Content uploaded by Ben Suykens
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ben Suykens on Jul 19, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
N
Nonprofit Commercialization
Ben Suykens and Bram Verschuere
Department of Public Governance and
Management, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
Definition
Nonprofit commercialization refers to the process
of nonprofit organizations (NPOs) becoming
increasingly reliant on income resulting from the
profitable sale of services and goods (Brown
2018; Guo 2006), thereby becoming more like
for-profit enterprises (Suykens et al. 2019b). Non-
profit commercialization is commonly viewed as
a key element of both “NPOs becoming business-
like”(Dart 2004a; Maier et al. 2016) and social
entrepreneurship (Defourny and Nyssens 2010;
Khieng and Dahles 2015). Nonprofit commercial
income is a catch-all concept for both mission-
related and mission-unrelated streams of revenue
(Toepler 2006; Weisbrod 1998) as it generally
includes “program service fees; the sale of prod-
ucts not directly associated with the charitable
activity; contracts to deliver services on behalf of
a third party; profits from for-profit subsidiaries;
and fees for endorsing products”(McKay, Moro,
Teasdale, & Clifford, McKay et al. 2015, p. 340).
Typical examples of mission-related income are
“services fees,”while mission-unrelated income
can include income generated through raffles, sale
of gadgets, and renting out organizational space
(Suykens et al. 2020b). Ebrahim et al. (2014) refer
to organizations relying primarily on the former as
“integrated hybrids”(i.e., NPOs with commer-
cialized core activities), and to those relying on
the latter as “differentiated hybrids”(i.e., NPOs
with commercial ancillary activities). When
operationalizing commercial income, it is impor-
tant to consider the institutional particularities of
the research context at hand. In contrast to Anglo-
Saxon countries for instance, income generated
through public service contracts is considered an
integral part of the public welfare mix in corpo-
ratist welfare states, and thus is viewed as public –
instead of commercial –income (Evers and
Laville 2004).
Introduction
Both in practice and in academia, nonprofit com-
mercialization is a highly debated
topic. Conditions under which NPOs decide to
commercialize can vary greatly, and adding to
the complexity, commercialization seems to pro-
duce equivocal effects. Below, we take stock of
the literature by discussing the key drivers and
effects associated with this phenomenon.
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
R. A. List et al. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Civil Society,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99675-2_540-1
Key Issues
Drivers of Nonprofit Commercialization
In the nonprofit management literature, commer-
cialization tends to be framed as a “massive
change”(Weisbrod 2000, p. 1) and a “profound
force shaping the nonprofit sector at present time”
(Anheier 2005, p. 211). Although not new to the
nonprofit sector (Brown 2018; Child 2010), it is
often argued that this phenomenon is on the rise
due to decreasing levels of public and private
funding (Salamon 1993). In this entry, we use
the concept “donative income”to refer to public
and private funding when considered together.
Rooted in resource dependence theory, two
major points of criticism have been raised against
this “crowding out”argument. First, the direction-
ality of this relationship is rather ambiguous
(Young 1998). Does a decline in donative income
lead to commercial venturing or does commercial
venturing cause a drop in public grants and private
giving? The latter is equally likely at play, as
resource holders might perceive NPOs with com-
mercial income as capable of acquiring their own
funds, and thus shift focus to other NPOs in need
of financial support. Second, although some
small(er)-N studies show that dwindling donative
revenue can go hand in hand with the rise of
commercial income (e.g., Guo 2006), this effect
seems to lose ground when tested on a national
scale. Drawing on quantitative, longitudinal ana-
lyses of large-scale databases, both McKay et al.
(2015) and Kerlin and Pollak (2011)find little
evidence that the rise of commercial revenue can
be attributed to decreasing government grants and
private donations. Accordingly, Kerlin and Pollak
(2011, p. 701) conclude that this argument is
“ultimately unable to explain the long steady rise
in commercial income,”thereby pointing to the
need to broaden the theoretical lens.
Staying within the realm of resource depen-
dence theory, one could argue that –apart from
changing levels of donative income –commer-
cialization can be propelled by rising levels of
resource competition (Tuckman 1998), which in
turn fuels resource uncertainty. Resource compe-
tition can be the consequence of (a) an overall
increase in the number of NPOs (Kerlin and
Pollak 2011), as well as (b) an increasing empha-
sis on competitive tendering by policy makers as a
means to outsource public service delivery (Bode
2006). From this perspective, NPOs anticipate the
possibility of losing donative funding by
commercializing.
Institutional isomorphism offers an alternative
explanation. Rather than driven by resource con-
cerns, this theory lends support to the idea that
NPOs might commercialize out of conformation
to the idea that social entrepreneurship increas-
ingly constitutes a norm for external stakeholders
when it comes to nonprofit organizing (Dart
2004b). Several studies for instance find that
donors are more likely to donate to organizations
that present themselves as “social enterprises,”
instead of “nonprofit organizations”(Andersson
and Self 2015; Willems et al. 2017). Similarly, the
work of Dey and Teasdale (2013,2016) suggest
that governmental actors increasingly prefer to
collaborate with NPOs that (seemingly) conform
to the normative premises of social
entrepreneurship.
Finally, in addition to the organizational envi-
ronment, organizational characteristics are
equally important to take into account when
explaining the variation in the extent to which
NPOs commercialize (Suykens et al. 2019a).
Indeed, organizational characteristics such as
size, task, and origins arguably influence the orga-
nizational ability or will to commercialize. In
terms of size, several studies report a positive
correlation between professional capacity and
nonprofit commercial income (Adams and
Perlmutter 1991; Guo 2006), indicating that hav-
ing “sufficient”professional capacity serves as a
precondition for nonprofit commercialization.
Inversely, nonprofit commercial income might
strengthen the capacity to recruit nonprofit staff,
thereby contributing to organizational size (Dart
2004a; Guo 2006). In terms of task, current
research suggests that nonprofit service providers
are most prone to commercialization, as services
can –in contrast to advocacy efforts –be conve-
niently excluded from free public use, and gener-
ate broad market demand (cf. Enjolras 2002).
Lastly, in terms of founding origins, Suykens
2 Nonprofit Commercialization
et al. (2019a, p. 347) find that the founding origins
“can act as an ‘institutional stamp’that accelerates
or hinders nonprofit commercialization.”Here the
argument is that NPOs that emerge close to the
market domain might consider commercial activ-
ity as a natural reflex, while NPOs emerging in
market-critical environments (e.g., alter-
globalization movements) might consider com-
mercialization intuitively as a “no-go scenario.”
Effects of Nonprofit Commercialization
Commercialization is arguably a double-edged
sword for NPOs (Suykens et al. 2020b). On the
one hand, improved organizational autonomy
vis-à-vis institutional stakeholders (Khieng and
Dahles 2015; Vaceková et al. 2017) as well as
increased financial stability by means of cross-
subsidization and revenue diversification are
often lauded as positive outcomes of nonprofit
commercialization (Dart 2004a; Enjolras 2002;
Khieng and Dahles 2015; Toepler 2006). Gras
and Mendoza-Abarca (2014) compute that finan-
cial diversification by means of commercializa-
tion bolsters the survival chances of NPOs. Using
the metaphor of Icarus, however, they find that
overreliance (more than 50%) on commercial
income in turn increases the probability of orga-
nizational demise.
This said, the overarching tone of the literature
is critical, as commercial activity can lead to mis-
sion drift. For instance, the introduction of service
fees can induce a creeping shift from those in need
to those who can afford the service (Eikenberry
and Kluver 2004; Khieng and Dahles 2015). Here,
James (2003, p. 33) theorizes that the underlying
mechanism is that “as people are hired to whom
monetary goals and skills are relatively more
important, to pursue the ‘profitable’activities in
the nonprofit, it is possible that the ethos and value
structure of the entire organization will change.”
In a similar vein, the sale of goods that are
unrelated to the social mission of the organization
(e.g., sale of gadgets) might present itself as a
financial quick win, but can distract the organiza-
tion from its core activities. In line with these
concerns, Thompson and Williams (2014)find a
negative relationship between commercial
income and goal fulfillment. Although unable to
explain the rise of commercial income over time, a
recent meta-analysis by Hung (2020) concludes
that nonprofit commercial income is –to a mod-
erate extent –likely to crowd out donations.
Adding to this, studies warn that dependency
on commercial income exposes NPOs to market
competition dynamics in their field of activity
(Cooney 2006; Toepler 2006). In this regard, the
concern has been voiced that some NPOs might
be in fact turning into “for-profits in disguise,”as
they benefit from both tax and trust advantages,
while in practice behaving like a for-profit entity
(Weisbrod 2000). In the long run, they might be
harmful for the nonprofit sector as a whole, endan-
gering, for example, its tax benefits. As pointed
out by Tuckman (2010), for-profits in disguise are
difficult to recognize and are often a matter of
perception.
In conclusion, nonprofit commercialization
arguably demands a balanced approach from non-
profit managers in order to reap possible benefits,
while avoiding potential pitfalls. In terms of
resources, commercial income can contribute to
the financial stability of a NPO, and thus organi-
zational survival, be it up to a certain point
(cf. Gras and Mendoza-Abarca 2014). In terms
of legitimacy, NPOs that have commercial income
can claim social entrepreneurship, with the
knowledge that the public perception can shift to
a“for-profit in disguise”when (too) strongly rely-
ing on commercial income (cf. Weisbrod 2000).
Future Directions
Much ground remains to be covered. Although
often posited, longitudinal empirical testing of
the claim that nonprofit commercialization is
indeed on the rise is largely lacking to date for
research contexts outside of the Anglo-Saxon
region. This is important, as recent studies con-
tend that different patterns of commercialization
hold true for different institutional contexts (e.g.,
Suykenset al. 2020a; Vaceková et al. 2017; Yu and
Chen 2018), which in turn might be explained by
different drivers and produce other effects than
reported in Anglo-Saxon centered studies.
Adding to this, future studies could examine the
Nonprofit Commercialization 3
explanatory power of and the interaction between
different theoretical explanations as to why some
NPOs commercialize (more) and others do not.
A particularly salient question in this regard might
be to what extent nonprofit commercialization is
perceived by NPOs as an “imposed”(i.e., driven
by environmental constraints) or a “voluntary”
choice (i.e., driven by opportunity). The former
is often implied in both the academic and public
debate, while the latter is arguably under-
examined. Doing so, this avenue for further
research could shed light on the conditions under
which commercial income can produce positive
outcomes for (particular types of) NPOs
(in particular institutional contexts).
Cross-References
▶Hybrids/Hybridity
▶Legitimacy
▶Mission
▶Social Enterprise
▶Social Entrepreneurship
▶Sustainability, Financial
▶Welfare State
References
Adams, C., & Perlmutter, F. (1991). Commercial venturing
and the transformation of America’s voluntary social
welfare agencies. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 20(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/
089976409102000104.
Andersson, F. O., & Self, W. (2015). The social-
entrepreneurship advantage: An experimental study of
social entrepreneurship and perceptions of nonprofit
effectiveness. Voluntas: International Journal of Vol-
untary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(6),
2718–2732.
Anheier. (2005). Nonprofit organizations : Theory, man-
agement, policy. New York: Routledge.
Bode, I. (2006). Disorganized welfare mixes: Voluntary
agencies and new governance regimes in Western
Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(4),
346–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928706068273.
Brown, M. (2018). The moralization of commercialization:
Uncovering the history of fee-charging in the US non-
profit human services sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 47(5), 960–983.
Child, C. (2010). Whither the turn? The ambiguous nature
of nonprofits’commercial revenue. Social Forces,
89(1), 145–162.
Cooney, K. (2006). The institutional and technical struc-
turing of nonprofit ventures: Case study of a
U.S. hybrid organization caught between two fields.
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Non-
profit Organizations, 17(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11266-006-9010-8.
Dart, R. (2004a). Being “business-like”in a nonprofit
organization: A grounded and inductive typology. Non-
profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 290–310.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764004263522.
Dart, R. (2004b). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Non-
profit Management & Leadership, 14(4), 411–424.
Defourny, J., & Nyssens, M. (2010). Conceptions of social
enterprise and social entrepreneurship in Europe and
the United States: Convergences and divergences.
Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 32–53.
Dey, P., & Teasdale, S. (2013). Social Enterprise and
dis/identification: The politics of identity work in the
English third sector. Administrative Theory & Praxis,
35(2), 248–270.
Dey, P., & Teasdale, S. (2016). The tactical mimicry of
social enterprise strategies: Acting ‘as if’in the every-
day life of third sector organizations. Organization,
23(4), 485–504.
Ebrahim, A., Battilana, J., & Mair, J. (2014). The gover-
nance of social enterprises: Mission drift and account-
ability challenges in hybrid organizations. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 34,81–100.
Eikenberry, A. M., & Kluver, J. D. (2004). The marketiza-
tion of the nonprofit sector: Civil society at risk? Public
Administration Review, 64(2), 132–140. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00355.x.
Enjolras, B. (2002). The commercialization of voluntary
sport organizations in Norway. Nonprofit and Volun-
tary Sector Quarterly, 31(3), 352–376. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0899764002313003.
Evers, A., & Laville, J.-L. (2004). The third sector in
Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Gras, D., & Mendoza-Abarca, K. I. (2014). Risky busi-
ness? The survival implications of exploiting commer-
cial opportunities by nonprofits. Journal of Business
Venturing, 29(3), 392–404.
Guo, B. (2006). Charity for profit? Exploring factors asso-
ciated with the commercialization of human service
nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
35(1), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0899764005282482.
Hung, C. (2020). Commercialization and nonprofit dona-
tions: A meta-analytic assessment and extension. Non-
profit Management & Leadership, 31, 287–309.
James, E. (2003). Commercialism and the mission of non-
profits. Society, 40(4), 29–29. Retrieved from http://
search.proquest.com/docview/206716964?
accountid¼29104.
Kerlin, J. A., & Pollak, T. H. (2011). Nonprofit commercial
revenue: A replacement for declining government
4 Nonprofit Commercialization
grants and private contributions? The American Review
of Public Administration, 41(6), 686–704. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0275074010387293.
Khieng, S., & Dahles, H. (2015). Commercialization in the
non-profit sector: The emergence of social enterprise in
Cambodia. Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 6(2),
218–243.
Maier, F., Meyer, M., & Steinbereithner, M. A. (2016).
Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like:
A systematic review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 45(1), 64–86.
McKay, S., Moro, D., Teasdale, S., & Clifford, D. (2015).
The marketisation of charities in England and Wales.
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Non-
profit Organizations, 26(1), 336–354.
Salamon, L. M. (1993). The marketization of welfare:
Changing nonprofit and for-profit roles in the American
welfare state. The Social Service Review, 67,16–39.
Suykens, B., De Rynck, F., & Verschuere, B. (2019a).
Examining the influence of organizational characteris-
tics on nonprofit commercialization. Nonprofit Man-
agement & Leadership, 30(2), 339–351.
Suykens, B., De Rynck, F., & Verschuere, B. (2019b).
Nonprofit organizations in between the nonprofit and
market spheres: Shifting goals, governance and man-
agement? Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 29(4),
623–636.
Suykens, B., De Rynck, F., & Verschuere, B. (2020a).
Examining the extent and coherence of nonprofit
hybridization toward the market in a post-corporatist
welfare state. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quar-
terly, 0899764020908344. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0899764020908344.
Suykens, B., George, B., De Rynck, F., & Verschuere,
B. (2020b). Determinants of non-profit commercialism.
Resource deficits, institutional pressures or organiza-
tional contingencies? Public Management Review,
1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.
1764083.
Thompson, P., & Williams, R. (2014). Taking your eyes off
the objective: The relationship between income sources
and satisfaction with achieving objectives in the UK
third sector. Voluntas: International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(1),
109–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9326-5.
Toepler, S. (2006). Caveat venditor? Museum merchandis-
ing, nonprofit commercialization, and the case of the
metropolitan museum in New York. Voluntas: Interna-
tional Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organiza-
tions, 17(2), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-
006-9012-6.
Tuckman, H. (2010). Commercialization and for-profits in
disguise. In International encyclopedia of civil society
(pp. 504–508). New York: Springer.
Tuckman, H. P. (1998). Competition, commercialization,
and the evolution of nonprofit organizational structures.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17(2),
175–194. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/
docview/839127540?accountid¼29104.
Vaceková, G., Valentinov, V., & Nemec, J. (2017).
Rethinking nonprofit commercialization: The case of
the Czech Republic. Voluntas: International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28(5),
2103–2123.
Weisbrod, B. A. (1998). Modeling the nonprofit organiza-
tion as a multiproduct firm: A framework for choice. In
To profit or not to profit: The commercial transforma-
tion of the nonprofit sector (pp. 47–64). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Weisbrod, B. A. (2000). To profit or not to profit: The
commercial transformation of the nonprofit sector.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Willems, J., Waldner, C. J., Dere, Y. I., Matsuo, Y., &
Högy, K. (2017). The role of formal third-party
endorsements and informal self-proclaiming signals in
nonprofit reputation building. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 46(5), 1092–1105.
Young, D. R. (1998). Commercialism in nonprofit social
service associations: Its character, significance, and
rationale. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,
17(2), 278–297. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.
com/docview/839125702?accountid¼29104.
Yu, J., & Chen, K. (2018). Does nonprofit marketization
facilitate or inhibit the development of civil society?
A Comparative Study of China and the USA. Voluntas:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, 29,1–13.
Nonprofit Commercialization 5