How Perceptions Matter: Organizational Vulnerability and Practices of Resilience in the Field of Migration

Abstract

This article presents a qualitative analysis of the practices of civil society organizations (CSOs) to integrate migrants into the Swiss labor market. Civil society organizations as a means of overcoming vulnerability figure prominently in the current research. However, less attention has been given to examining how organizational perceptions influence their behavior in the face of threats. Our findings illustrate that political and economic changes in the migration field result in various forms of organizational vulnerability, manifesting as internal challenges to organizations' sense-making, identification of beneficiaries and the type of services they provide. We show that CSOs negotiate diverse roles in the labor integration of migrants embedded in a dynamic system of interdependence with state institutions and labor market actors. Hence, CSOs constantly adapt and respond to challenges in the field, showing a range of resilience practices ensuring their role as key driver of migrants’ labor integration.

Full text

RESEARCH PAPERS
How Perceptions Matter: Organizational Vulnerability
and Practices of Resilience in the Field of Migration
Eva Ferna
´ndez Guzma
´n Grassi
1,2
•Ophelia Nicole-Berva
3
Accepted: 26 November 2021
International Society for Third-Sector Research 2022
Abstract This article presents a qualitative analysis of the
practices of civil society organizations (CSOs) to integrate
migrants into the Swiss labor market. Civil society orga-
nizations as a means of overcoming vulnerability fig-
ure prominently in the current research. However, less
attention has been given to examining how organizational
perceptions influence their behavior in the face of threats.
Our findings illustrate that political and economic changes
in the migration field result in various forms of organiza-
tional vulnerability, manifesting as internal challenges to
organizations’ sense-making, identification of beneficiaries
and the type of services they provide. We show that CSOs
negotiate diverse roles in the labor integration of migrants
embedded in a dynamic system of interdependence with
state institutions and labor market actors. Hence, CSOs
constantly adapt and respond to challenges in the field,
showing a range of resilience practices ensuring their role
as key driver of migrants’ labor integration.
Keywords Organizational perceptions Resilience 
Migration Labor market integration Civil society
organizations Vulnerability Organizational fields
Introduction
This paper examines how organizational perceptions
1
of
vulnerability shape the resilience practices of civil society
organizations (CSOs). More precisely, we focus on CSOs
aiming at the labor integration of migrants in Geneva,
Switzerland. Civil society concerns a heterogeneous family
of actors that range from charity associations, trade
unions, and grassroots organizations to self-help groups
among others (Lahusen et al., 2021). These collective
actors are widely described as neither state nor market
controlled (Ambrosini & Van der Leun, 2015; Corry, 2010;
DiMaggio, 1986). As such, the civil society is a ‘‘com-
plement’’ to both the state and the economy (Helmig et al.,
2011; Powell & Steinberg, 2006) and is part of a broader
organizational field in constant interaction with a larger set
of actors. Hence, we argue that civil society organizations
(CSOs) draw on their perceptions, understandings and
interdependence on their larger organizational environ-
ment—the ‘‘field’’—to shape and organize their collective
behavior.
Literature shows that CSOs play an active role in service
delivery and advocacy for the most vulnerable group
(Baglioni & Giugni, 2014; Kousis et al., 2018; Morales &
Giugni, 2011). Analysis centered on civil society and
&Eva Ferna
´ndez Guzma
´n Grassi
eva.fernandez@unige.ch
Ophelia Nicole-Berva
Ophelia.Nicole-Berva@eui.eu
1
Department of Political Science and International Relations,
University of Geneva, Boulevard du Pont-d’Arve 40, Geneva,
Switzerland
2
University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western
Switzerland, HES-SO, Geneva, Switzerland
3
Department of Political and Social Sciences, European
University Institute, Badia Fiesolana - via dei Roccettini 9,
San Domenico di Fiesole, 50014 Fiesole, FI, Italy
1
Organizational perceptions are used in this article as the rationale
and strategy designed and considered by organizational actors as key
to maintain their sense-making and organizational identities under-
stood as ‘‘who we are’’ and ‘‘what we do.’’ This definition is drawn
from psychological research on identity management (Elsbach, 2003).
123
Voluntas
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00440-9

the nonprofit sector has revealed that organizational
structures matter to overcome social vulnerability
(Baglioni & Giugni, 2014; Lahusen et al., 2021; Warren,
2001). Similarly, research has evidenced that organiza-
tional actors are tied to their understandings of the field
(DiMaggio, 1986; Fligstein & McAdam, 2012), while
being responsive to the changes in it. Indeed, while some
characteristics of an organizational field are stable, others
may change over time. In particular, shifts in institutional
logics within a field can create pressures, but also oppor-
tunities for organizations to build response strategies,
which we will refer to as organizational resilience prac-
tices. Yet, these have been less investigated in their
response to the arrival of migrants. Similarly, in complex
systems of interdependencies, studies in human ecology
show that social perceptions of vulnerability are critical to
the response strategies—the resilience practices—of social
actors (Birkmann, 2006; Blaikie et al., 2003; Healey,
2006).
Based on 15 semi-structured interviews with CSOs in
the canton of Geneva, we explore how organizational
perceptions of vulnerability to recent policy and economic
changes in the field of migration influence CSO’s strategies
for the labor integration of migrants. This paper contributes
to previous literature by examining how CSOs position
themselves as key drivers of migrants’ labor integration,
responding to both contested organizational roles and
changes in the field. Our study shows that CSOs exhibit
and perceive different vulnerabilities depending on their
organizational characteristics. These organizational vul-
nerabilities are studied on the distinction between two
types of perceived challenges: external (those emanating
from other actors in the field) and internal (those related to
the CSOs’ organizational features).
We complement previous literature in two main ways.
First, our results show that focusing on actors’ perceptions
is an essential element in understanding the behavior of
organizational actors in the face of threats, as they are
limited by their belief system and rationale. Secondly,
these perceptions allow us to unveil the interdependencies
between various actors in the field. Thus, we evidence the
connection between organizational actors’ behavior and the
environment by exploring organizational vulnerability and
resilience practices within the contested and changing field
of migration.
CSOs in the Literature
CSOs often surface in response to hard economic times
(Lahusen et al., 2021; Moulaert & Ailenei, 2005), but many
tend to sustain their activities toward vulnerable groups for
longer periods of time (Kousis et al., 2018). The emergence
of civil society actors is often triggered by the absence of
an appropriate answer to a given need. These situations,
characterized by a shift in responsibility from the state to
the civil society, have been coined as ‘‘grey zone’’ (Mes-
coli & Roblain, 2021) or understood as part of the ‘‘politics
of subsidiarity’’ (Kaya & Nagel, 2021). In addition, the
various economic and migration crises have cut deep into
the European social body, weakening solidarity policies
aiming at protecting the unemployed native-born, migrants
and refugees. On that matter, the social protection of
migrants and refugees has been increasingly contested
(Strang & Ager, 2010).
Indeed, civil society is increasingly seen as a relevant
actor addressing basic needs, social inclusion, employment
creation, local economic development, poverty reduction
and environmental protection. Through their strategic
actions in the public sphere, these organizations aim to
provide people with alternative ways of enduring day-to-
day difficulties (Forno & Graziano, 2014; Lahusen et al.,
2021). As such, they are very resilient, showing capacity to
play a central role in addressing the needs of vulnerable
populations in times of crisis (Hall & Lamont, 2013).
Likewise, much of the growth of CSOs’ activities in recent
decades, notably in Europe, has centered precisely on
services for the integration of vulnerable groups, including
migrants and refugees. The challenges of integrating
refugees, migrants and the unemployed native-born per-
sons in local communities have directed research attention
toward organizational actors’ role (Baglioni & Giugni,
2014; Lahusen et al., 2021; Morales & Giugni, 2011).
Concerning organizations in the field of migration, four
broad types of action have been identified: providing basic
services, developing migrants’ capacities, doing advocacy
work, and developing research activities (Garkisch et al.,
2017). However, the most common classification of orga-
nizations rests on the distinction between service-oriented
and advocacy-oriented organizations (Garkisch et al.,
2017; Ferna
´ndez et al., 2021). Yet these orientations often
mix. For example, in their study of migrant access to
housing in Belgian cities, Mescoli and Roblain (2021)
argue that CSOs have taken responsibility for meeting
migrants’ basic housing needs, but have also been critical
of the state, politicizing these humanitarian issues. The
distinction between services and advocacy serves an ana-
lytical purpose, but it also influences what organizations do
and with whom and how they collaborate.
However, regardless of their orientation, CSOs share
specific operational principles of solidarity based on par-
ticipation, mutual aid, voluntary engagement, altruism, and
collective ownership (Uba & Kousis, 2018; Ferna
´ndez
et al., 2020). They also emphasize the key role of collective
action and active citizenship for the economic, social and
Voluntas
123

political inclusion of disadvantaged groups in society (Bosi
& Zamponi, 2020; della Porta, 2020).
Nevertheless, in environments associated with lack of
funding and weak institutional support, CSOs’ agency is
challenged; they remain responsive to the needs of those
populations at the bottom of the ladder (C
ˇada et al., 2021).
Hence, even with limited political and institutional support,
CSOs collaborate and engage in innovative forms of col-
lective action to support the most vulnerable. As such,
CSOs must be understood in a framework of interdepen-
dence with other actors and in a dynamic context, under-
stood as an organizational field. This interdependence is a
key feature of the organizational field of migration in
Switzerland (Ferna
´ndez et al., 2021), exposing CSOs to
concrete situations of vulnerability, requiring organiza-
tional capacities to respond to challenges.
CSOs in the Swiss Context
Historically, Swiss CSOs have played an important role in
implementing social help. Indeed, the growth of the wel-
fare state impacted the role of CSOs in providing social
help, shifting their role from a ‘‘substitutive function’’ to a
‘‘complementary function’’ (Butschi & Cattacin, 1993).
The various phases of development of the Swiss welfare
state comprehended periods of crisis and retrenchment
resulting in the emergence of new collective actors aiming
at the welfare provision for ‘‘outsiders’’ (Giugni & Passy,
2001).
In addition, the Swiss bottom-up federalism is embed-
ded in the principle of subsidiarity which also nourishes the
relationships between CSOs and the state. Under this
principle, nothing that can be done at a lower political level
should be done at a higher political level. Swiss confed-
eration can provide policy guidelines in the field of
migration to cantons—the equivalent of local states—but
these have discretionary powers in their implementation.
As a result, some adopt restrictive practices based on the
individual will, limiting support and conditional incentives
to migrants, whereas others implement inclusive practices,
supporting and encouraging individual capacities (Probst
et al., 2019). In short, the very idea of the principle of
subsidiarity is to determine the responsibility of imple-
menting policy measures at the smallest unit. Subsidiarity
as a way to organize power between administrative levels
favors local decision-making and implementation closer to
the population (Hega, 2000). Hence, the subsidiarity prin-
ciple goes beyond the internal organization of the state and
links institutions to civil society as well (Butschi & Cat-
tacin, 1993).
The Swiss federalism allows lower institutional levels to
develop integration agendas—cantonal policies—where
the role of standard structures (local institutions) in pro-
moting the integration of migrants also varies from one
canton to another (Probst et al., 2019), favoring a larger or
minor presence of CSOs working in the field at local level.
Only recently (2019) a national program, called the ‘‘Swiss
integration agenda,’’ was set up, targeting specifically the
labor integration of refugees and temporarily admitted
persons. The program, involving both the confederation
and the cantons, aims at providing basic information to
newcomers, assessing their professional potential and lan-
guage skills, and guiding young people and adults towards
a professional choice (SEM, 2021).
In this article, we examine CSOs in the canton of
Geneva, where organizations have long been engaged in
the integration of migrants and other vulnerable groups.
However, until recently, CSOs focused primarily on labor
or general migration issues (Ferna
´ndez et al., 2021). In this
sense, CSOs supporting the unemployed or working poor
have shown limited capacity to respond to the diversity of
migrant trajectories. Conversely, CSOs advocating for
migrants’ rights focused primarily on migrants’ sociocul-
tural integration, with limited activities regarding their
labor integration. Therefore, by examining how recent
changes in institutional logics in the field of migration
create challenges and opportunities for organizations to
construct response strategies for the labor integration of
migrants, we deepen previous analysis.
Theoretical Perspectives: Field, Vulnerability
and Resilience
Organizational Field and Civil Society
Organizations
The research on organizational fields provides a framework
to examine collective actors’ interaction within common
systems of meaning and practices (Powell & DiMaggio,
1991; Scott, 2014). In contrast to studies limited only to
CSOs, the study of organizational fields allows investi-
gating interdependencies between a variety of constituents:
institutions, professional and trade associations, interest
groups, CSOs and the general public. Moreover, the con-
cept of organizational field encompasses logics providing
schemas to the actors’ behavior within a dynamic social
environment (Fligstein & McAdam, 2012; Wooten &
Hoffman, 2017).
The organizational field is a dynamic system of inter-
dependencies in which organizations define their mem-
bership, identity, establish social positions and implement
practices within a broad but common organizational setting
(Glynn, 2017; Wry et al., 2011; Ferna
´ndez et al., 2020).
Scholars investigating the behavior of organizational
Voluntas
123

fields’ constituents argue that organizational actors struggle
for different roles and resources, have organizational
interests and act accordingly (DiMaggio, 1986; Fligstein,
1997). Therefore, an organizational field define a common
setting for strategic action where actors relate to each other
based on shared, but not necessarily consensual, under-
standings of the field (Fligstein & McAdam, 2012; Wooten
& Hoffman, 2017).
Building on Fligstein and McAdam’s (2012) definition
of organizational fields, we move away from rigid and
prescribed structural organizational behaviors. According
to this line of reasoning, not all collective actors in the field
are exposed to the same vulnerabilities nor react to the
same demands. Therefore, all actors do not have a uniform
understanding of the meanings and practices within a
common organizational field. Organizational actors indeed
perceive, process and respond to the logics of the field
through their own framing process (Goffman, 1974),
according to their rationale and sense-making.
From the cognitive turn (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991)in
organizational institutionalism together with studies on
organizations and social movements, it is thought that the
combination of field struggles involving ideological posi-
tioning and varying degrees of autonomy define and shape
the rationale and behavior of the collective actor. Similarly,
recent studies in environmental governance analyzing
complex systems of interdependencies—which we study
here in the migration field—show that perceptions of
problems and belief systems are likely to influence actors’
behavior (Gray et al., 2013; Moon et al., 2019). Hence,
organizational perceptions matter.
Moreover, research on organizational vulnerability and
resilience has been influenced by human ecology studies
(Witmer & Mellinger, 2016), which show that in a complex
system of interdependencies, social perceptions are critical
to the response strategies to risks of the social actors at
risks (Blaikie et al., 2003; Healey, 2006). Indeed, human
ecology studies emphasize the interdependence between
human and physical systems, embedded in lived political
and economic struggles that condition the relationship
between the environment and society (Birkmann, 2006;
Blaikie et al., 2003; Pelling, 2003). This systemic approach
allows research to elicit complex systems of interdepen-
dencies (between actors and environments) where actors
define positions, react to shocks and shape strategies of
response.
Organizational Vulnerability and Resilience
This systemic approach provides us with a framework to
study organizational vulnerability and resilience as a pro-
duct of interdependencies resulting from economic, cul-
tural and contextual practices in a field.
Vulnerability refers to both a product and a process. As
a product, it is a characteristic of an element at risk, which
can be applied to a diversity of elements, such as com-
munities and social groups (Birkmann, 2006, p. 14). By
contrast, vulnerability also describes a cumulative process
of social, economic, cultural and environmental disadvan-
tages (Wisner, 2004), denoting an element’s exposure to a
hazard (Bankoff et al., 2004). More specifically, organi-
zational vulnerability refers to a varying degree of liability,
resulting from structural disadvantages, weak organiza-
tional capacity, institutional barriers and dependence as
well as competing logics in the field. Previous research on
the vulnerability of nonprofit organizations has shown that
erosion of financial resources and misalignment with
institutional logics increase organizations’ vulnerability,
which become more prevalent in situations characterized
by change (Breton-Miller & Miller, 2015).
Therefore, some characteristics of the field are
stable and others may vary over time, creating challenges
and opportunities for organizations to develop response
strategies—resilience. Resilience describes the ‘‘capacity
of an actor or an organism, to absorb or rebound from
shocks’’ (Pelling, 2003, p. 28), and it is a ‘‘quality of
individuals, groups, organizations and systems as a whole’’
(Home & Orr, 1998; see also Kimberlin et al., 2011).
Resilience is thus closely connected to the concept of
resistance and denotes a ‘‘regenerative’’ capacity of an
organism, involving ‘‘the ability to learn and adapt to
incremental changes and sudden shocks while maintaining
its major functions’’ (Birkmann, 2006, p. 15). Likewise,
studies on organizational resilience point to the organiza-
tion’s capabilities and learning process to adapt and
rebound from shocks (Horvath et al., 2018; Meyer &
Simsa, 2018). Organizational resilience has been defined as
the ‘‘ability to adapt to internal and external disturbances,
maintain its integrity as a system, re-organize itself, and
increase its capacity by transforming challenges into
opportunities for learning and innovation’’ (Witmer &
Mellinger, 2016). Additionally, the notion of organiza-
tional resilience has also proven fruitful to analyze changes
in service provision, the response strategies and capacities
of organizations in times of crisis (Duchek, 2014; Pape
et al., 2020).
In this respect, we argue that organizations are con-
strained in their rationale, as a result of knowledge, expe-
rience, values and aims, conditioning their decision-
making and behavior. Although these perceptions help
organizational actors to interpret, process and respond to
changes, they remain incomplete and context-dependent
representations of the field. However, only a few studies
have emphasized the psychological dimension of resi-
lience, describing it as a specific way of guiding behavior
(Duchek, 2014; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011). Thus, when
Voluntas
123

environmental conditions change in an organizational field,
even if organizations respond to a common stimulus,
organizational perceptions produce alternative trajectories
and practices.
In our case, organizational perceptions of vulnerability
denote the organizations’ perceived exposure to threats
resulting from changes in the field. We refer to organiza-
tional resilience as the response strategies (resilience
practices) resulting from organizations’ perceptions of
vulnerability. To examine how CSOs’ perceptions of vul-
nerability to recent changes in the field of migration in
Geneva shape their resilience practices for the labor inte-
gration of migrants, we build our analysis on the distinction
between two types of perceived challenges—internal and
external.
Figure 1depicts that, when faced with changes in the
field, CSOs adopt resilience practices derived from internal
and external challenges. However, these challenges are
mediated by organizational perceptions of the field.
Empirically, the resulting perceptions of vulnerability
are studied, on the one hand, in relation to the internal
organizational characteristics of CSOs, such as who their
beneficiaries are and what type of services they provide.
These characteristics inform us about how internal chal-
lenges can translate into organizational autonomy, strength
and the capacity to mobilize, create or obtain resources—
resilience practices. On the other hand, the perceptions of
vulnerability are studied in relation to systemic interde-
pendencies with institutional and labor market barriers,
actors and collaborations, embedded in the field. Hence, as
Fig. 1shows, perceptions of organizational vulnerability
give place to varying forms of resilience practices.
Methods
The 15 interviews on which the study is based were
conducted within the framework of the H2020 SIRIUS
project—Skills and Integration of Migrants, Refugees and
Asylum Applicants in EU Labour Market. We selected
civil society initiatives, groups, organizations, organiza-
tional branches and social enterprises, with informal and/or
formal structures, operating at the local or cantonal level.
Sixty-eight organizations were mapped, reflecting the full
universe of organizations working at the interplay of
immigration and labor issues in the canton and active
during the period (2018–2019). From the 68 organization
inventory, we selected 15 CSOs considered as key or
innovative players in the labor integration of migrants.
Interviews retrieve information about the activities and
beneficiaries of the CSOs, as well as their perceptions on
organizational challenges and opportunities. Two main
criteria defined the sample selection: the target audience
and main services. The sample includes organizations
Fig. 1 Theoretical model of organizational perceptions of vulnerability and resilience practices
Voluntas
123

targeting specifically migrant audience as well as organi-
zations targeting other vulnerable groups. For organiza-
tions targeting migrants, we used broader category
selection including migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers,
regardless of their status. In terms of activities, priority has
been given to organizations offering activities and services
whose specific objective is the direct access to the labor
market of their audience. The interviewees share an active
engagement in the professional integration of the migrants,
refugees, provisionally admitted persons, asylum seekers
and local population.
The interviews were conducted during Spring 2019 and
audio-recorded with the previous consent of the intervie-
wee. Subsequently, interviews were transcribed and anon-
ymized. We used a thematic analysis, which implied to
identify and analyze different ‘‘patterns’’—or themes—
from the interview data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Based on
the interview guide and on the theoretical framework were
pre-identified a certain number of main codes that had
mostly a descriptive aim (such as ‘‘beneficiaries,’’ ‘‘activ-
ities’’ and ‘‘collaborations’’). In the coding process, we
refined some codes (specifying different types of benefi-
ciaries for instance). After coding, we searched for broad
themes or patterns of meaning in relation to the theoretical
framework. In this sense, our analysis is rather a ‘‘theo-
retical thematic analysis,’’ driven by particular interest in
the data, by contrast with a more inductive analysis (Braun
& Clarke, 2006).
The CSOs
Table 1(annex A1) gives an overview of the variety of
interviewed CSOs. Some focus on one social group (highly
skilled migrants; refugees; only women, etc.), whereas
others address the needs of a larger part of the population.
A common characteristic of the interviewees is that they all
contribute, along with other actors, to the professional
inclusion of the most vulnerable workforce in the canton.
However, some of them go beyond professional integration
and also engage in a wider range of services, such as
information provision, administrative support and social
activities. These CSOs can be seen as hybrid actors in the
field, taking on various roles regarding the professional,
social and political integration of migrants. In contrast,
other CSOs focus solely on labor issues: they support
beneficiaries during their job search—acting as ‘‘job coa-
ches,’’ they arrange placement into learning and profes-
sionalized structures—acting as ‘‘facilitators,’’ and they
build social networks with labor market actors—acting as
‘‘liaison.’’
Analysis
Challenges from State Institutions
Access to Beneficiaries
CSOs address services to particular target groups, be they
very broad or niche. In practice, however, reaching them
may reveal challenging, especially when state institutions
provide services to the same audience. Indeed, for some
beneficiaries, the ‘‘labor integration journey’’ is designed
by the state. Civil servants assisting migrants or local
population to (re)integrate the labor market orient them
toward specific services or programs, which can be pro-
vided by CSOs but also within their own institutions.
Among our interviewees, a common type of partnership
between them and the state is called the ‘‘contract service
model’’: organizations are contracted to provide a specific
service to a beneficiary. These services agreements are not
new. As noted by Helmig et al. (2011), since the 1990s, the
Swiss state is generally more willing to finance CSOs
through service agreements than through simple donations.
Thus, civil servants choose among a range of organiza-
tional services from CSOs in accordance with their bene-
ficiaries’ needs. Some CSOs highly rely on this service
contract model, whereas a few of them also support ben-
eficiaries independently from the state through other
sources of funding (either private or public). Although such
partnerships are beneficial for the CSOs, they constitute a
slippery path to dependency. Relying on this model for the
provision of services to a particular audience enhances
organizational vulnerability, supposing a liability to the
decisional power of civil servants to gain contracts and
keep them over time.
As follows, beneficiaries not only ‘‘benefit from’’ the
CSOs’ services, but also benefit the organizations as an
indirect source of funding. The idea of the beneficiary as a
‘‘client’’ takes on its full meaning here. Just like a company
without a client, a CSO that loses access to its public is no
longer relevant. Several of our interviewees are aware that
an external change could create an internal challenge
concerning both the access to beneficiaries and the provi-
sion of services. For instance, the following quote exem-
plifies how a CSO perceived this external challenge
coming from the institutional actors and programs. The
CSO could provide services to people with the status of
asylum seeker or provisionally admitted but could not
access refugees. The institutional integration measures in
fact delimit the range of beneficiaries the CSO can access
through its integration programs:
Voluntas
123

We have very little leeway in the definition of the
contract specifications and in the people who come to
us. (...) [Our institutional partners] are also the ones
who finally manage the professional projects of the
people. And the reason why we have relatively few
refugees is that, once they are admitted [as refugees],
the professional project becomes more concrete and
more demanding (…) and [consequently] they don’t
come to us so much anymore.(CSO25)
Indeed, in this case, once asylum seekers or provision-
ally admitted people obtain the refugee status, they gain
access to other types of programs or services and will be
redirected toward other CSOs or state program. As a result,
the CSO quoted would ‘‘lose’’ its beneficiaries once their
status change. In other words, an external institutional
constrain actually translates as an internal challenge for the
CSO on how to define and maintain their access to their
target group.
Additionally, the constrains around the potential bene-
ficiaries can also be linked to budgetary reasons. In contrast
to the previous situation, another CSO can only accept
people with a refugee status in their program as only them
are granted a financial support:
We don’t refuse applications from asylum seekers,
but we don’t accept them in the program as long as
they have an [asylum seeker permit], because it’s
extremely difficult to integrate them into the labor
market: they are not part of the integration budget.
(CSO95)
The organization cannot accept asylum seekers sug-
gesting that their legal status may be considered as less
stable. In turn, less money is invested in their labor
integration.
These two contrasting cases illustrate how the legal
status of individuals partly determines to what services
they have access and which CSOs can get access to them.
The policy and political context directly translates into
internal challenges, shaping CSOs pool of services and/or
beneficiaries target. CSOs thus have to adapt internally to
respond. In addition, the financial side can also be a par-
ticularly difficult internal challenge for long-standing
organizations who were embedded in a previous logic of
welfare complementarity and may have to revise their core
business (activities, target group) to keep offering mean-
ingful services to specific beneficiaries. Indeed, under this
type of service model, if a CSO whishes to broaden the
spectrum of its audience, it would need to use its own
funds, require participants to pay for the services or find
other external sources of funding. Hence, when challenged
by external factors (policy changes in institutional pro-
grams), the organizations might have to adapt their internal
practices directly affecting CSOs daily work, scope and
aims.
The Internalization of Services
If the access to the beneficiaries is one important pillar for
a CSO, the value of the services they offer is another.
Indeed, if the activities provided by a CSO become irrel-
evant or compete with those provided by other actors, this
may directly threaten the role of the CSO in the field.
Hence, to ensure their added-value, CSOs constantly need
to prove their ‘‘complementary’’ to what is provided at the
institutional level—or even by other actors in the field. A
general agreement among CSOs is that their role is
essential, especially for those people whose situation
requires personalized services:
We actually fill in the gaps and limitations of the
formal social welfare system. We are the last social
safety net in Geneva, that’s how we are defined.
(CSO29).
This quote exemplifies how CSOs act in the ‘‘grey
zones’’ (Mescoli & Roblain, 2021) where the state is
absent. In this perspective, one could think of the CSOs as
having a temporary role, whose goal would be to disappear
once the responsibility is taken over by the state. Specifi-
cally regarding the provision of services, the CSOs per-
ceive the ‘‘internalization of services,’’ as an external
threatening process where institutions start delivering ser-
vices that were previously outsourced. At the moment of
the interviews, this process was still perceived as a nascent
and on-going, yet is was seen as reducing the reliance on
the associative network by institutions:
The ’bad thing’ for us is that they [the institutions]
are rather in the process of internalizing these ser-
vices for which at the time they used to call on
associations (CSO25).
The service provision seems to be a zero-sum game,
where CSOs used to be those providing welfare sub-
sidiarity to institutions but are now pressured by institu-
tional actors taking over particular services. The
internalization of a service may mean that an institution
reproduce the same offer internally or create another pro-
gram where the use of external services becomes unnec-
essary. In either case, the internalization process directly
threaten the CSOs complementarity argument of services.
Once again, this external change at the institutional level
affects the CSO at the internal level, not only about their
practices, but also about their positioning of being a
complement to state actors. This external challenge has
been thoroughly discussed by ‘‘hybrid’’ CSOs, whose ser-
vices provision is highly dependent on state programs and
Voluntas
123

goals. The internalization of services has thus been per-
ceived not only as a potential financial loss to this type of
CSOs, challenging their internal practices and/or even
human resources, but also as a threat to the very meaning
of their complementary role.
The Temporality of Labor Integration
Finally, a third external challenge coming from the insti-
tution concerns the length of the labor integration journey.
Whereas institutions promote a quick labor integration for
newcomers, some CSOs highlight that in practice the labor
integration journey may take longer. In particular, CSOs
offering a large panel of services and who understand
(labor) integration as a holistic and long-term process
emphasize and consider that the ‘‘one-model-fits-all’’ is not
appropriate for the variety of profiles of beneficiaries:
They are in a logic (…): Management, efficiency,
short-term profitability. I’m not against profitability,
nor against spending money well, but... I have the
impression that they’re laughing at me. (CSO96)
A short temporality that requires rapid tangible results of
labor integration is constraining, especially for those long-
standing CSOs welcoming a large audience and providing
a full range of services—including forms of support not
directly directed at the labor integration of people.
The necessity of quick integration or concrete job
placement is putting pressure on CSOs’ practices, which
are based on personalized and long-term coaching. Orga-
nizations that do not meet this external requirement are
internally threatened by the loss of a contract—and thus of
funding:
They no longer contract us (...) their perspective
today is to work on the short term, that is: [rapid] job
placement. And we don’t have the placement
accreditation, so we’re among the providers who no
longer have a contract (...) which we regret, because
many job seekers come to us individually to ask for
[our service]. (CSO98)
In addition, the loss of a contract and associated funds
can threaten the very existence of a CSOs, but it also
prevents beneficiaries from accessing that particular ser-
vice. Hence, a CSO not following the required temporality
usually also faces challenges related to service provision
and beneficiaries access. On the latter, the previous quote
highlights that in some cases beneficiaries call on the
associative network independently of having been addres-
sed there ‘‘institutionally’’ (i.e., by a civil servant). Several
associations consider that beneficiaries reach out for them
through word of mouth of other beneficiaries and associ-
ations. For beneficiaries, the richness of the CSOs network
provides a variety of services closer to their needs, despite
a context that require a different—shorter—type of inter-
vention. However, this might be likely to change if all three
challenges impact their organizational capacities, which is
perceived as particularly constraining for long-lasting
CSOs, with a wide range of services and whose practices
were shaped under the institutional logic of welfare
subsidiarity.
CSOs’ Resilience Practices Towards Challenges from State
Institutions
In the field of migration, CSOs in Geneva develop col-
laborations with the state aiming at the labor integration of
migrants. CSOs perceive this relationship as an opportunity
but have also emphasized inherent challenges which trigger
their organizational vulnerability. Despite the abovemen-
tioned challenges, CSOs still consider themselves as
essential actors for the labor integration of specific groups.
Thus, organizations employed diverse response strate-
gies—resilience practices—to prove their relevance in that
field.
A first common practice is to reaffirm their legitimacy
through expertise. CSOs have to demonstrate their added
value to legitimize their role as driver of the labor inte-
gration of vulnerable groups, in equal terms to other actors:
At first you are seen as a do-it-yourselfer. As non-
professional people. And now it’s up to you to prove
yourself. To assert yourself. Take your place. Make a
place. And this is no small fight. This criticism is real.
(...) in front of an association there is always this
claim: ‘‘they are handymen, we are professionals’’.
So there is a discourse, a perception with perhaps a
look from above, but without being... the bearer of
miracles to solve the problem. (CSO46)
As shown in this quote, the organization perceives and
regrets not to be taken as equal and seen as less profes-
sional in comparison with institutionalized actors. How-
ever, CSOs consider they have developed relevant know-
how practices concerning their audience’s needs, asserting
their particular role in the field. It is precisely through this
niche of expertise that CSOs seek to maintain their role and
legitimacy in the field.
Moreover, the services offered by the CSOs reassert
their added value, showing that their experience in the
labor integration of vulnerable groups differs and com-
plements the state institutional approach. Interestingly,
although the internalization of services may be acknowl-
edged, CSOs perceived and still position themselves as
offering something more. Complaining about the internal-
ization of services, but still considering to do the ‘‘work of
the state’’ can be seen as strategy to reaffirm the CSOs
Voluntas
123

‘‘ raison d’e
ˆtre.’’ In addition, CSOs affirm their added value
by providing personalized and individualized services.
Against short-term and less personalized support from the
state, CSOs are able to provide middle- or long-term tailor-
made coaching to their beneficiaries. CSOs need institu-
tions, yet institutions also need the CSOs to fulfill the
integration policy framework. Indeed, the services offered
by the CSOs are not only functional but are also their
source of structural positioning in the field.
Finally, CSOs benefit from a dense network of collab-
orations between other organizations that allows them to
mutualize resources, innovate practices and respond to the
specialization of the field. These interdependencies (e.g.,
collaborations and mutualization of resources) between
CSOs are presented as resources to rebound and build
strength for the maintenance of their practices. These
resilience practices are put in place in response to external
challenges that question the internal characteristics of
organizations (their organizational functioning, their ben-
eficiaries, their activities, their objectives, etc.).
Figure 2below summarizes some of our findings and
presents several resulting organizational resilience prac-
tices as the outcome of a process. For CSOs, the perception
of external change that directly affects their function is a
challenge that affects and requires the mobilization of their
internal resources. CSO perceptions are crucial, as they
shape how they understand external change, whether it is a
challenge and how significant it is, i.e., whether it requires
them to engage in resilience practices or not. Consequently,
each CSO has its own understanding and way of
responding with resilience practices.
In sum, we illustrated that CSOs’ interdependency with
institutions challenges their daily practices (triggering their
organizational vulnerability), but they consider to hold a
negotiation leeway thanks to their expertise and collabo-
rations within their organizational network. CSOs perceive
themselves as complementary and necessary to institu-
tional actors and consider their role as bounded in
reciprocity to other organizational actors and institutions in
the broader field of migration.
Challenges from the Labor Market
Prejudices Against Migrant Population
Studies held in Switzerland have shown how ethnic dis-
crimination occurs in recruitment processes, a practice that
also concerns Swiss nationals with a migration background
(Zschirnt & Fibbi, 2019). This bias against foreigners or
people perceived as non-Swiss (because of their name, skin
color or dual citizenship) is understood as a strong con-
textual challenge by the CSOs aiming at the migrants’
labor integration. Interviewees frequently considered that
prejudices about their public indirectly triggered their
organizational vulnerability. A hostile environment to
people with migration background hinders CSOs’ practices
aiming at the labor integration of migrants. CSOs have to
convince and overcome deep-rooted prejudices and
bureaucratic misunderstandings that make access to work
more arduous for certain groups. An interviewee stated, for
instance, that refugees tend not to be perceived by the host
society as the professionals they were in their home
country. Hence, the representation associated with the legal
status of refugee takes precedence over the personal and
professional characteristics of the individual. This inter-
view extract shows how local population was suspicious
about this CSO’s project targeting refugees: ‘‘I met many
people and there was a lot of skepticism about the program,
they were like: ‘What? Refugees cannot be entrepreneurs,
no way’.’’ (CSO36). The prejudices held against the ben-
eficiaries of a CSO’s directly affects how a CSO have to
communicate about its purpose to remain active in the
field. These prejudices are reinforced by a lack of knowl-
edge about the permit system and migrants’ right to work.
One CSO mentioned the confusion surrounding people
with ‘‘provisional permits,’’ due to the ambiguous termi-
nology of ‘‘provisional’’ which hides the fact that these
permits allow for work and can last for years. Prejudice is
thus seen as a very complex and diffuse external challenge.
For most recent CSOs with a strong labor focus, this
translates internally into a strategic need for communica-
tion that counters prejudices and enhances the professional
skills of their beneficiaries.
Professionalization of Low-Skilled Sectors
Aside from prejudices, our interviewees stated external
challenges related to a broader evolution within the labor
market: the professionalization of traditionally low-skilled
tasks, a process that seems to go hand in hand with the
increasing digitalization of the economy. Whereas preju-
dices and beliefs apply to all types of beneficiaries, the
professionalization process is a burden especially for low-
skilled migrants. Jobs previously accessible without
diploma, certificate or training now require professional-
izing and certifying trainings. In the face of this evolution,
the practices of organizations focusing on the professional
integration of low-skilled people are being questioned.
While in the past, access to work may have been a matter
of legal permits, language level and family responsibilities,
today the need for certification adds difficulty to this pro-
cess. For instance, an interviewee reports that for a part-
time cleaning job, beneficiaries now need to send their CV
by email, a challenging procedure for someone who never
had access to computers, creating a ‘‘digital divide’’
between applicants. Consequently, low-skilled
Voluntas
123

beneficiaries are pushed further away from the labor mar-
ket. The professionalization of low-skilled jobs is also
reflected in the apprenticeship system. Jobs that were
accessible without certified training are now ‘‘officialized’’
and therefore professionalized with new apprenticeships.
While the broadening of apprenticeships results in
increasing professional opportunities for young people, it
devaluates workers with the skills but not the diploma
associated. This affects labor mobility for both the national
working force and foreigners:
(…) The skills demanded are increasing. Including
doing tasks that traditionally did not require training.
A ‘‘cleaning agent’’, who yesterday was a ‘‘cleaner’’,
needs three years [of training]. The truck driver needs
three years [of training] with calculations of strength
(…) whereas the truck driver who comes from
Eastern Europe doesn’t have that. (CSO42)
The professionalization of some sectors is a process
affecting the internal features of organizations, especially
those that have been around for a long time. Indeed, some
of them provide services designed and built for a more
open, easily accessible and less certificate-based labor
market model. In addition, this process can potentially
exclude current workers from the labor market and thus
create new demand for CSOs—which would involve hav-
ing the ability to adapt to new audiences. CSOs perceive
this external processes of professionalization as a trigger of
organizational vulnerability, considering that the labor
environment tends to be always more exclusionary and
administratively cumbersome. These create internal chal-
lenges to organizations, as they need to adapt to institu-
tional but also to labor market logics. Therefore, several
CSOs perceived a mismatch with their current offer of
services and type of public when responding to the labor
market actors’ needs.
Diploma Recognition and Misuse of Qualifications
Whereas the previous process revolves mainly around low-
skilled workers, people with higher educational back-
ground face different obstacles to access the Swiss job
market. CSOs have raised the challenges of diploma
recognition and misuse of qualifications. These issues
resemble the problem of prejudices, where CSOs perceive
it as a contextual given. Organizations see this challenge in
their daily work as it directly affects the material and
professional possibilities of their beneficiaries:
Some qualifications are not recognized at the [Swiss]
level as they are in all countries. You arrive in
another country where the qualifications will not be
recognized, so to live and survive what do you do?
you take a job, which is what is called a day job.
(CSO98)
Although some CSO services are tailored to a qualified
public, there is a lack of ‘‘official’’ recognition of qualifi-
cations. Among our interviewees, some actors are spe-
cialized in helping migrants in the (long) process of
accreditation of diplomas and qualifications. However, this
remains a laborious process and the result is not necessarily
satisfactory, for example, because of the need for addi-
tional examinations or experiences to validate the acquired
knowledge. Hence, even if the diploma is recognized, prior
work experience in Switzerland is commonly required by
companies. As qualifications are not always considered
‘‘transferable to the Swiss reality,’’ newcomers are some-
times encouraged to do internships, a strategy of profes-
sionalization through practice that would demonstrate the
ability to work and adapt to new environments. However,
finding an internship and showing a future employer the
ability to enter the Swiss labor market is a vicious circle,
because finding an internship is as difficult as finding a
proper job. Also, the examinations or further training that
are supposed to help migrants find a suitable job do not
overcome the problem of overqualification:
Fig. 2 Challenges from state institutions translate into internal challenges, addressed through resilience practices
Voluntas
123

Because of the way the jobs are protected in
Switzerland, unless you have the right diploma, you
can’t work here. What we noticed with engineers or
doctors [is that] they don’t have the money and time
to go back to university to receive the Swiss diploma.
(CSO36).
In these cases, the burden of getting the credentials or
skills recognized seems too costly for the recipients—in
terms of time or money. This means that even when an
organization may accompany an individual through a cre-
dential recognition process, the burden of the process
actually falls more heavily on the recipient. Individual
barriers can stop the process, sending these people back to
underqualified positions. CSOs seem to have little room for
maneuver because this challenge is rooted at the institu-
tional level.
CSOs’ Resilience Practices Towards Challenges
from Labor Market
In the field of migration and aiming especially at the labor
integration of migrants, CSOs also collaborate with labor
market actors to increase the chances of their beneficiaries
to find a suitable job. By extension, CSOs are vulnerable to
the logic of the labor market.
Several CSOs propose themselves to act as an ‘‘em-
ployer’’ by integrating beneficiaries in their staff—either as
a volunteer or in paid positions. By endorsing the role of
the demand-side, CSOs provide their target group with a
(first) working experience in Switzerland. Interestingly, in
addition to ‘‘experience service’’ programs, the youngest
CSOs, and in particular those oriented mainly toward labor
integration, engage in collaboration with companies to
expand the working opportunities of their beneficiaries
outside their organization. These CSOs provide trainings
and workshops and develop a large network of local pro-
fessionals and companies to help integrate beneficiaries
into the local job market. These CSOs bridge job seekers
and companies. On the one hand, they ‘‘recruit’’ benefi-
ciaries based on their motivation and skills; on the other
hand, they actively look for employers willing to give job
opportunities to the migrant population. Older CSOs also
take part to this trend of collaborations with labor market
actors by adapting their services and programs. For
instance, a CSO mention regular LinkedIn workshops and
networking events for their beneficiaries to be ‘‘up to date’’
when they compete in the labor market. Notwithstanding,
these practices of connecting the beneficiaries with the
labor market are still focusing on the highly skilled
workers, considered as more quickly ‘‘job-suitable.’’ Aside
from these initiatives, some CSOs believe that it is nec-
essary to strengthen collaborations with labor market
actors, making the professional integration of migrants a
common objective for both actors:
What would be important is to strengthen the col-
laboration between migration specialists and labor
market specialists because today there is a kind of
compartmentalization. There is a lot of know-how in
terms of professional integration and reintegration
that could be beneficial for these target groups, which
is not exploited today. (CSO26)
In addition to the creation of a dense network of col-
laborations with the labor market actors, CSOs have an
important role of advocacy to improve the (labor) inte-
gration of migrants. They help to overcome employers’
prejudices using a discourse adapted to the market’s needs.
For instance, some organizations, especially those aiming
at the labor integrations of highly skilled migrants, avoid
arguments of ‘‘acting socially’’ or ‘‘responsibly’’ to con-
vince companies to hire their beneficiaries. CSOs working
closely with companies play under the ‘‘market rules’’: it is
not about recruiting a refugee, migrant or jobless, it is
about recruiting a good candidate:
These people are refugees, but if you go knocking on
an employer’s door and say, ‘‘Take this refugee,
they’ve had a hard life’’, it’s not attractive! An
employer wants someone who is efficient, who wants
to work for their company, who is willing, who has
ambitions, who wants to succeed. (CSO95)
This discourse depicts how resilient CSOs are: they
engage in practices where they actively include the
employers and propose a new narrative where the labor
integration of people is everyone’s responsibility and will
eventually benefit the whole society:
At the beginning, of course people were like ‘‘oh no,
it’s for refugees’’. But [we really want] to change that
(…) I think, it’s also our role and I hope we can do
even more, to change the whole narrative…[and] at
some point not to talk about refugees anymore, [but]
to talk about entrepreneurs or people and their skills.
(…) Usually they see refugees [as] poor people,
standing in a wet tent. They don’t see the former
millionaire in Syria who runs a successful company.
(CSO36)
CSOs emerge as key drivers of migrant labor integra-
tion, through their role in advocating for the added value of
migrant workforce. However, the challenges they face are
mostly ‘‘indirect,’’ as they relate primarily to the ability of
beneficiaries to access the labor market—and not the
CSOs’ role in their labor integration. In contrast to the
challenges emanating from the state, the challenges iden-
tified here are perceived as broad and diffuse, almost seen
Voluntas
123

as a structural fact. Internally, CSOs thus have to adapt the
content of their services, but also contribute to a deeper and
long-term struggle to promote the place of their benefi-
ciaries in the labor market.
Compared to their relationship with the state institu-
tions, CSOs have more room to propose and innovate as
labor market actors, which is illustrated in the resilience
practices presented in Fig. 3. In addition, the lack of
financial dependence certainly plays a role, but it is also
clear that CSOs have understood the rules of the game. By
positioning themselves on an equal footing with labor
market actors and using their language, they demonstrate
that their public is a source of skills that are beneficial to
the various professional sectors.
Discussion and Concluding Remarks
As this case analysis shows, the external challenges faced
by CSOs in the field of migration in Geneva translate into
various forms of organizational vulnerability, which are
manifested in internal challenges examined through the
organizational features of the CSOs. However, as our
analysis emphasizes, CSOs’ organizational vulnerability
must be understood as the result of multiple interdepen-
dencies in a broader field. It is precisely by examining the
perceived interdependence between CSOs and state insti-
tutions that we highlight forms of vulnerability that local
actors see as having a direct impact on their organizational
practices, goals and scope. In contrast, by examining the
perceived interdependence of CSOs with labor market
actors, we show that the resulting forms of organizational
vulnerability are mostly seen by CSOs as an indirect source
of challenge or even a niche for opportunities.
Indeed, despite the relevant research on nonprofit
organizations that focuses on the increasingly contested
subsidiary welfare role of CSOs in Western European
countries (Baglioni, 2017; Pape et al., 2020), we show that
first, CSOs aiming at the professional integration of
migrants need to be discussed and examined as part of a
field. We therefore proposed to study CSOs interacting
with various actors in a common but not necessarily con-
sensual framework of strategic action (Fligstein & McA-
dam, 2012), in which collective actors are confronted with
competing and changing logics. Second, by studying CSOs
in a complex system of interdependencies—within a
field—we showed that organizational perceptions of vul-
nerability are central to the organizational resilience prac-
tices. Precisely, as shown in our study, CSOs do not
necessarily share a uniform understanding of challenges in
the field. These organizational actors perceive, process and
respond to their organizational vulnerability through their
own framing process (Goffman, 1974), according to their
rationale and sense-making. Moreover, CSOs are defined
by ‘‘what we are’’ and ‘‘what we do’’ (Glynn, 2017; Fer-
na
´ndez et al., 2020), so their perceptions or belief systems
are closely linked to their organizational strategies and
practices, which are ultimately the key resources through
which they build resilience.
Finally, research on the role of CSOs in migrants’ labor
integration remains much less explored. Our study con-
tributes to filling this gap by illustrating how in practical
terms CSOs position themselves as key drivers of migrant
labor integration in Geneva. The findings corroborate and
exemplify how associations undertake different roles when
they bring their organizational resilience practices to the
forefront. At the core of these practices, we show how
CSOs’ internal organizational characteristics, such as who
their beneficiaries are or what type of services they offer,
are resources to face external challenges on the field. In
fact, our analysis shows that CSOs are resilient to changing
logics in the field, adapting their network of collaborations
and developing new organizational practices. Through their
organizational perceptions, interviewees indicated their
uniqueness and complementarity with state institutions and
labor market actors. Hence, CSOs innovate and engage in
various roles to overcome their perceived organizational
vulnerability and propose new integration schemes for their
audiences.
Fig. 3 Challenges from labor market actors translate into internal challenges, addressed through resilience practices
Voluntas
123

Appendix
See Table 1.
Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial
support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article:
Results presented in this article have been obtained from the project
’Skills and Integration of Immigrants, Refugees and Asylum Appli-
cants in EU Labour Market’ research program H2020-SC6-REVI-
NEQUAL-2017, Project Reference: 770515.
References
Ambrosini, M., & Van der Leun, J. (2015). Introduction to the special
issue: Implementing human rights—Civil society and migration
policies. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies., 13(2),
103–115.
Baglioni, S. (2017). A remedy for all sins? Introducing a special issue
on social enterprises and welfare regimes in Europe. Voluntas:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,
28(6), 2325–2338.
Baglioni, S., & Giugni, M. (2014). Civil society organizations
unemployment, and precarity in Europe: Between service and
policy. Palgrave Macmillan.
Bankoff, G., Frerks, G., & Hilhorst, D. (Eds.). (2004). Mapping
vulnerability: Disasters, development and people. Earthscan.
Birkmann, J. (Ed.). (2006). Measuring vulnerability to natural
hazards: towards disaster resilient societies. United Nations
University.
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Wisner, B. (2003). At Risk.
Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and Disasters (2nd
edition). Routledge.
Bosi, L., & Zamponi, L. (2020). Paths toward the same form of
collective action: Direct social action in times of crisis in Italy.
Social Forces, 99(2), 847–869.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Qualitative research in psychology
using thematic analysis in psychology using thematic analysis in
psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Breton-Miller, I. L., & Miller, D. (2015). The paradox of resource
vulnerability: Considerations for organizational curatorship.
Strategic Management Journal, 36(3), 397–415.
Butschi, D., & Cattacin, S. (1993). The third sector in Switzerland:
The transformation of the subsidiarity principle. West European
Politics, 16(3), 362–379.
Table 1 List of the interviewees with information about internal
features: date of creation (divided into before and after 2009, a range
of 10 years before the interviews held in 2019), the main beneficiaries
(showing a specialization or a generalist orientation), their qualifica-
tions and as well as the range of services or activities proposed by the
CSOs (showing a specialization or a broad range of services offered)
Exists
since
Main beneficiaries Beneficiaries’
Qualifications
Range of services and activities
CSO7 \2009 Migrant women Qualified Oriented toward labor integration
CSO94 [2009 Migrants and asylum seekers Little qualified Various types of services (such as administrative support, legal
help and social integration)
CSO15 \2009 Migrant women Little qualified Basic skills, social integration and labor integration in low-
skilled jobs
CSO96 [2009 Any type of profile Little qualified Oriented toward labor integration
CSO97 \2009 Any type of profile Little qualified Basic skills, social integration and labor integration in low-
skilled jobs
CSO23 \2009 Any type of profile Little qualified Various types of services (such as administrative support, legal
help and social integration)
CSO71 \2009 Women All Various types of services (such as administrative support, legal
help and social integration)
CSO26 \2009 Any type of profile All Oriented toward labor integration
CSO42 [2009 Any type of profile All Oriented toward labor integration
CSO25 \2009 Asylum seekers and provisionally
admitted people
Little qualified Oriented toward labor integration
CSO29 \2009 Any type of profile All Various types of services (such as administrative support, legal
help and social integration)
CSO46 \2009 Migrants Little qualified Various types of services (such as administrative support, legal
help and social integration)
CSO95 [2009 Refugees Qualified Oriented toward labor integration
CSO36 [2009 Refugees Qualified Oriented toward labor integration
CSO98 \2009 Any type of profile All Oriented toward labor integration
Voluntas
123

C
ˇada, K., Numerato, D., & Hor
ˇenı
´, K. (2021). Those Who Pay the
Piper Calls the Tune: Meta-Organisation and Capacities of the
Third Sector in Migration Policies. Voluntas, 1–11.
Corry, O. (2010). Defining and theorizing the third sector. In R.
Taylor (Ed.), Third Sector Research (pp. 11–20). Springer.
della Porta, D. (2020). Building bridges: Social movements and civil
society in times of crisis. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 31(5), 938–948.
DiMaggio, P. (1986). Nonprofit enterprise in the arts: Studies in
mission and constraint. Oxford University Press.
Duchek, S. (2014). Growth in the face of crisis: The role of
organizational resilience capabilities. 74th Annual Meeting of the
Academy of Management, AOM 2014, 861–866.
Elsbach, K. D. (2003). Organizational Perception Management.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 25, 297–332.
Ferna
´ndez G. G. E., Lahusen, C., & Kousis, M. (2020). Does
organisation matter? Solidarity approaches among organisations
and sectors in Europe. Sociological Research Online, 26(3),
649–671. https://doi.org/10.1177/1360780420961402.
Ferna
´ndez G. G. E., Nicole-Berva, O., & Nadler, A.-L. (2021).
Organisational solidarity in Switzerland across fields: Interlink-
age between immigration and (Un)employment. In C. Lahusen,
U. Zschache, & M. Kousis (Eds.), Transnational solidarity in
times of crises. Citizen organisations and collective learning in
Europe (pp. 235–270). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-030-49659-3_9.
Fligstein, N. (1997). Social skill and institutional theory. American
Behavioral Scientist, 40(4), 397–405.
Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2012). A theory of fields. Oxford
University Press.
Forno, F., & Graziano, P. R. (2014). Sustainable community
movement organisations. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(2),
139–157.
Garkisch, M., Heidingsfelder, J., & Beckmann, M. (2017). Third
sector organizations and migration: A systematic literature
review on the contribution of third sector organizations in view
of flight migration and refugee crises. Voluntas, 28(5),
1839–1880.
Giugni, M., & Passy, F. (Eds.). (2001). Political altruism? Solidarity
movements in international perspective. Rowman & Littlefield.
Glynn, M. A. (2017). Theorizing the identity–institution relationship:
considering identity as antecedent to consequence of and
mechanism for processes of institutional change. In R. Green-
wood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence, & R. E. Meyer (Eds.), The
SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of
experience. Harvard University Press.
Gray, S. A., Gray, S., Cox, L. J., & Henly-Shepard, S. (2013). Mental
modeler: A fuzzy-logic cognitive mapping modeling tool for
adaptive environmental management. 46th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences.
Hall, P. A., & Lamont, M. (Eds.). (2013). Social Resilience in the
Neoliberal Era. Cambridge University Press.
Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in
fragmented societies (2nd editio). Palgrave Macmillan.
Hega, G. M. (2000). Federalism, subsidiarity and education policy in
Switzerland. Regional and Federal Studies, 10(1), 1–35.
Helmig, B., Gmu
¨r, M., Ba
¨rlocher, C., Schnurbein, G. Von, Degen, B.,
Nollert, M., Budowski, M., Sokolowski, W., & Salamon, L. M.
(2011). The Swiss Civil Society Sector in a Comparative
Perspective. In VMI research series (Vol. 6, Issue Vmi).
Home, J. F., & Orr, J. E. (1998). Assessing behaviors that create
resilient organizations. Employment Relations Today, 24(4),
29–39.
Horvath, A., Brandtner, C., & Powell, W. W. (2018). Serve or
conserve: Mission, strategy, and multi-level nonprofit change
during the great recession. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(5), 976–993.
Kaya, A., & Nagel, A. K. (2021). Politics of subsidiarity in refugee
reception: Comparative perspectives. Journal of Immigrant
& Refugee Studies, 19(3), 235–244.
Kimberlin, S. E., Schwartz, S. L., & Austin, M. J. (2011). Growth and
resilience of pioneering nonprofit human service organizations:
A cross-case analysis of organizational histories. Journal of
Evidence-Based Social Work, 8(1–2), 4–28.
Kousis, M., Giugni, M., & Lahusen, C. (2018). Action organization
analysis: Extending protest event analysis using hubs-retrieved
websites. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(6), 739–757.
Lahusen, C., Zschache, U., & Kousis, M. (Eds.). (2021). Transna-
tional Solidarity in Times of Crises. Citizen Organisations and
Collective Learning in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan.
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011).
Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through
strategic human resource management. Human Resource Man-
agement Review, 21(3), 243–255.
Mescoli, E., & Roblain, A. (2021). The ambivalent relations behind
civil society’s engagement in the ‘‘grey zones’’ of migration and
integration governance: Case studies from Belgium. Political
Geography, 91, 102477.
Meyer, M., & Simsa, R. (2018). Organizing the unexpected: How
civil society organizations dealt with the refugee crisis.
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, 29(6), 1159–1175.
Moon, K., Guerrero, A. M., Adams, V. M., Biggs, D., Blackman, D.
A., Craven, L., Dickinson, H., & Ross, H. (2019). Mental models
for conservation research and practice. Conservation Letters,
12(3), e12642.
Morales, L., & Giugni, M. (Eds.). (2011). Social capital, political
participation and migration in Europe: making multicultural
democracy work? Palgrave Macmillan.
Moulaert, F., & Ailenei, O. (2005). Social economy, third sector and
solidarity relations: A conceptual synthesis from history to
present. Urban Studies, 42(11), 2037–2053.
Pape, U., Brandsen, T., Pahl, J. B., Pielin
´ski, B., Baturina, D.,
Brookes, N., Chaves-A
´vila, R., Kendall, J., Matanc
ˇevic
´, J.,
Petrella, F., Rentzsch, C., Richez-Battesti, N., Savall-Morera, T.,
Simsa, R., & Zimmer, A. (2020). Changing policy environments
in europe and the resilience of the third sector. VOLUNTAS:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,
31(1), 238–249.
Pelling, M. (2003). The vulnerability of cities: Natural disasters and
social resilience. Earthscan.
Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. (1991). The new institutionalism in
organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press.
Powell, W., & Steinberg, R. (2006). The non-profit sector. Yale
University Press.
Probst, J., D’Amato, G., Dunning, S., Efionayi-Ma
¨der, D., Fehlmann,
J., Perret, A., Ruedin, D., & Sille, I. (2019). Marges de
manœuvre cantonales en mutation: politique migratoire en
Suisse.
Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests,
and identities (4th ed.). In Sage Publications.
Secre
´tariat d’Etat aux migrations (SEM). (2021). Agenda Inte
´gration
Suisse (AIS).https://www.sem.admin.ch/sem/fr/home/integra
tion-einbuergerung/integrationsfoerderung/kantonale-pro
gramme/integrationsagenda.html.
Strang, A., & Ager, A. (2010). Refugee integration: Emerging trends
and remaining agendas. Journal of Refugee Studies, 23(4),
589–607.
Voluntas
123

Uba, K., & Kousis, M. (2018). Constituency groups of alternative
action organizations during hard times: A comparison at the
solidarity orientation and country levels. American Behavioral
Scientist, 62(6), 816–836.
Warren, M. E. (2001). Democracy and association. Princeton
University Press.
Wisner, B. (2004). Assessment of capability and vulnerability. In G.
Bankoff, G. Frerks, & D. Hilhorst (Eds.), Mapping vulnerability:
Disasters, development and people (pp. 183–193). Routledge.
Witmer, H., & Mellinger, M. S. (2016). Organizational resilience:
Nonprofit organizations’ response to change. Work, 54(2),
255–265.
Wooten, M., & Hoffman, A. J. (2017). Organizational fields: Past
present and future. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, T. B. Lawrence,
& R. E. Meyer (Eds.), The handbook of organizational
institutionalism. SAGE Publications.
Wry, T., Lounsbury, M., & Glynn, M. A. (2011). Legitimating
nascent collective identities: Coordinating cultural entrepreneur-
ship. Organization Science, 22(2), 449–463.
Zschirnt, E., & Fibbi, R. (2019). Do Swiss citizens of immigrant origin
face hiring discrimination in the labour market? (Working
Paper). https://nccr-onthemove.ch/wp_live14/wp-content/
uploads/2019/02/nccrotm-WP20-Zschirnt-Fibbi_Feb19.pdf.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Voluntas
123