Content uploaded by Sanne Bor
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sanne Bor on Mar 24, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617712895
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617712895
Journal of Management Inquiry
2018, Vol. 27(2) 204 –211
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1056492617712895
jmi.sagepub.com
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492617712895
Journal of Management Inquiry
2018, Vol. 27(2) 204 –211
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1056492617712895
journals.sagepub.com/home/jmi
Essay
In a recent issue in this journal, Lawton, Rajwani, and Minto
(2017) and Spillman (2017) argue for the importance of
studying trade associations, also referred to with the broader
term meta-organizations. They are dissatisfied with scholarly
neglect of trade associations, and discuss why more research
about them is necessary. They examine trade associations as
organizations, and identify research questions worth pursu-
ing related to effects of organization, culture, and resources.
We appreciate their efforts and we agree that a collective
endeavor is necessary.
With this paper, we aim to establish a dialogue between
two research communities, which have, thus far, been dis-
connected (Berkowitz & Dumez, 2016). One of these
research communities, mainly located in Europe, builds on
the seminal paper of Ahrne and Brunsson (2005) and their
book Meta-Organizations (2008). The other research com-
munity, mainly US–UK based, uses as their key reference the
paper introducing a special issue in the Strategic Management
Journal by Gulati, Puranam, and Tushman (2012) discussing
meta-organizational design. Although there are many simi-
larities in the aim to understand the organization of collective
action among organizations in these contributions, a key dif-
ference lies in their definition of the meta-organization.
Ahrne and Brunsson define meta-organizations as organiza-
tions, or associations, with organizations as their members,
whereas Gulati et al. define them as organizations with orga-
nizations and/or individuals as their members. Although
more specific in the definition, we argue that the theoretical
developments by the European research community usefully
extend the research agenda put forth by Lawton et al. (2017)
and Spillman (2017).
The work of Ahrne and Brunsson focused explicitly on
theorizing the effects of the particularities of having organiza-
tions instead of individuals as members. Meta-organizations,
as associations of organizations, are not limited to trade asso-
ciations. As pointed out by Cropper, Ebers, Huxham, and Ring
(2008, 2011), a common problem in the field of interorganiza-
tional relations is that research has focused too much on the
manifestations of interorganizational relations, and therefore
too little theoretical and conceptual developments have been
able to provide understanding of the phenomena more broadly.
The concept of meta-organization, as developed by the
“European School” of meta-organization, overcomes the
focus on manifestations, as the concept of meta-organization
crosses various empirical and theoretical types of manifesta-
tions. Thus, collaborations among public, private, and third
sector organizations and among organizations across sectors
are included. This would encompass among others, indus-
trial associations (Reveley & Ville, 2010), transgovernmen-
tal networks (Jordana, 2017), corporative-associative order
712895JMIXXX10.1177/1056492617712895Journal of Management InquiryBerkowitz and Bor
research-article2017
1i3-CRG, Ecole Polytechnique, CNRS, Paris Saclay, France
2Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals, Spain
3Hanken School of Economics, Helsinki, Finland
Corresponding Author:
Sanne Bor, Department of Management and Organisation,
Hanken School of Economics, P.O. Box 479, FI-00101 Helsinki, Finland.
Email: bor@hanken.fi
Why Meta-Organizations Matter: A
Response to Lawton etal. and Spillman
Héloïse Berkowitz1,2 and Sanne Bor3
Abstract
In a recent issue in this journal, Lawton etal. and Spillman argue for the importance of studying trade associations, also
referred to with the broader term meta-organization. They discuss why meta-organizations matter and why more research is
needed on the topic. We fully concur with the authors that meta-organizations constitute an inflating, diverse, and undeniable
phenomenon of collective action among organizations and that collective scholarly efforts are necessary to improve our
understanding of meta-organizations in their multiplicity. In this article, we shed some light on a body of work already
investigating the matter. They constitute what we call the “European School” of meta-organization. We show the relevance
of this recent European work for the US–UK-oriented trade association research and aim to bridge the gap between these
research traditions by proposing a common research agenda on key topics of resources, forms’ differentiation, coopetition,
and their role in sustainability governance.
Keywords
meta-organization, collective action, review, inter-organizational relations, resources, coopetition, governance
Berkowitz and Bor 205
(Streeck & Schmitter, 1985), and multipartner alliances
(Das, 2015). A wide set of empirical settings can also be
included from the European Union (EU) and Fédération
Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), to the UN
Global Compact or North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO), from R&D consortia to associations of public agen-
cies, such as the Association of Bank Supervisors of Americas
(ASBA), or multipartner alliances such as the Wi-Fi Alliance
(an alliance promoting Wi-Fi technology).
Our response to Lawton et al. and Spillman is organized in
three parts. First, we elaborate the meta-organization concept
as developed by the “European School”. Then, we shortly
present the key theoretical developments since the seminal
paper by Ahrne and Brunsson in 2005. We finish the article by
arguing for a common research agenda, whereby we invite
scholars to join forces and contribute toward theorizing the
conditions and particularities of meta-organizations.
The Meta-Organization Concept of the
“European School”
Following the definition of meta-organization by Ahrne and
Brunsson (2005, 2008), the concept of meta-organization of
the “European School” has three important elements (Bor,
2014). First, a meta-organization is essentially an organiza-
tion. Organizations, including meta-organizations, are
decided social orders. A decided social order means that “the
elements necessary for the continuation or repetition of
social interaction are the result of decisions, rather than being
the result of common institutions, norms, or status differ-
ences” (Ahrne, Brunsson, & Seidl, 2016, p. 95). These ele-
ments include their membership, hierarchy, rules, monitoring,
and sanctioning (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2008; Ahrne et al.,
2016). The meta-organization can, however, remain partially
organized, as they are not always able to use all of these ele-
ments (Ahrne et al., 2016; Berkowitz & Dumez, 2016). They,
for example, often have weak central power and low sanc-
tioning power.
Second, the meta-organization is an association. This
means that members collectively form the center of authority.
Although members may vest their collective authority further
into executive committees or even into an administrative orga-
nization, the ultimate authority lies with the members collec-
tively. Furthermore, membership of an association is voluntary
and members keep most of their autonomy. Members have
their own authority center in place, which can decide to stay or
exit, to contribute or not, and to communicate and agree with
other members about the collective goals. Members are thus
only partially absorbed into the meta-organization. A meta-
organization as a collective strongly depends on each mem-
ber’s choice to remain a member and on each member’s
willingness to contribute to the collective. Thus, member orga-
nizations are simultaneously the owners, co-producers and
clients or end users of the collective (Bor, 2014).
Third, members of this organization are themselves orga-
nizations. Organizations are collective action units composed
of individuals or organizations. They possess resources,
which they can (but not necessarily will) contribute to the
collective, the meta-organization. As organizations, member
organizations have much more available resources than indi-
viduals do, which means only a few members are enough for
the meta-organization to function. However, the differences
in resource’s availability among organizations are potentially
also much higher than among individuals, which may result
in inequalities among member organizations. Finally, organi-
zations need a degree of autonomy to legitimize their exis-
tence. Because both members and meta-organization are
organizations, members and meta-organization may compete
with one another to protect their own autonomy, identity, and
legitimacy.
By recognizing the associative nature of the organization
and the specific circumstances created by having organiza-
tions as members, the concept of meta-organization helps us
to understand and theorize a variety of effects, such as mem-
ber power and influence dynamics, decision making, conflict
handling and resolution, resource acquisition, and resource
utilization. In what follows, we present some of the theoriz-
ing work started by the “European School” of meta-organi-
zation during the last 15 years.
Working Toward a Theory of Meta-
Organizations
Meta-organizations, due to their particularities of being asso-
ciations with organizational members, “work under different
conditions than other organizations” (Ahrne & Brunsson,
2005, p. 43). Ahrne and Brunsson (2005, 2008), like Lawton
et al. (2017) and Spillman (2017), regretted that organiza-
tions of organizations were underestimated and argued that a
full blown meta-organization theory was needed to under-
stand the specific conditions to these organizations. The key
areas that, thus far, have been set out include formation and
dynamics; functions of meta-organizations; decision-making
in meta-organizations; and relations to the environment.
Formation and Dynamics of Meta-Organizations
Ahrne and Brunsson (2008) argue that certain features affect
formation and continuation of meta-organizations. First,
membership of meta-organizations is relatively cheap. It
often costs little compared with members’ total resources.
Second, meta-organizations do not need to own resources of
their own. Member organizations can provide such
resources—also called indirect resources (Bor, 2013, 2014),
such as members’ staff, offices for meetings, and so on
(Berkowitz, 2016). Third, meta-organizations can grow by
stimulating membership through outreach (Berkowitz, 2016)
or even actively setting up member organizations.
206 Journal of Management Inquiry 27(2)
Because of these, one of the first consequences is that
meta-organizations are easy to set up and maintain. Indeed,
they can function without owning resources or having their
own personnel. Moreover, only a small number of members
is enough to set up and sustain a meta-organization.
Second, meta-organizations seem to have a low turnover
of members, especially due to cheap membership (Ahrne &
Brunsson, 2008). This low turnover can result in member-
ship divergences. Member organizations may change over
time, their priorities evolve, but all member organizations
may not necessarily move in similar directions (Bor, 2014).
Finding a common ground and deciding on the collective
purpose or goals of the meta-organization can therefore
become more difficult over time, and may lead to inertia.
Third, growth of meta-organizations can be stimulated
also when members do not exist. Meta-organizations can
create or support the creation of their own members. When
membership represents geographical areas (local, regional,
national, or continental), for example, and an area is not rep-
resented, a meta-organization may decide to support the
development of a member organization in such area. It may
also start a branch, similar to a multinational, with the aim to
let such branch grow into a member organization.
Fourth, the possible low costs structure results in meta-
organizations persisting over the long term. In the oil and gas
industry, Berkowitz (2016) shows that meta-organizations
keep appearing throughout the 20th century, but do not disap-
pear. These meta-organizations subsist even when their direct
objective has vanished (e.g. price negotiation) and they
become “dormant.” Such “ghost” meta-organizations may
therefore stack up and occupy organizations’ environment.
Finally, still due to low costs of membership and mainte-
nance, multiple meta-organizations can emerge on the same
topic (e.g. human rights or environmental performance) and
coexist (Berkowitz, 2016). These meta-organizations often
have different boundaries (infra-sectoral, sectoral, cross-sec-
toral) and classes of members (business only or multistake-
holder) (Berkowitz, Bucheli, & Dumez, 2017). One
organization may cumulate membership to these various
meta-organizations. Membership overlap creates links
between such meta-organizations, like board interlocks
(Kogut, 2012). Such links enhance the chances for coopera-
tion between these meta-organizations, for instance, con-
cerning joint production of environmental reporting
guidelines. However, at the same time, such meta-organiza-
tions compete over members and resources, in a similar fash-
ion as Lowndes and Skelcher (1998) highlighted.
Functions of Meta-Organizations
As Lawton et al. (2017) and Spillman (2017) also recognize,
meta-organizations can have a wide variety of functions.
Ahrne and Brunsson (2008) present three general purposes
for which a meta-organization may be set up, though they
note that meta-organizations in practice commonly pursue a
combination of these purposes: (a) interaction among mem-
bers, (b) collective action among members, or (c) creation of
collective identity. Berkowitz (2016) highlights the informa-
tion production function of meta-organizations to support
each of these purposes, and shows a wide variety of goals for
meta-organizations. She describes, for example, the preser-
vation of sectoral commons (such as reputation), managing
stakeholders (including lobbying) and tackling sustainability
issues by allowing members to collectively develop responses
to social or environmental challenges (Berkowitz et al.,
2016; Chaudhury et al., 2016; Vifell & Thedvall, 2012). Two
key features of meta-organizations link and may explain
some of the strengths of meta-organizations. We highlight
these shortly below.
First, Ahrne and Brunsson (2008) argue that meta-organi-
zations, due to the autonomy of their members, have difficul-
ties creating and maintaining hard laws. Meta-organizations,
therefore, often produce voluntary self-regulation in the form
of standards, rather than hard laws, to enhance or make inter-
action and collective action possible. As Rajwani, Lawton,
and Phillips (2015) also outline, meta-organizations thereby
contribute to shaping industry norms. Standards are less con-
straining and they facilitate the diffusion of a set of practices
throughout member organizations to achieve collective
learning (Gadille, Tremblay, & Vion, 2013). Other studies
also highlight this collective peer-learning and the role of
meta-organizations in the diffusion of management practices
in, for example, health care (Leys & Joffre, 2014) or the oil
and gas industry (Berkowitz et al., 2016).
Second, meta-organizations, due to their lack of authority
over members, focus on creating a collective playing field
agreed by all members (Bor, 2014) through decision making
by consensus. The creation of such playing field facilitates
dialogue, negotiation, and even coopetition, that is, combined
advantages of cooperation and competition, between very
diverse, potentially competing actors, from firms to nongov-
ernmental organizations (NGOs) and governments (Berkowitz,
2016). Meta-organizations thereby can act as a multistake-
holder governance device where best practices can be propa-
gated among different organizations (Berkowitz, 2016).
Decision-Making
Ahrne and Brunsson (2008) argue that meta-organizations
make decisions by consensus and have trouble reaching deci-
sions by other methods. This results from both the associa-
tive nature of the organization and members’ autonomy,
which means that there is a need to ensure that members
remain members. Subsequent research—by Bor (2014) con-
cerning R&D consortia and Malcourant, Vas, and Zintz
(2015) concerning the World Anti-Doping Agency—shows
that the need for decision-by-consensus particularly concern
governance issues.
Berkowitz and Bor 207
In her study of European Commission funded R&D con-
sortia, Bor (2014) argues that the associative nature and
members’ autonomy do not affect the managerial or adminis-
trative decisions in similar fashion. She finds varied ways of
making managerial and administrative decisions, including
top-down, bottom-up, and horizontal decision-making pro-
cesses. The author shows that the way of making resources
available to the meta-organization—directly (resources
becoming controlled by the meta-organization, for example
through fees) or indirectly (resources remaining controlled
by the member, for example staff, tools or facilities)—may
affect managerial and administrative decision making in
meta-organizations. Managerial and administrative decisions
are more horizontal or bottom-up when member organiza-
tions control resources, while decisions follow a more top-
down process when the meta-organization itself controls
these resources.
Members may intentionally decide to provide the meta-
organization with more control over resources. The objec-
tive then could be to ensure that the meta-organization’s
actions continue beyond meetings of members. STAR alli-
ance, for example, made such decision when they realized
that, in-between meetings, member representatives were
unable to prioritize the meta-organization beyond their
own organization. This resulted in slowing down the meta-
organization’s work (Findeisen & Sydow, 2016). In other
cases, however, members may decide not to delegate con-
trol over resources to the meta-organization, as this would
give the meta-organization agency without members’
involvement. The meta-organization could then become
unresponsive to members’ needs and wishes. In addition,
involvement in managerial and administrative decisions
carries especially high stakes when the meta-organization
offers mutual learning or mutual coordination among
members (Bor, 2014).
As a unit of decision making, meta-organizations raise
questions of addressability or nonaddressability (Grothe-
Hammer, 2016). Meta-organizations make collective deci-
sions and as such, act as a “voice for the industry”. They can
become a representative, which is supposed to be address-
able (Rajwani et al., 2015). However, when a meta-organiza-
tion does not have a very clear hierarchy or single point of
authority, the collective becomes nonaddressable (Grothe-
Hammer, 2016). When it has no responsive boundary, exter-
nal actors cannot address it as a single unit. Furthermore, as
collective decisions are made, member organizations can
hide behind such decision with the argument that they cannot
be held responsible for such collective decisions.
Another issue related to decision making is accountability,
that is, who is accountable to whom. In meta-organizations,
representatives of member organizations are accountable to
both their own organization and the meta-organization. In
parallel, meta-organizations are primarily accountable to
those that provide them with resources. When members pay
fees, they will ask the meta-organization to render account.
When external organizations, as the European Commission,
provide resources, also they can demand the meta-organiza-
tion to render account. In this multidirectional accountability
situation, it is not always clear who has priority and whom the
meta-organization reports to (Bor, 2014).
Relations to the Environment
Meta-organizations can be understood as a way for member
organizations to affect (part of) their environment. In
resource dependency terms, members create a negotiated
environment (Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978). The environment
thereby becomes less uncertain, because the meta-organiza-
tion provides a regulated and coordinated space—a decided
order—for their members (Ahrne & Brunsson, 2008).
Berkowitz and Dumez (2015a) analyze trade associations
among other forms of meta-organizations, such as thematic
meta-organizations or cross-sectoral meta-organizations in
the oil and gas industry. They show that oil and gas compa-
nies may decide to strategically organize and shape their
environment through setting up meta-organizations, depend-
ing on the issue at stake. Some companies, for example, have
set up the research-oriented meta-organization CONCAWE
to reduce uncertainty in relation to environmental issues rel-
evant to the oil industry.
Member organizations not only create meta-organiza-
tions to establish a negotiated environment for members,
they often also aim to actively affect their environment
beyond the boundaries of the meta-organization. As we
mentioned earlier, a stream of literature on business asso-
ciations (Barley, 2010; Rajwani et al., 2015) has focused on
their role as voices for industries. As also discussed, some
key functions of meta-organizations are lobbying, enhanc-
ing legitimacy or status, and coordinating production or
service delivery. Little research, however, examines how
meta-organizations influence their institutional environ-
ment beyond these functions. For instance, meta-organiza-
tions may allow to defuse potential conflictual situations
with other stakeholders by integrating them in a meta-orga-
nization (Berkowitz & Dumez, 2015b). The study shows
how multistakeholder meta-organizations, such as the
Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative, internalize
local governments and NGOs in the decision-making pro-
cess to neutralize conflicts on transparency of payments in
countries of production.
Another important issue concerns how the environment in
return affects meta-organizations. Some literature has stud-
ied meta-organizations’ reaction and resistance to change in
their environment. König, Schulte, and Enders (2012) study
German industry associations and their reactions to the emer-
gence of online trade. The authors show that meta-organiza-
tions disclose similar responses to nonparadigmatic change
as individual-based organizations, that is, inertia.
208 Journal of Management Inquiry 27(2)
A Common Research Agenda on Meta-
Organizations
The research done by the “European School” is, as we have
tried to highlight, compatible with the research agenda sug-
gested by Lawton et al. (2017) and Spillman (2017). Below,
we specify some additional lines to the suggested research
agenda.
Resources and Resourcing Meta-Organizations
Lawton et al. (2017) suggest a first key theme of the research
agenda: resources and resourcing. They specifically suggest
exploring and unpacking the ways in which members extract
proprietary benefits from the meta-organization and how
they extract benefits from combining their resources with
other members. We agree that this is an unexplored avenue,
well worth pursuing.
We would like to suggest, however, to broaden this part of
the agenda, which so far has a member-centric focus. We
suggest including to the agenda a collective or meta-organi-
zational focus on resources. As Bor (2014) notes, the control
meta-organizations get over resources they mobilize affects
the way and the extent to which meta-organizations monitor
and sanction members. Bor and Cropper (2016b) have set
out to further explore this relation between resource acquisi-
tion and the organizing of meta-organizations. They suggest
that resource dependency differently affects goal orientation,
membership, hierarchy, monitoring, and sanctioning of the
meta-organization, depending on the source (internal or
external) of resources, and the extent of control the meta-
organization gets over resources.
We think that this shows exciting possibilities for future
work in exploring how meta-organizations and their mem-
bers mobilize, acquire, combine, and use resources and the
consequences of this for the working of the meta-organiza-
tion as well as their members.
Differentiating Meta-Organizations
Another key research question, that Ahrne and Brunsson
(2008) outline, is to explore “the differences among meta-
organizations” (p. 171). Similarly, Spillman (2017) invites to
study variations in meta-organizational forms along two dif-
ferent lines. First, we can learn from studying variations along
already acknowledged differences, such as purpose. Second,
we may learn about variations when “asking what associa-
tions do for members compared with other organizational
forms of coordination and governance” (p. 3). We think these
are very fruitful suggestions for the way forward.
We believe that there are also benefits in comparing meta-
organizations with other devices of coordination and gover-
nance. We think it can be fruitful to try to bridge the gap
between literatures on interorganizational forms and literature
on meta-organizations. Recent work by Bor and Cropper
(2016a) explores whether and how theoretical insights about
other interorganizational forms (Phillips, Lawrence, & Hardy,
2000), multipartner alliances (e.g. Das, 2015) and whole net-
works (e.g. Provan, Fish, & Sydow, 2007) can be fruitfully
borrowed or integrated into meta-organization theory. We
also see much potential in exploring how other forms of
“unconventional organizations” may provide insights (Brès,
Raufflet, & Boghossian, 2017).
Coopetitive Dimensions of Meta-Organizations
We agree with Spillman (2017) that the very existence of
meta-organizations challenges traditional assumptions that
“business is entirely anomic and competitive” (p. 1). On the
contrary, business is by nature coopetitive, thus both coop-
erative and competitive (Brandenburger & Nalebuff, 1996;
Yami, Castaldo, Dagnino, & Le Roy, 2010). Understanding
why competitors decide to gather in such meta-organizations
and how they collectively create or fail to create value is
essential.
A recent study aims to analyze business collective action
in the form of a sectoral meta-organization in the crowdfund-
ing sector (Berkowitz & Souchaud, 2017). The study shows
that competitors agree to cooperate not only among each
other but also with legislators and regulators to develop a
public policy. In that context, the meta-organization acts as
an institutional entrepreneur (DiMaggio, 1988) in addition to
what Spillman (2017) calls “policy-shaper,” by co-construct-
ing a public policy with multiple stakeholders and corralling
a new regulatory space (Souchaud, 2017).
Other types of “coopetitive meta-organizations” are out
there, in the forms of patent pools, for instance, or research-
oriented meta-organizations. Do such meta-organizations
escape free riders, or are they victims of the paradox of col-
lective action that Olson (1971) already identified for indi-
vidual-based collective action? Meta-organizations combine
three potential levels of coopetitive strategies: meta-organi-
zational, organizational (members), and individual (repre-
sentatives of member organizations). This may result in
multilevel conflicts of interest that may in return affect meta-
organizations’ functioning. A stream of research in coopeti-
tion addresses the issue of tensions and paradoxes of
collective action (Fernandez & Chiambaretto, 2016;
Tidström, 2014). We think such frameworks can also be
fruitfully applied to coopetitive meta-organizations.
Toward a Normative Approach of Meta-
Organizations and Sustainability
Finally, in line with Spillman’s call to study the contextual con-
ditions under which meta-organizations activities become con-
sequential, we suggest to work toward a more normative
approach of meta-organizations and their contribution to the
Berkowitz and Bor 209
governance of sustainability. Furthermore, to date, little research
has thoroughly examined the key issue of meta-organizations’
performance, especially in this perspective of sustainability.
Meta-organizations may help address major socioenvi-
ronmental challenges such as climate change (Chaudhury
et al., 2016). Although some literature has outlined the
importance of studying governance in the transition to sus-
tainability (Leal Filho et al., 2016; Turnheim & Geels, 2013),
few studies focus on meta-organizations’ role in this transi-
tion. Yet they can act as a multistakeholder and distributed
governance device that defines and diffuses sustainable prac-
tices (Berkowitz, 2016; Berkowitz et al., 2016). More empir-
ical and conceptual research is needed to understand how
meta-organizations may facilitate transition to sustainability
and how they interact with other governance devices to
tackle grand challenges (Ferraro, Etzion, & Gehman, 2015).
Further developing such a model of sustainable gover-
nance through meta-organizations would also require assess-
ing their conditions of performance. Little work has managed
to address this issue, partly due to the challenge of accessing
empirical data. Indeed, meta-organizations have no obliga-
tion of transparency, nor of monitoring. As we have shown
earlier, they multiply, coexist, and affect members in varied
combined ways. In addition, existing performance instru-
ments and accounting methods that apply to organizations
made of individuals may not directly apply to meta-organiza-
tions. Therefore, we would need to develop new theoretical
and managerial tools to assess meta-organizations’ contribu-
tion to sustainability transition.
The first step would consist in framing what is being
assessed. Meta-organizational performance as efficiency is
hard to evaluate. It may be fruitful to think of it in terms of
effectiveness, rather than efficiency (Ostroff & Schmitt,
1993). As producers of information, meta-organizations’
effectiveness for members depends upon various dimen-
sions: influence on regulation, sectoral diffusion of industrial
norms and standards, reputation management, corporate
social responsibility capacity building, enhanced industry
sustainability, and so on.
The second step would require developing tools to evaluate
contributions to these dimensions. Mathieu, Verhoest, and
Matthys (2016) propose a tool to assess participation to legis-
lation of multiple regulatory actors, using for instance level of
coordination. A similar tool could be transposed to study meta-
organizations’ multiple functions. Another fruitful venue
could be to explore network performance models applied to
meta-organizations, developing for instance multilevel score-
cards (Vesalainen & Autio, 2017). Assessing impacts on mem-
bers in terms of norm adoption or collective sustainability
enhancement calls for developing not only such standardized
quantitative measurement techniques but also more qualitative
measures. What is at stake is the ability to systemically com-
pare meta-organizations for further theoretical developments
and to identify conditions for sustainable governance.
Conclusion
As we show in this article, the “European School” of meta-
organization is a dynamic and diverse community. The con-
cept of meta-organization, as developed by the school,
overcomes the focus on heteroclite manifestations of interor-
ganizational forms and has therefore a strong analytical
power. Ongoing research projects undertaken internationally
would benefit from a common agenda and a collective effort.
In this article, we attempted to identify and frame some of
these common venues to bridge the gap between the European
and American research communities.
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Conférence des Grandes
Ecoles, Kone Foundation and Foundation for Economic Ecducation
(Liikesivistys) for their support during the writing of this article.
They are also grateful to the Editor, Nelson Phillips, and the anony-
mous reviewers for their help and supportive comments.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support
for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:Héloïse
Berkowitz has received funding from Conférence des Grandes
Ecoles for a mobility at Institut Barcelona d’Estudis Internacionals
during the writing of this article. Sanne Bor has received funding
from Kone Foundation and Foundation for Economic Education
(Liikesivistysrahasto) during the writing of this article.
References
Ahrne, G., & Brunsson, N. (2005). Organizations and meta-orga-
nizations. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 21, 429-449.
Ahrne, G., & Brunsson, N. (2008). Meta-organizations. Cheltenham,
UK: Edward Elgar.
Ahrne, G., Brunsson, N., & Seidl, D. (2016). Resurrecting organi-
zation by going beyond organizations. European Management
Journal, 34(2), 93-101.
Barley, S. R. (2010). Building an institutional field to corral a
government: A case to set an agenda for organization studies.
Organization Studies, 31, 777-805.
Berkowitz, H. (2016). Les méta-organisations rendent-elles per-
formatif le développement durable? Stratégies collectives
dans le secteur pétrolier [Do meta-organizations make sus-
tainable development performative? COllective strategies in
the oil and gas sector]. (Thèse de Doctorat ès Sciences de
Gestion). CRG-Ecole polytechnique, Université Paris Saclay,
Palaiseau.
Berkowitz, H., Bucheli, M., & Dumez, H. (2017). Collective CSR strat-
egy and the role of meta-organizations: A case study of the oil and
gas industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 143, 753-769.
Berkowitz, H., & Dumez, H. (2015a). How firms (partially) orga-
nize their environment: Meta-organizations in the oil and
210 Journal of Management Inquiry 27(2)
gas industry (Working Paper 15-CRG-02, i3-CRG). Ecole
Polytechnique, CNRS, Université Paris Saclay.
Berkowitz, H., & Dumez, H. (2015b). La dynamique des dispositifs
d’action collective entre firmes: le cas des méta-organisations
dans le secteur pétrolier [Dynamics of devices of collective
action among firms: the case of meta-organizations in the oil
and gas industry]. L’année Sociologique, 65, 333-356.
Berkowitz, H., & Dumez, H. (2016). The concept of meta-organi-
zation: Issues for management studies. European Management
Review, 13, 149-156.
Berkowitz, H., & Souchaud, A. (2017). When business collective
action fills an organizational gap in public policymaking. 33rd
EGOS Colloquium 2017 in Copenhagen, Denmark, July, Sub-
Theme 24.
Bor, S. (2013). Critique on and development of meta-organisa-
tion theory. In Proceedings of the 27th annual conference
of the British Academy of Management (Vol. 993, pp. 1-14).
Liverpool, UK: British Academy of Management.
Bor, S. (2014). A theory of meta-organisation: An analysis of steer-
ing processes in European Commission-funded R&D “Network
of Excellence” consortia. Helsinki, Finland: Hanken School of
Economics. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10138/144154
Bor, S., & Cropper, S. (2016a). Bridging traditions of inter-organ-
isational research: Meta-¬organisations, multi-partner alli-
ances, and whole networks. In Proceedings of the 30th annual
conference of the British Academy of Management (Vol. 868,
pp. 1-25). Newcastle, UK: British Academy of Management.
Bor, S., & Cropper, S. (2016b). Resourcing the meta-organization:
The source of and control over resources. In Proceedings
of EURAM 2016: Manageable cooperation? Paris, France:
European Academy of Management, 2032: 1-33.
Brandenburger, A., & Nalebuff, B. (1996). Co-opetition. New
York, NY: HarperCollins.
Brès, L., Raufflet, E., & Boghossian, J. (2017). Pluralism in organi-
zations: Learning from unconventional forms of organizations.
International Journal of Management Reviews. Advance online
publication. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12136.
Chaudhury, A. S., Ventresca, M. J., Thornton, T. F., Helfgott,
A., Sova, C., Baral, P., . . . Ligthart, J. (2016). Emerging
meta-organisations and adaptation to global climate change:
Evidence from implementing adaptation in Nepal, Pakistan and
Ghana. Global Environmental Change, 38, 243-257.
Cropper, S., Ebers, M., Huxham, C., & Ring, P. S. (2008). The field
of inter-organizational relations: A jungle or an Italian garden?
In S. Cropper, M. Ebers, C. Huxham, & P. S. Ring (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of inter-organizational relations (pp. 719-
738). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cropper, S., Ebers, M., Huxham, C., & Ring, P. S. (2011). Packing
more punch? Developing the field of inter-organisational rela-
tions. International Journal of Strategic Business Alliances,
2(3), 153-170. doi:10.1504/IJSBA.2011.040884
Das, T. K. (Ed.). (2015). Managing multipartner strategic alli-
ances. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
DiMaggio, P. J. (1988). Interest and agency in institutional theory.
In L. Zucker (Ed.), Institutional patterns and organizations:
Culture and environment (pp. 3-21). Cambridge, UK: Ballinger.
Fernandez, A.-S., & Chiambaretto, P. (2016). Managing tensions
related to information in coopetition. Industrial Marketing
Management, 53, 66-76.
Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. (2015). Tackling grand chal-
lenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organization
Studies, 36, 363-390.
Findeisen, H., & Sydow, J. (2016). Star alliance: Adapting the
management institutions of an interorganizational network. In
J. Sydow, E. Schüßler, & G. Müller-Seitz (Eds.), Managing
interorganizational relations: Debates and cases (pp. 67-74).
London, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gadille, M., Tremblay, D.-G., & Vion, A. (2013). Apprentissage
collectif et réflexivité systémique: le rôle des acteurs tiers
dans la structuration des méta-organisations [Collective
learning and systemic reflexivity: the role of third-parties in
the structuration of meta-organizations]. Revue Interventions
Économiques: Papers in Political Economy, 48, 1-18.
Grothe-Hammer, M. (2016, July 10-14). The non-addressable
meta-organization and its contribution to high reliability.
Third ISA Forum of Sociology, Isaconf, Vienna, Austria.
Gulati, R., Puranam, P., & Tushman, M. (2012). Meta-
organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational
and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33,
571-586.
Jordana, J. (2017). Transgovernmental networks as regulatory
intermediaries: Horizontal collaboration and the realities of
soft power. Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, 670(1), 245-262.
Kogut, B. (Ed.). (2012). Small worlds of corporate governance.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.
com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10563904
König, A., Schulte, M., & Enders, A. (2012). Inertia in response
to non-paradigmatic change: The case of meta-organizations.
Research Policy, 41, 1325-1343.
Lawton, T. C., Rajwani, T., & Minto, A. (2017). Why trade asso-
ciations matter: Exploring function, meaning, and influence.
Journal of Management Inquiry, 27, 5-9.
Leal Filho, W., Platje, J., Gerstlberger, W., Ciegis, R., Kääriä, J.,
Klavins, M., . . . Kliucininkas, L. (2016). The role of gover-
nance in realising the transition towards sustainable societies.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 113, 755-766. doi:10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.11.060
Leys, V., & Joffre, P. (2014). Méta-organisations et évolution des pra-
tiques managériales [Meta-organizations and evolution of mana-
gerial practices]. Revue Française De Gestion, 241, 121-134.
Lowndes, V., & Skelcher, C. (1998). The dynamics of multi-orga-
nizational partnerships: An analysis of changing modes of gov-
ernance. Public Administration, 76, 313-333.
Malcourant, E., Vas, A., & Zintz, T. (2015). World anti-doping
agency: A meta-organizational perspective. Sport, Business
and Management: An International Journal, 5, 451-471.
Mathieu, E., Verhoest, K., & Matthys, J. (2016). Measuring multi-
level regulatory governance: Organizational proliferation,
coordination, and concentration of influence. Regulation &
Governance. Advance online publication. Retrieved from https://
doi.org/10.1111/rego.12127
Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action: Public goods and
the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Ostroff, C., & Schmitt, N. (1993). Configurations of organiza-
tional effectiveness and efficiency. Academy of Management
Journal, 36, 1345-1361.
Berkowitz and Bor 211
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). The external control of orga-
nizations: A resource dependence perspective. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
Phillips, N., Lawrence, T. B., & Hardy, C. (2000). Inter-
organizational collaboration and the dynamics of institutional
fields. Journal of Management Studies, 37(1), 23-43.
Provan, K. G., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. (2007). Interorganizational
networks at the network level: A review of the empirical litera-
ture on whole networks. Journal of Management, 33, 479-516.
Rajwani, T., Lawton, T. C., & Phillips, N. (2015). The “voice of
industry”: Why management researchers should pay more
attention to trade associations. Strategic Organization, 13,
224-232.
Reveley, J., & Ville, S. (2010). Enhancing industry association
theory: A comparative business history contribution. Journal
of Management Studies, 47, 837-858.
Souchaud, A. (2017). Deus ex machina dans «l’espace régulatoire»
du crédit en France: La reconnaissance du crowdlending face
au monopole bancaire [Deus ex machina in the regulatory
space of French credit: Acknowledging crowdlending against
the banking monopoly]. Gérer Et Comprendre. Annales Des
Mines. Accepted for publication.
Spillman, L. (2017). Meta-organization matters. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 27, 16-20.
Streeck, W., & Schmitter, P. C. (1985). Community, market, state-
and associations? The prospective contribution of interest gov-
ernance to social order. European Sociological Review, 1(2),
119-138.
Tidström, A. (2014). Managing tensions in coopetition. Industrial
Marketing Management, 43, 261-271.
Turnheim, B., & Geels, F. W. (2013). The destabilisation of exist-
ing regimes: Confronting a multi-dimensional framework with
a case study of the British coal industry (1913-1967). Research
Policy, 42, 1749-1767.
Vesalainen, J., & Autio, S. (2017). Network performance man-
agement: Measurement, scorecard, and boundary pro-
cesses. In J. Vesalainen, K. Valkokari, & M. Hellström
(Eds.), Practices for network management (pp. 303-319).
Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chap-
ter/10.1007/978-3-319-49649-8_21
Vifell, A. C., & Thedvall, R. (2012). Organizing for social sustain-
ability: Governance through bureaucratization in meta-organi-
zations. Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy, 8(1), 50-58.
Yami, S., Castaldo, S., Dagnino, G. B., & Le Roy, F. (2010).
Coopetition: Winning strategies for the 21st century.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
