1-111.
Bradley, E.H., Curry, L.A., Devers, K.J., (2007). Qualitative data analysis for health services research: developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Serv. Res. 42(4), 1758–1772 Bulger, S. (2013). What is Order Fulfillment? Retrieved April 21, 2017, from
http://www.efulfillmentservice.com/2013/01/what-is-order-fulfillment/
44 Carpinetti, L. C., Buosi, T., & Gerolamo, M. C. (2003). Quality management and improvement: A framework and a business-process reference model. Business Process Management Journal, 9(4), 543-554.
Ching, E. (2011). Best Practices and Lessons Learned: The Humanitarian Response in Post-Tsunami Sri Lanka. Case-specific briefing paper, University of Denver, 1-8.
Christopher, M., & Tatham, P. (2014). Humanitarian Logistics: Meeting the Challenge of Preparing for and Responding to Disasters. Kogan Page.
Croxton, K. L. (2003). The order fulfillment process. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 14(1), 19-32.
Davies, A. (2003). Accountability and Humanitarian Actors: Speculations and Questions. Humanitarian Exchange Issue, 24, 1-44.
Dearden, L. (2015). Refugees Welcome: 'Airbnb for asylum seekers' started by German couple spreads around the world - and the UK could be next. Retrieved March 19, 2017, from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/refugees-welcome-airbnb-for-asylum-seekers-started-by-german-couple-spreads-around-the-world-and-the-a6718321.html
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Sage publications, inc. De Ville de Goyet, C. (2002). Health in Emergencies Issue 14. Retrieved February 26, 2017, from http://reliefweb.int/report/afghanistan/health-emergencies-issue-14-sep-2002
Deutsches Rotes Kreuz e.V. (DRK) (2017). Kleiderspende - einfach Helfen. Retrieved March 24, 2017, from http://drk-melle.de/spenden/kleiderspende.html
Dinu, A. M. (2015). The risks and benefits of outsourcing. Knowledge Horizons. Economics, 7(2), 103.
Dubé, L., & Paré, G. (2003). Rigor in information systems positivist research: current practices, trends and recommendations. MIS Quarterly, 27, 597-636.
Ein-Gar, D., & Levontin, L. (2013). Giving from a distance: Putting the charitable organization at the center of the donation appeal. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 23(2), 197-211.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy Of Management Review, 14(4), 532-550. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4308385
EISENHARDT, K. M., & GRAEBNER, M. E. (2007). THEORY BUILDING FROM CASES: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES. Academy Of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2007.24160888
European Universities on Professionalization on Humanitarian Action (EUPRHA). (2013). A quick guide on the current situation of humanitarian reliefs, its origins, stakeholders and future. The State of Art of Humanitarian Action, 1-50.
45 Ferris, E. (2005). Faith-based and secular humanitarian organizations. International review of the Red Cross, 87(858), 311-325.
Freeman, J., & Engel, J. S. (2007). Models of Innovation: STARTUPS AND MATURE CORPORATIONS. California Management Review, 50(1), 94-119.
Friedrichs, K. (2016). Spenden in sozialen Netzwerken – Eine qualitative Analyse zur Kommunikations-und Spendenbereitschaft von jungen Erwachsenen in sozialen Netzwerken. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 1-2016, 55-68.
Gazley, B., & Abner, G. (2014). Evaluating a Product Donation Program: Challenges for Charitable Capacity. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 24(3), 337-355. doi:10.1002/nml.21094
Hammer, M. (1990) Beyond Reengineering: How the Process–Centered Organization is Changing Our Work and Our Lives (New York: Harper Collins).
Hellenius, R., & Rudbeck, S. (2003). In-kind donations for nonprofits. Mckinsey Quarterly, (4), 23-27.
Holguín-Veras, J., Jaller, M., Van Wassenhove, L. N., Pérez, N., & Wachtendorf, T. (2012a). On the unique features of post-disaster humanitarian logistics. Journal Of Operations Management, 30(7/8), 494-506.
Holguín-Veras, J., Jaller, M., Van Wassenhove, L. N., Perez, N., & Wachtendorf, T. (2012b). Material convergence: An important and understudied disaster phenomenon. Natural Hazards Review.
Holguín-Veras, J., Taniguchi, E., Jaller, M., Aros-Vera, F., Ferreira, F., & Thompson, R. G. (2014). The Tohoku disasters: Chief lessons concerning the post disaster humanitarian logistics response and policy implications. Transportation Research Part A: Policy & Practice, 6986-104. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2014.08.003
Hopp, W. J. (2008). Supply chain science. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Hung, R. Y.-Y. (2006). Business process management as competitive advantage: a review and empirical study. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 17(1), 21-40.
International Organization for Migration (IOM) (2015). Global Migration. Retrieved February 10, 2017 from http://publications.iom.int/system/files/wmr2015_en.pdf
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (2017). Good intentions gone awry: Unrequested donations during disasters. Retrieved February 21, 2017, from https://media.ifrc.org/ifrc/2017/02/16/good-intentions-gone-awry-unrequested-donations-during-disasters/
Karlsson, C. (2016). Research methods for operations management. New York: Routledge.
