Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Is the research bet enough to be a prestigious university?
A Bourdieusian perspective on the business models of nonprofit
organizations
Auteur(s) :
Professeur Rachel Bocquet (3)
Docteur Gaelle Cotterlaz-Rannard (2)
Professeur Michel Ferrary (auteur-correspondant) (1)
Affiliation(s) :
(1) Université de Genève – Faculté d’Economie et Management & Skema Business School
(2) Université de Genève & Université Mont-Blanc Savoie
(3) Université Mont-Blanc Savoie
Coordonnées :
Université de Genève
Faculté d’Economie et Management
Boulevard du Pont d’Arve, 40
1211 Genève 4
Suisse
2
Is the research bet enough to be a prestigious university? A Bourdieusian perspective on
the business models of nonprofit organizations
ABSTRACT
Despite extensive research on business models, a research gap remains regarding the business
models of nonprofit organizations. The purpose of this paper is to connect both the literatures
of nonprofit and business models to provide a clear understanding and conceptualization of
nonprofit business models, particularly those of private, nonprofit American universities.
Building on the Bourdieusian theory of forms of capital, we propose an analytical framework
that places the achievement of social value for society at the forefront. We empirically test our
framework using an original database of 205 private, nonprofit American universities. We find
that the robustness and competitiveness of business models of nonprofit organizations rely on
the possession and the conversion of the four complementary forms of capital.
Keywords: business model, nonprofit organizations, Bourdieusian theory, symbolic capital,
social value
3
INTRODUCTION
The growing importance of nonprofit organizations (NPOs) in modern society1 has led to an
increase in scholarly attention paid to the nonprofit sector (Lu, 2018). Despite numerous studies
of the nonprofit sector, few have focused on the business models of these organizations.
Research in the business model literature remains focused primarily on the for-profit sector,
with only ancillary attention paid to the unique characteristics and issues faced by nonprofit
entities. Contrary to for-profit organizations (FPOs), NPOs do not operate to earn profit for
shareholders but rather to serve society as a whole by achieving a social purpose (Moore, 2000).
Despite critical issues facing the nonprofit sector, we know little about the business models of
nonprofit organizations.
To date, studies of business models still focus on economic value creation as the end
and essence of FPO business models (Chesbrough, 2007; Johnson, Christensen, & Kagermann,
2008; Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010; Teece, 2010), although sustainable business model
perspectives include environmental and social values along with the economic (Schaltegger,
Hansen, & Lüdeke-Freund, 2016). Some scholars have emphasized the specific characteristics
of NPOs due to the distinctive priorities of their business models, contrasting starkly with those
of FPOs (Brehmer, Podoynitsyna, & Langerak, 2018). NPOs follow a logic of proposing,
creating, and capturing social value as the ultimate goal (e.g., Moore, 2000). The final value
delivered by the nonprofit sector is the achievement of its social purpose (Oster, 1995), while
economic value is merely one of the ways to achieve this goal. We support this analysis wherein
nonprofit organizations are specific and distinctive from for-profit organizations since they
reverse the ends and means. We therefore propose addressing two main questions: what are the
business models of nonprofit organizations, and how do NPOs capture value to sustain their
business models and achieve their social purposes?
The purpose of this paper is to connect nonprofit and business model research to provide
a clear understanding and conceptualization of the business models of NPOs. In so doing, we
place an emphasis on the social purposes of NPOs, relegating economic value to a secondary
position as a means to achieve an NPO’s social objectives. To respond to the theoretical gap,
we rely on Bourdieu’s theory of the four forms of capital (i.e., economic, social, cultural and
symbolic) to understand the accumulation and conversion among the four forms of capital in
the nonprofit context. Economic capital can be converted into cultural and social capital and
vice versa and then into symbolic capital, thereby legitimatizing the entity and, in turn,
permitting it to further accumulate economic, cultural and social capital, creating a sustainable
competitive advantage.
We empirically test our conceptualization using a specific category of NPOs, namely,
private nonprofit American universities. By definition, nonprofit American universities are not-
for-profit institutions of higher education, the main mission of which is to ensure high quality
in teaching, learning and research. This subclass of NPOs faces a number of interesting issues,
including how to best develop sustainable business models that can also maintain global
competitiveness, academic excellence, and prestige (Crow & Dabars, 2015). Another vital
question is what makes some universities more prestigious than others and how prestige
contributes to a competitive advantage. Harvard University, for example, is a prestigious
university that has remained at the top of all academic rankings since the first publication of
1 According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS), more than 1.5 million nonprofit organizations (NPOs) are
registered in the U.S., playing an increasingly prominent role in the economy, politics and society. Nonprofit organizations
accounted for 5.5% of the gross domestic product in 2014 (i.e., the equivalent of $805 billion) and represented the third largest
workforce, behind the retail and manufacturing industries.
4
such rankings2. How has Harvard University become one of the most prestigious universities
in the world, and how has it managed to maintain its prestige and competitive advantage over
the past forty years? Despite considerable discussion of the challenges facing higher education,
the business models of universities remain underresearched (Miller, McAdam, & McAdam,
2014). With an original database of 205 private nonprofit American universities constituted
from distinct sources, we implement a method in a two-step procedure with instrumental
variables. In the first step, we estimate a Tobit model to understand the conversion mechanism
among economic, social and cultural capital at the origin of the prestige of universities. In the
second step, three regression models that allow us to assess the effect of prestige to sustain an
organization’s business model and hence its competitive advantage.
This study contributes to the business model and nonprofit literature. First, our results
enrich the business model literature by providing a more holistic analysis of the concept of
value. We propose a conceptualization of the business model of nonprofit organizations from a
new standpoint—that of the articulation of creation and the capture of value. From this
standpoint, economic value is not seen as an end in and of itself but rather as a means to create
social value to achieve a noneconomic purpose. NPO business models contrast with those of
FPOs by reversing the relationship between aims and means. For NPOs, economic capital is
used to support the organization toward social impact and social recognition. For FPOs, socially
responsible behavior is an instrument for increasing corporate reputation (symbolic capital) to
increase profit. We show the complexity of the business model of NPOs, wherein the
sustainability of competitive advantage lies in the ability to accumulate and convert forms of
capital. The robustness and competitiveness of business model of NPOs rely on the
accumulation and the conversion of the four complementary, interdependent and not
substitutable forms of capital. Our research also reveals that a large stock of symbolic capital
allows these to capture value to improve its competitive advantage and to sustain its business
model and thereby achieve its social mission. One of the critical factors is the ability to convert
symbolic capital into economic, social and cultural capital, supporting the sustainability of
NPOs business models.
Second, our study contributes to the nonprofit literature by bringing the interests of
NPOs to the foreground. NPOs are not simply viewed as key stakeholders in interactions with
firms but rather are placed as the central focus of our research. Through Bourdieu’s theory of
forms of capital, we show how NPOs with a large stock of symbolic capital are able to capture
value, create competitive advantage and then sustain their business models. Our study also
offers managerial implications that could assist nonprofit university presidents and boards in
defining the appropriate strategies to sustain their business models by maintaining the dynamics
of conversion and accumulation.
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1. Business models of for-profit organizations: from conventional to sustainable
business models
The concept of the business model gained popularity in the 1990s (Zott, Amit, & Massa, 2011)
and quickly became a mainstream concept in both academia and business practices (Pedersen,
Gwozdz, & Hvass, 2018). As noted by Teece (2010, p. 172), the essence of the business model
is “in defining the manner by which the enterprise delivers value to customers, entices
customers to pay for value, and converts those payments to profit.” More generally, “a business
model is a description of an organization and how that organization function in achieving its
2 The oldest and most popular academic ranking in the US is the U.S. News and World Report, the first ranking of
which was published in 1983 (https://www.usnews.com).
5
goals (e.g., profitability, growth, etc.)” (Massa, Tucci, & Afuah, 2017, p. 73). Scholars have
studied business models from two main perspectives, based on the interpretations of the means
and uses employed in each (Massa et al., 2017): the conventional and sustainable perspectives.
The conventional business model perspective has historically focused on business
models as profit oriented, and indeed, economic value creation is the dominant and
homogeneous value from the standpoint of the customer and the firm (Laasch, 2018;
Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010; Pedersen et al., 2018). From this perspective, Richardson (2008,
p. 135) proposed that a business model is: “a conceptual framework that helps to link the firm’s
strategy, or theory of how to compete, to its activities, or execution of the strategy. The business
model framework can help to think strategically about the details of the way the firm does
business.” Three major components make up the architecture of the conventional business
model: the value proposition (i.e., what the firm will deliver to its customers); the value creation
and delivery system (i.e., how the firm will create and deliver this value to its customer); and
the value capture system (i.e., how the firm generates revenue and profit) (Richardson, 2008;
Zott et al., 2011). Within the conventional perspective, the business model is primarily focused
on profit creation (Osterwalder, 2004); a firm’s only responsibility is to increase shareholder
profit (Friedman, 1970). However, with the emergence of corporate social responsibility (CSR),
firms are no longer able to focus solely on profit maximization for their shareholders but must
also provide social benefits to their stakeholders (Laasch, 2018). Both political and societal
pressures have led to the reshaping of conventional business models to address broader
challenges and integrate the consideration of social, environmental, and governance issues,
thereby generating value for all relevant stakeholders (Bocken, Rana, & Short, 2015; Demil &
Lecocq, 2010; Yip & Bocken, 2018).
Achieving sustainable development has become one of the main issues facing modern
society (Brundtland, 1987; Jansen, 2003). The need for corporate sustainability has pushed
firms from a sole focus on profit maximization toward accepting the role of socially and
environmentally responsible entities in society (Freeman, Wicks, & Parmar, 2004; Mitchell,
Agle, & Wood, 1997). Integrating new responsibilities, firms must not only provide economic
value creation for shareholders but must combine it with social and sustainable value for all
relevant stakeholders (Bocken, Boons, & Baldassarre, 2019; Laasch, 2018; Pedersen et al.,
2018). Since the sustainable business model focuses on stakeholder benefit and value, rather
than solely on customer benefit and/or shareholder value, the business model definition had to
be clarified (Geissdoerfer, Vladimirova, & Evans, 2018) by asking again what the business
models are and what they must entail (Bocken et al., 2015; Duke, 2016).
In general terms, Lüdeke-Freund (2010) defined a sustainable business model as the
creation of competitive advantage through superior customer value while contributing to
sustainable development for the firm and society. Later, Schaltegger et al. (2016) and Bocken,
Short, Rana and Evans (2013) stated that sustainable business models create other forms of
value by integrating social, environmental and business activities for a broader range of
stakeholders. Geissdoerfer et al. (2018, p. 1219) proposed an accepted definition of the
sustainable business model as “a simplified representation of the elements, the interrelation
between these elements, and the interactions with its stakeholders that an organizational unit
uses to create, deliver, capture, and exchange sustainable value for, and in collaboration with,
a broad range of stakeholders.”
In contrast to the conventional perspective, sustainable business models include the
introduction of characteristics and purposes related to sustainability and the integration of
sustainability issues into value proposition, value creation and value capture (Geissdoerfer et
al., 2018). First, value creation is no longer only for the firm and its customer but also for its
whole range of stakeholders (Angot & Plé, 2015; Geissdoerfer et al., 2018; Joyce & Paquin,
2016; Schaltegger et al., 2016). Second, a more holistic view of the concept of value is required
6
to simultaneously integrate “sustainable value creation” and “economic value creation” (e.g.,
Bocken et al., 2015). Third, the notion of the sustainable business model is increasingly seen as
a source of competitive advantage (Nidumolu, Prahalad, & Rangaswami, 2009; Porter &
Kramer, 2011), although the way in which value creation and value capture are articulated with
competitive advantage remains an open debate (Demil, Lecocq, & Warnier, 2018).
To date, research has largely neglected how economic value creation is balanced with
environmental and social value creation (Boons & Lüdeke-Freund, 2013). The sustainable
business model perspective permits the extension of the value concept to a broader perimeter
of stakeholders, which can help to capture the full range of organizational business models and
value logic through a compromise between profit equation and societal values (Arend, 2013).
However, despite significant improvements, the sustainable business model perspective
remains generally focused on for-profit organizations. Even for responsible FPOs, economic
value creation remains the ultimate goal; social value creation is meant to contribute to this
economic value creation and, at the same time, to respond to consumer demands. Some firms
go to the extent of “greenwashing” to appear more environmentally friendly than they truly are
to increase their profits. The motto “doing well at doing good” illustrates this causality (Porter,
2007).
Research in business models for NPOs has raised different issues around the
reconsideration of both the conventional and sustainable perspectives. First, the dynamics of
purpose and means are disrupted; NPO business models reverse this causality by placing social
purpose first and viewing economic value creation as merely a means to achieve this ultimate
purpose (Moore, 2000). Second, research on business models from conventional and
sustainable perspectives does not take consider the most important features of nonprofit
organizations: (i) the value created by NPOs, which lies in the achievement of noneconomic
goals; (ii) the complexity of the environment, i.e., dependence on external donors; and (iii) the
complexity of its stakeholders; i.e., donors can be different from beneficiaries (Foster, Kim, &
Christiansen, 2009; Moore, 2000).
1.2. Business models of nonprofit organizations
Due to their specificities, nonprofit organizations constitute a specific class in terms of business
model development (Brehmer et al., 2018; Dahan, Doh, Oetzel, & Yaziji, 2010; Yunus,
Moingeon, & Lehmann-Ortega, 2010). NPOs are distinct from FPOs; they do not have arm-
length relationships with their customers. Recipients of NPO services do not pay
conventionally. The main differences between NPOs and FPOs are found in their sources of
revenue (i.e., strong links with external donors: the public, citizens, enterprises and
foundations), their purposes (i.e., sustainable value creation for society) and their stakeholders
(i.e., donors who can be different from beneficiaries), all of which create specific challenges
and risks (Banks, Hulme, & Edwards, 2015; Cotterlaz-Rannard, Bocquet, & Ferrary, 2017;
Moore, 2000) (see Table 1) and imply a reconceptualization of existing theoretical business
model frameworks.
------------------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
------------------------------------
Although some scholars have been interested in the integration of business tools into
NPOs by showing the opportunities for and challenges to the nonprofit sector (Bromley &
Meyer, 2017; Chad, Kyriazis, & Motion, 2013; Kolk & Lenfant, 2016; Petitgand, 2018), there
remain very few academic studies about NPOs in the business model literature. The
opportunities are related to the generation of revenue, and the challenges are linked to changes
in the environment for NPOs (Bocken et al., 2019; Easterly & Miesing, 2009). Other scholars
7
have attempted to focus more on defining and characterizing the business models of NPOs
(Foster et al., 2009; Maguire, 2009). Bocken et al. (2019) recognized that NPOs have their own
business models, and Weisbrod (1998) suggested that NPOs have different business models
according to the heterogeneous nature of the nonprofit sector. Moore (2000) insisted on the
specific characteristics of the nonprofit sector compared to the for-profit sector. He asserted
that economic value might be needed to accomplish the missions of the NPOs, but the ultimate
purpose is not financial (Bryce, 2017). He pointed out that missions are not about revenue
creation but about value creation, as defined by the social mission of the NPO (Moore, 2000).
Foster et al. (2009) attempted to characterize the business models of NPOs by analyzing, in
detail, their funding structure. To discuss the business models of NPOs, they proposed using
“funding models” because, for them, the structure of an NPO business model is closely linked
to its funding structure. Foster et al. (2009) defined NPO funding models based on key features
of the nonprofit sector. The first feature is that beneficiaries are not customers. For FPOs, firms
create value for customers, and customers pay for the value. In contrast, in the nonprofit sector,
NPOs find a way to create value for beneficiaries, but beneficiaries do not pay for the value that
they capture. Therefore, the value proposition for NPOs is twofold: the first one is related to
their activities (i.e., social purpose); and the second one is linked to the donors (i.e., funding
structure). Chad et al. (2013) also showed that NPOs have more stakeholders than FPOs,
creating a more complex set of requirements in their business models (Maguire, 2009).
In addition to the studies of NPO business models, some scholars have investigated
business models in the specific context of partnerships between NPOs and FPOs. A large part
of these studies have focused on how the collaboration between NPOs and FPOs creates
sustainable and economic value, as well as how these values are transferred between the
organizations (e.g., Dahan et al., 2010; Le Ber & Branzei, 2010; Yunus et al., 2010, Austin,
2000). These studies are helpful for better understanding the various types of values available
(e.g., economic, social and environmental) and the mechanism of value transfer; however, the
results remain tied to the particular context of the partnerships.
These existing studies of NPOs and business models have revealed the features that
distinguish the nonprofit from for-profit sector, particularly emphasizing social value creation
as the ultimate purpose of NPOs. However, a research gap remains regarding the articulation
between value creation and value capture for these specific organizations. In fact, studies have
demonstrated the twofold nature of value proposition in current business practices, but the
existing literature has not provided a conceptualization of NPOs business models considering
their specificities. In response to this theoretical gap, adopting the Bourdieusian theory on the
accumulation and conversion of the forms of capital (i.e., economic, social, cultural, and
symbolic capital), we propose a conceptual framework for understanding and analyzing the
business models of NPOs. First, the Bourdieusian theory emphasizes the social purpose of
NPOs, relegating economic capital to a secondary position as a means of achieving a social
purpose. Second, this theory of forms of capital broadens the meaning of the concept of value,
as well as the articulation between value creation and value capture.
2. A BOURDIEUSIAN PERSPECTIVE ON THE BUSINESS MODELS OF
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS
2.1. Bourdieu’s theory of forms of capital
The Bourdieusian perspective could provide a useful framework for a better understanding of
NPO business models through examination of the way in which different forms of capital are
accumulated and converted. The anthropologist Alan Smart saw the Bourdieusian perspective
as a useful tool for mediating business and social perspectives: “One of the most influential
8
efforts to reintegrate social and economic analysis has been Pierre Bourdieu’s theoretical
project to develop a general science of the economy of practices. Such a science would
recognize market exchange and capitalist production, or the economic in a narrower sense, as
only a particular type of economic practice and would explore the conversions that occur
between the economic and noneconomic (…)” (Smart, 1993, p. 388–389). By explicitly
incorporating noneconomic capital (i.e., social, cultural and symbolic), Bourdieu’s theory
makes it possible to prioritize noneconomic capital, which is the core value for NPOs.
According to Bourdieu (1986, p. 81), to understand the way in which the social world
functions, we must consider capital in all its forms and purposes rather than focusing only on
those recognized by economic theory and efficiency-based perspectives on strategy. Bourdieu’s
theory of capital is broader than the monetary notion of capital in economics; in his view, capital
is a generalized “resource” that can take various forms (i.e., monetary, nonmonetary, tangible,
and intangible forms) and can require various periods of time to accumulate (Bourdieu, 1986,
p. 243). As noted by Bourdieu (1979), capital is a social relationship and a resource that
provides holders with power and an advantageous position in the field in which it is produced
and reproduced.
Bourdieu (1986, 1993) proposed four distinct forms of capital: economic, social,
cultural and symbolic. Economic capital refers to financial resources, such as monetary income,
with which other forms of capital can be acquired and developed (Bourdieu, 1986). According
to Wacquant (1987), Bourdieu’s definition of economic capital is similar to that of Marx (e.g.,
Marx, 1867); both defined it as money, commodities, means of material production, and other
material assets. Economic capital retains the traditional meaning of mercantile exchange of
capital in Bourdieu’s sociology (Yang, 2014). The second form of capital is social capital,
which aggregates the actual or potential resources related to the possession of a durable network
of more or less institutionalized relationships (Bourdieu, 1986). That is, it is the sum of actual
and potential resources that can be mobilized through membership in social networks of actors
and organizations (Anheier, Gerhards, & Romo, 1995). Because social capital is the nexus of
an organization’s relationships with other persons and organizations, “the volume of social
capital possessed by a given agent depends on the size of the network of connections he can
effectively mobilize and on the volume of the capital (economic, cultural or symbolic) possessed
in his own right by each of those to whom he is connected” (Bourdieu 1986, p. 249). Third,
Bourdieu (1986) conceptualized cultural capital with three dimensions. The first is the
embodied form: cultural capital consists of permanent dispositions in the individual person.
Bourdieu (1986, p. 83) defined it as long-lasting dispositions of the mind and body. The second
is the objectified state: cultural capital is defined as cultural goods, such as pictures, books,
instruments, etc. The last is the institutionalized state: cultural capital consists of educational
qualifications, such as academic degrees.
Finally, the fourth form is symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1993, p. 37), which is “being
known and recognized and is more or less synonymous with: standing, good name, honor, fame,
prestige and reputation.” Symbolic capital is the social recognition (prestige) related to the
possession of one or all three other forms of capital; it also contributes to their accumulation.
For Bourdieu (1993, p. 7), symbolic capital is “a degree of accumulated prestige … and is
founded on a dialectic of knowledge and recognition.” It confers a benefit or credit “in the
broadest sense, a kind of advantage, a credence, that only the group’s belief can grant to those
who give it the best symbolic and material guarantees, it can be seen that the exhibition of
symbolic capital which is always expensive in material terms” (Bourdieu, 1993, p. 120). As
noted by Bourdieu (1980, p. 262), symbolic capital would always guarantee economic resources
over the long term. Symbolic capital might be the most important form of capital, because its
possession enhances and legitimizes the accumulation of all other forms of capital, particularly
economic capital (Pret, Shaw, & Drakopoulou Dodd, 2016).
9
2.2. A Bourdieusian perspective on the business models of NPOs
Connecting the Bourdieusian theory with business model research could be key to
understanding the business models of NPOs. Using the Bourdieusian theory allows us to
emphasize the social purposes of NPOs, relegating economic capital to a secondary position as
a means to achieve social purposes for society. In contrast to the business models of FPOs, in
which the ultimate purpose is the creation and capture of economic value (and to a lesser extent
social value), the aim in the business models of NPOs is the creation of social value. The
creation of social value then allows the organization to capture economic value to sustain their
business models and to achieve their noneconomic purposes. Below, we explain this conceptual
model of the business models of NPOs.
At first, the challenge for NPOs is to accumulate economic, social, cultural and symbolic
capital, which can all be converted from one into another (see Figure 1); i.e., each form also has
the potential to be convertible (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 2013). A large stock of the three forms
of capital (i.e., economic, social and cultural) can them be converted into symbolic capital. A
large stock of symbolic capital helps to legitimize and further accumulate the other forms of
capital (i.e., economic, social and cultural), enabling NPOs to capture value and sustain their
business models. The capture of value is determined by the stock of symbolic capital, itself
resulting from the conversion of other forms of capital (i.e., economic, social and cultural). A
large stock of symbolic capital can in turn be converted to capture value, which permits NPOs
to become more competitive and sustain their business models. The forms of capital are thus
complementary, interdependent and not substitutable, and the robustness of the NPO business
model is reliant on the ability to accumulate and convert the forms of capital. Within this
perspective, the sustainable competitive advantage could rely on two linked phases: (i) the
accumulation and conversion of the three forms of capital (i.e., economic, social and cultural)
into symbolic capital; and (ii) value capture through the conversion of symbolic capital into
economic, social and cultural capital to ensure the sustainability of their business models.
------------------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
------------------------------------
2.3. The Bourdieusian perspective on the business models of private nonprofit universities
We propose a study of private nonprofit universities, a subclass of NPOs, because of the
interesting issues involved; higher education faces many challenges regarding global
competitiveness, academic excellence, prestige, and new forms of learning (Crow & Dabars,
2015). We start by asking what makes some universities more prestigious than others, how
leading universities maintain their position as “dominant players,” and how prestige contributes
to a sustainable competitive advantage. Harvard University, for example, has maintained a top
position in all academic rankings since such rankings first started being published (Li, Shankar,
& Tang, 2011). Since the first edition in 1983 of the U.S. News and World Report ranking,
Harvard University has been one of the top ranked universities alongside Stanford University,
Yale University and Princeton University, but Harvard University has ranked number 1 the
most times3. How has Harvard University managed to maintain its prestige and competitive
advantage over the past forty years? Despite these major issues and pressing questions, the
business models of universities, particularly nonprofit universities, remain underresearched
(Miller et al., 2014).
3 From 1983 to 2019, Harvard University was ranked first more than 20 times, considering that the first three
rankings (1983, 1985 and 1987) occurred every three years (https://www.usnews.com).
10
By definition, nonprofit American universities are not-for-profit institutions of higher
education, under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code (i.e., exempt from
income tax). Nonprofit universities are governed by a president and a board of directors. For
example, Harvard University has two governing boards – the President and Fellows of Harvard
College; and the Board of Overseers, the essential role of which is to assure that Harvard
remains true to its mission. According to the current President of Harvard (Lawrence S. Bacow),
“the University mission is to provide excellence in teaching, learning and research and to
develop leaders across disciplines who make a positive difference in the world.”4 The
overarching raison d’être of nonprofit universities is their noneconomic purpose, expressed
through educational and research goals. Understanding the business models of nonprofit
universities is important, and the current challenges facing universities are part of a wider
national discussion about higher education. Universities are looking toward sustainable
business models to maintain the status quo and seek prestige while also ensuring academic
excellence and global competitiveness (Crow & Dabars, 2015).
As noted by Marginson (2006), universities can be divided into three categories. The
first category, “elite research universities,” is characterized by high research productivity, high
quality students and highly competitive admissions. The second category is made up of
“aspirant research universities,” which attempt to gain access to the first segment. The last
category includes “teaching-focused universities,” formed by high student volumes and low
research productivity. Within the Bourdieusian theory of forms of capital, we propose a more
refined breakdown of universities according to their ability to convert different forms of capital.
To provide a first illustration, let us consider the example of Harvard University.
Harvard is part of the Ivy League (i.e., elite research universities) and has managed to maintain
its leading position in higher education and research. According to the US News and World
Report “Global Universities Ranking,” Harvard University achieves number one most of the
times, and it has appeared as a stable, dominant player over the past forty years. Harvard
University has the largest endowment compared to other private and nonprofit American
universities ($34,58 billion5 in 2016). It is also the best regarding research productivity (411,671
publications in ranked journals from 1900 to 2016 and 5,986 highly cited articles6). Similarly,
Harvard is in first placed regarding the number of alumni on LinkedIn (245,863 in 2018)
compared to other nonprofit American universities. As a dominant player, Harvard University
captures value through high tuitions costs (more $51,000 in 2018-2019), being highly selective
(selection rate of 5% for 2018-2019) and attracting the finest graduate students (67% of
graduate students for 2018-2019). By recruiting the best students, the university is betting on a
future investment. After graduating, alumni are able to donate to their university. Harvard
alumnus John Paulson is a salient example. Paulson earned a business degree from Harvard in
1980 and in 2015, as a hedge fund manager, made a $400,000,000 donation to his alma mater,
the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS), renamed the Harvard John A. Paulson
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. At a conference on campus he said, “Today is an
opportunity to thank Harvard.”7 According to Nitin Nohria, dean of the Harvard Business
School: “this gift will be the cornerstone for a Harvard campus in Allston where multiple
disciplines can converge and combine their passion for knowledge, unleashing discovery in
ways that truly benefit society and the world”(e.g., The Harvard Gazette, News and
Announcements, June 3 2015). Paulson’s gift came at a time of great opportunity for SEAS: it
added a master’s program in computational science and engineering, the faculty has grown by
4 https://www.harvard.edu/president 5 Data sources indicated in Appendix 1 6 Data from ISI Web of Knowledge 7 More information at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/04/hedge-fund-boss-john-paulson-gives-
a-record-400m-donation-to-harvard
11
nearly 30%, and the school was planning expansion into an Allston campus8 in 2020. In Allston,
SEAS will be at the center of a community of entrepreneurs and innovators alongside Harvard
Business School (HBS) and the Harvard Innovative Lab (i-lab)9. Alumni can also be important
resources in the development of academic research (i.e., access to data, case studies, etc.) and
promotion of the university within their networks. In addition to having an online directory,
which includes records for alumni from all of Harvard’s schools, Harvard University has
prominent and prestigious Harvard alumni, such as ex-presidents, U.S. Senators, Governors,
and Supreme Court Justice and Pulitzer Prize and Nobel Prize laureates, among others.
However, not all universities are “best in class.” Some universities seem to fail in the
accumulation and conversion of forms of capital. Mc Kendree University is one example among
others. Founded in 1828, Mc Kendree University is not recognized as a research university.
With regard to the US News and World Report “Global Universities Ranking,” Mc Kendree
University is not classified in the top 300 universities. In 2016, Mc Kendree University had a
low endowment stock (of $35,000,000) compared to other private and nonprofit universities, it
had no papers in ranked academic journals and, there were only 10,260 alumni on LinkedIn.
Mc Kendree University also has low tuition costs (approximately $29,420 for full-time tuition
in 2018-2019) and a low selection rate (of approximately 62%), and fewer than 20% of students
were in graduate programs in 2018-2019. With this example, we illustrate how Mc Kendree
University has accumulated a low stock of economic, social and cultural capital, impeding its
ability to accumulate symbolic capital, thereby compromising its capacity over the long term to
capture value and sustain its business model. Following our Bourdieusian perspective, our
objective is thus to show how the ability of universities to accumulate and convert symbolic
capital is a critical factor that supports the sustainability of the NPO business model.
Therefore, we propose to test the following hypotheses (see Figure 2):
Hypothesis (H1). There exist different categories of nonprofit universities according to
their stock of economic, social and cultural capital.
Hypothesis (H1a). High status universities are those that have a large stock of
economic, social and cultural capital.
Hypothesis (H1b). Intermediary status universities are those that have a
medium stock of economic, social and cultural capital.
Hypothesis (H1c). Low status universities are those that have a low stock of
economic, social and cultural capital.
Hypothesis (H2). The more that nonprofit universities have converted economic, social
and cultural capital; the higher that their stock of symbolic capital will be.
Hypothesis (H3). The higher that their symbolic capital is, the more robust, competitive
and sustainable that their BM will be.
Hypothesis (H3a). Nonprofit universities capture value by converting their
symbolic capital into economic capital through higher tuition costs.
Hypothesis (H3b). Nonprofit universities capture value by converting their
symbolic capital into social capital by being highly selective.
Hypothesis (H3c). Nonprofit universities capture value by converting their
symbolic capital into cultural capital by attracting graduate students.
------------------------------------
Insert Figure 2 about here
------------------------------------
8 Beginning in 2020, the Harvard Paulson School of Engineering and Applied Sciences will expand into a purpose-
built facility in Allston with a 500,000-square foot complex for learning labs, marker space, faculty labs and
community space) (e.g., https://allston.seas.harvard.edu/) 9 More information on The Harvard Gazette available at https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/06/harvard-
receives-its-largest-gift/
12
3. EMPIRICAL METHODOLOGY
3.1. Sample and data
The empirical methodology for this study focuses on American private nonprofit universities
as a subclass of NPOs. According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, American
nonprofit universities represent almost 17,1% of NPOs, they are the second class of NPOs in
terms of representativeness, and their essential value, as well as their business models, remain
underresearched (Miller et al., 2014). We constructed an original and unique database using a
list of American universities and colleges provided by the National Association of College and
University Business Officers (NACUBO) in 2016. NACUBO is a membership organization
representing colleges and universities across the United States. The association’s mission is to
advance economic viability, business practices and support for higher education institutions in
fulfillment of their missions10. Each year, NACUBO publishes the study “NACUBO-TIAA
Study of Endowments (NTSE)” on the endowments of U.S. colleges and universities and
affiliated foundations. In 2016, this list included a total of 815 institutions, among which 214
were private nonprofit universities (the rest being public American universities or American
colleges). From September to December 2018, for each university, we carefully checked
various databases, such as US News and World Report (USNWR), Census Bureau,
PrepScholar, ISI Web of Knowledge and LinkedIn. From the population of 214 American
private nonprofit universities, we were able to obtain complete data for 205 institutions, which
constitute our sample with a coverage rate of 95%.
3.2. Empirical procedures
In a preliminary step, we ran a classification procedure to identify the different categories of
American nonprofit universities according to their stocks of economic, social and cultural
capital (H1).Then, we followed a two-step procedure. In the first step, we used a Tobit model
with instrumental variables to assess the ability of the different universities’ categories to
convert their economic, social and cultural capital into symbolic capital (H2). In the second
step, we ran regression models to examine the extent to which universities can capture value
from their symbolic capital (H3) and thus sustain their business models.
We chose a two-step procedure with instrumental variables (Heckman, 1979) to control
for the endogeneity due to the simultaneous causality of our model11 (Certo, Busenbark, Woo,
& Semadeni, 2016, Kennedy, 2008). To address this endogeneity bias, we sought an
instrumental variable that fulfills two main conditions (Semadeni, Withers, & Trevis Certo,
2014): (i) its relevance; i.e., there is a strong fit between the endogenous variable and the
instrument; and (ii) its exogeneity; i.e., the only role of the instrument is to influence the
dependent variable through its effect on the endogenous variable. In practice, the instrumental
variable is also not correlated with the outcome variable in the second step (Mehta, 2015).
We started with the description of the variables used first in the Tobit model (first step)
and second in the regression models (second step). Appendices 1 and 2 provide descriptions of
the definitions of the variables, summary statistics and correlations.
10 https://www.nacubo.org/who-we-are/about-nacubo 11 The causality could run in both directions, from the independent variable (status differentiated) to the dependent
variable (symbolic capital) and from the dependent variable (symbolic capital) to the independent variable (status
differentiated).
13
- Measures used in the Tobit model (first step)
Dependent variable. With the dependent variable Symbolic Capital, we measured the prestige
of American non-profit universities using the US News and World Report ranking (USNWR).
Some authors have proposed that university rankings might be an appropriate proxy (e.g.,
Amsler & Bolsmann, 2012; Marginson & Van der Wende, 2007; Volkwein & Sweitzer, 2006),
but few studies have measured the prestige of universities. Volkwein and Sweitzer (2006)
operationalized it by focusing on the scoring of the US News and World Report ranking
(USNWR). The USNWR ranking is most frequently used in the U.S. because it was the first
popular survey there. Since the first edition in 1983, the US News and World Report ranking
has expanded and incorporated more "objective" indicators of academic and institutional
standing (Myers & Robe, 2009). In this study, we examined the “Best Global Universities”
ranking published by US News and World Report12 in 2018 to establish a symbolic capital
indicator for American nonprofit universities from the total score for each university (from 0,
universities with no prestige and from 100, the most prestigious ones).
Independent variables. Based on Bourdieu’s model, economic capital, social capital and
cultural capital are complementary forms of capital. With a nonhierarchical cluster analysis, we
expected to find three categories of nonprofit American universities (H1a, H1b and H1c)
according to their stocks of economic, social and cultural capital. We operationalized these
three forms of capital as follows.
(i) Economic capital. In accordance with previous studies (e.g., Brint, 2005; O’shea,
Allen, Chevalier, & Roche, 2005; Pfeffer & Fong, 2004; Smith & Smith, 2016), we
measured economic capital with the stock of endowment of each university in 2016.
Previous studies have indicated that the stock of endowment represents an important
part of the operating budget, and it constitutes the major financial reserve for
nonprofit universities (e.g., O’shea et al., 2005; Pfeffer & Fong, 2004; Smith &
Smith, 2016).
(ii) Social capital. We measured social capital by the number of alumni on the LinkedIn
web page of each university. Consistent with Utz and Breuer (2019) LinkedIn (as
social media platform) is an interesting and powerful tool for building new
relationships to expand one’s network. Robertson and Komljenovic (2016) revealed
that universities have become reliant on LinkedIn, especially in their work with
alumni.
(iii) Cultural capital. Following previous studies (e.g., Durand & Dameron, 2011;
Jensen & Wang, 2018; Volkwein & Sweitzer, 2006), we measured cultural capital
using the number of academic publications in ranked journals from the ISI Web of
Knowledge database in 2016. Data by bibliometrics are more objective than peer
review, and the ISI database constitutes the best available measure of capital
productivity (Volkwein & Sweitzer, 2006).
To determine the final number of clusters, we used three criteria: statistical accuracy,
measured by the ratio of within-cluster to between-clusters variance (Fisher’s test); the number
of American nonprofit universities per cluster; and the significance of the clusters identified.
Three clusters emerge in the best version (see Appendix 3) supporting Hypothesis 1. The first
12 The methodology to estimate the scoring depends on three main criteria: (i) reputation indicators (25%) resulting
from Clarivate Analytics’ Academic Reputation Survey, which aimed to create a comprehensive snapshot of
opinions held by academics about universities; (ii) bibliometric indicators (65%) based on the Web of Science
regarding publications, books, conferences, citation impact, total citations, number of publications most cited, and
international collaboration; and (iii) scientific excellence indicators (10%) based on the number of highly cited
papers, the percentage of highly cited papers and the overall global scores using a combination of the score of
reputation and bibliometric indicators. For more details about the methodology, all of the indicators are available
at the US News web page (https://www.usnews.com/education/best-global-universities/articles/methodology).
14
profile, called “high status,” comprises American nonprofit universities with a large stock of
economic, social and cultural capital. The second profile, called “intermediary status,” includes
nonprofit American universities with a medium stock of economic, social and cultural capital.
The last profile, called “low status,” is formed by universities with a low stock of economic,
social and cultural capital. We denoted these three independent variables high_status,
intermediary_status, and low_status, respectively.
Instrumental variable. Previous studies have shown that former rankings are a key driver of
current ranking for institutions in higher education (Grewal, Dearden, & Llilien, 2008). We
therefore used past prestige as an instrumental variable. Past prestige (Usnwr_2013) is
measured by the score obtained (from 0 to 100) by each university in the “Best Global
Universities” ranking in 2013.
Control variables. We introduced two main control variables. First, we included the number
of fields that each university has (Fields_N). We followed a prior study, which stated that
academic research cannot be envisaged as a homogenous unit but that disciplines could affect
the recognition and prestige of universities (Albert, 2003). Consistent with Volkwein and
Sweitzer (2006), institutional age seems to be an important shaper of prestige; we therefore
included the Age variable, which corresponds to the number of years for which the university
has been in service.
- Measures used in regression models (second step)
Dependent variables. To test the sustainability of the private nonprofit university business
models, we mobilize three dependent variables (tuitions, selection and graduates). First, we
introduced the variable tuitions to measure the cost of attendance for each university for 2018-
2019, in line with a previous study indicating that a positive reputation of business schools can
lead to higher tuitions fees (Durand & Dameron, 2011). Second, we introduced the variable
selection to measure the selectivity of universities for 2018-2019. Some authors have found that
a strong reputation could affect the selection of students (Marginson, 2008; Volkwein &
Sweitzer, 2006). Third, we introduced the variable graduates to measure the number of graduate
students for each university for 2018-2019. Previous studies have pointed out that universities
with strong reputations will be able to select the best and brightest students for their graduate
programs (Durand & Dameron, 2011; Jensen & Wang, 2018).
Independent variable. We used the predicted value of symbolic capital (symbolic_capital_p),
obtained in the first step regression (Tobit), is introduced to estimate the central equation in the
second step. This process allows standard deviations to be obtained that explicitly consider the
presence of estimated regressors.
Control variables. In line with previous studies that found a significant relationship between
family income and the academic level of students (Stinebrickner & Stinebrickner, 2000), we
introduced the variable (Median_income) measuring the median household income by state.
We also include the number of fields that each university has (Fields_N) and the Age variable,
which corresponds to the number of years that the university has been in service. Appendix 1
summarizes all of the variables used in the first and second steps.
3.2. RESULTS
In support of Hypothesis 2, the results from the Tobit model indicate that “high status”
universities have a positive and significant probability of improving their symbolic capital. In
contrast, “low status” universities have a negative probability of improving their symbolic
capital. Among the control variables, we found a positive and significant effect of former
reputation (Usnwr_2013). As expected, the past prestige of the university has a positive impact
15
on its current prestige. A broad range of disciplines (Fields_N) and the Age variable have no
significant effects on universities’ symbolic capital.
------------------------------------
Insert Table 3 about here
------------------------------------
The results from regression models indicate that Hypothesis 3 is fully supported. In
model 1, we found a significant and positive effect of the predicted symbolic capital variable
on the tuition costs. This outcome supports Hypothesis 3a in that the most prestigious nonprofit
universities capture value by converting their symbolic capital into economic capital through
higher tuition costs. Thus, a large stock of symbolic capital enables the justification of higher
tuition costs for education programs. Among the control variables, the median household
income had a significant and positive effect on tuition cost, while the Age and Fields_N
variables had no significant effect.
In model 2, we found that predicted symbolic capital has a positive and significant effect
on the selection rate. In line with Hypothesis 3b, the larger that the university’s stock of
symbolic capital is, the more selective that it will be. Age also has a positive and significant
effect on the selection rate. In contrast, the other control variables (Fields_N and
Median_income) had no significant effects on the selection rate.
In model 3, the results support Hypothesis 3c showing that symbolic capital affects
positively and significantly the number of graduate students. A large stock of symbolic capital
could be a means for attracting more and finer graduate students. Regarding control variables,
Age, Fields_N and Median_income have no significant effects on the number of graduate
students.
------------------------------------
Insert Table 4 about here
------------------------------------
4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Our research responds to current trends wherein NPOs play a key role in our societies; therefore,
it is important to better understand and apprehend their business models. What are the business
models of NPOs? How do NPOs create and capture value to sustain their business models? Our
study provides key theoretical contributions in that it connects two literatures: the business
model research and nonprofit literatures.
Theoretical contributions to the business model research
Our study responds to the theoretical gap to explain and improve upon the business model of
NPOs by adopting the broader definition of the business model suggested by Massa et al. (2017)
as a description of an organization and how the organization achieves its goals. We adopted an
interpretation of the business model as a formal conceptual representation, emphasizing the
complexity of the phenomenon (Massa et al., 2017) and focusing on the resources and
capabilities (i.e., value created) and on the outcome (i.e., value captured). We highlighted that
the main perspectives explored in the business model literature (i.e., conventional and
sustainable) remain oriented toward for-profit organizations because they are limited to
economic value creation as the ultimate purpose. We therefore proposed the adoption of a new
perspective to conceptualize and better understand NPOs business models using the
Bourdieusian theory of forms of capital.
Exploring the business models of NPOs using this theory is relevant. First, it places an
emphasis on the social purposes of NPOs; since the ultimate goal for these organizations is not
16
economic value creation but social value creation, economic value creation is relegated to a
secondary position and is relevant only as a means to contribute to social value. Second,
adopting the Bourdieusian perspective to conceptualize the business models of NPOs, we
respond to theoretical gaps in the business model literature. On the one hand, we provide a more
holistic view of the concept of value (Bocken et al., 2015) and a better understanding of the
articulation between value creation and value capture (Demil et al., 2018) by showing how
social value creation can allow for capturing value to sustain an organization’s business model.
Based on our study, we now understand capital as a resource, and it is the accumulation and the
conversion of the forms of capital that allow for capturing value to improve its competitive
advantage, sustain its business model, and thereby achieve its social mission.
On the other hand, our study offers new insights into how NPOs can become more
competitive through the articulation of created and captured value (Demil et al., 2018), thereby
contributing to more sustainable business models for NPOs. In accordance with previous
studies (e.g., Nidumolu et al., 2009; Porter & Kramer, 2011), we posit that the notion of business
models for NPOs can also be exploited, as with the sustainable business model perspective, as
a source of competitive advantage. We found that the accumulation of capital is not sufficient
because forms of capital are not substitutable but complementary and interdependent.
Therefore, the ability to convert them appears to be a critical factor to build a sustainable
competitive advantage. The accumulation and conversion of economic, social, and cultural
capital and then symbolic capital allow an organization to capture value and generate a
sustainable competitive edge. Thus, the robustness and competitiveness of the business models
of NPOs rely on the accumulation and conversion of the four forms of capital. Within this
perspective, sustainable competitive advantage can be multisourced since value is not only
created by the organization but also by its stakeholders (Massa et al., 2017). Using our model,
we show that a sustainable competitive edge for nonprofit universities relies on the
accumulation and conversion of all forms of capital, which depend on the organization (i.e.,
nonprofit universities) and include its stakeholders (i.e., students, alumni) in the processes of
value creation and value capture to achieve its missions.
Theoretical contributions to the nonprofit literature
Our study contributes and offers new insights to the nonprofit literature. Despite the recognition
of the important role of NPOs in our modern society and their unique characteristics compared
to organizations in the for-profit sector, few studies have investigated the business models of
nonprofits. This issue is particularly important because of the changes occurring in the nonprofit
sector (such as decreases in state allocations or the end of operating modes). Our study responds
to the lack of a conceptual framework to understand the business models of these organizations,
how NPOs achieve their social missions and how they can sustain their business models. To
focus our inquiry, we studied these questions in a particular empirical context, namely,
American nonprofit universities.
Our study has gone further than previous studies that focused primarily on the funding
structures of NPOs, the characterization of value proposition for NPOs (Foster et al., 2009) and
the value created in the specific context of cross-sector partnerships (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012;
Dahan et al., 2010). Our study provides an integrative conceptual framework, the Bourdieusian
perspective, which allows us to capture dimensions of both value creation and value capture in
the nonprofit context. Adopting this perspective, we emphasize the social purpose of NPOs,
relegating economic value creation to an ancillary position as a means to achieve the social
missions of the organization. We point out how the possibility of converting each form of
capital into another one becomes a critical factor that supports the sustainability of the business
models of NPOs. First, our study finds that social value creation relies on the accumulation and
17
conversion of economic, social, and cultural capital and then symbolic capital. Second, our
research indicates that value capture is linked to the stock of symbolic capital; a large stock of
symbolic capital permits value capture, which then translates into an improved competitive
advantage that can sustain the business model and achieve the social mission of the NPO.
Theoretical and managerial contributions to higher education research
Our study offers new insights to the research on higher education. We explain how universities
such as Harvard have maintained their prestige and competitive advantage over time, shedding
light on their business model. We point out that competitive advantage in higher education is
due to nonprofit universities’ ability to accumulate and convert economic, social, cultural and
symbolic capital, enabling value capture (i.e., higher tuition costs, high selectiveness and the
ability to attract the best graduate students), and they are a crucial source of sustainable
competitive advantage among other nonprofit universities. A large stock of symbolic capital
(resulting from accumulation and conversion from other forms of capital) allows universities to
be more selective, attracting the brightest students and charging higher tuition for educational
programs compared to universities with a limited stock of symbolic capital. In line with
Marginson (2006), our study shows that universities are not homogenous units. We defined
three different categories of American nonprofit universities according to their stock of
economic, social and cultural capital; we calling them High, Intermediary and Low status.
Complementing Marginson’s work (2006), we also indicate that this heterogeneity within
universities is to be found in differentiated business models. Adopting the Bourdieusian
perspective, we emphasize that engagement in research is not sufficient to create an elite
university, but the ability to convert economic, cultural and social capital into symbolic capital
is required to support a robust competitive edge and thereby sustain a nonprofit business model.
Furthermore, in accordance with the study of Jensen and Wang (2018), which focused
on how status13 could affect research performance in business schools, we go further by
showing that status not only affects research performance but can also directly affect cultural
capital (i.e., research productivity), as well as economic and social capital. Our results suggest
that the prestige of the university (i.e., symbolic capital) not only relies on research productivity
but also contributes to a sustainable competitive advantage that illustrates the robustness of the
business model to achieve the declared social mission. Our study also has managerial
implications for universities; it could provide decision support to the governing bodies of
universities (both the presidents and the boards) in efforts to accumulate social recognition and
academic prestige and to consolidate other forms of capital. Our study responds to current issues
facing nonprofit universities since they seek to improve their standing and navigate the
increasingly competitive education market.
Limitations and suggestions for further research
This study contains several limitations that could pave the way for further research. First, we
tested our conceptual model on nonprofit American universities with data from 2016 to 2018.
It would be more meaningful to study a longer period to provide more analysis regarding both
phases with regard to value creation and value capture. Second, we attempted to operationalize
a complex and multidimensional perspective to understand the business models of NPOs. This
operationalization could certainly be improved, particularly with regard to the measurement of
the forms of capital. We adopted these proxies by reviewing previous studies; however,
although there have been many studies using Bourdieu’s theory of the forms of capital, very
13 Jensen and Wang (2018) defined the status of a business school as its rank among other business schools.
18
few have proposed an operationalization of this model. To our knowledge, no studies have
operationalized it in higher education research. Third, our study could be extended by studying
the trajectories of the nonprofit universities and, more generally, the NPOs within a perspective
on resource orchestration to understand how NPOs orchestrate their resources and how this
orchestration affects their competitive edge for a specified period. Fourth, future research could
compare the business models of public, nonprofit and for-profit universities in the U.S. to
characterize the differences and similarities in the two phases of value creation and value
capture. We can imagine that the accumulation and conversion of forms of capital are distinct;
for a for-profit university, for example, symbolic capital might be less important in capturing
value and therefore in being more competitive. Finally, this model has been applied to the case
of nonprofit universities but could be extended to other NPOs, such as NGOs. Despite these
limitations, this research has provided a clear understanding of the robustness and
competitiveness of NPOs business models using nonprofit American universities as an
empirical context.
19
REFERENCES
Albert, M. (2003). Universities and the market economy: The differential impact on knowledge
production in sociology and economics. Higher Education, 45(2), 147–182.
Amsler, S. S., & Bolsmann, C. (2012). University ranking as social exclusion. British Journal
of Sociology of Education, 33(2), 283–301.
Angot, J., & Plé, L. (2015). Serving poor people in rich countries: the bottom-of-the-pyramid
business model solution. Journal of Business Strategy, 36(2), 3–15.
Anheier, H. K., Gerhards, J., & Romo, F. P. (1995). Forms of capital and social structure in
cultural fields: Examining Bourdieu’s social topography. American Journal of Sociology,
100(4), 859–903.
Arend, R. J. (2013). The business model: Present and future—beyond a skeumorph. Strategic
Organization, 11(4), 390–402.
Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and businesses. Nonprofit and
voluntary sector quarterly, 29(1_suppl), 69–97.
Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M. M. (2012). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering
between nonprofits and businesses: Part I. Value creation spectrum and collaboration
stages. Nonprofit and voluntary sector quarterly, 41(5), 726–758.
Banks, N., Hulme, D., & Edwards, M. (2015). NGOs, states, and donors revisited: Still too
close for comfort?. World Development, 66, 707–718.
Bocken, N., Boons, F., & Baldassarre, B. (2019). Sustainable business model experimentation
by understanding ecologies of business models. Journal of cleaner production, 208, 1498–
1512. Bocken, N. M. P., Rana, P., & Short, S. W. (2015). Value mapping for sustainable business
thinking. Journal of Industrial and Production Engineering, 32(1), 67–81.
Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2013). A value mapping tool for sustainable
business modelling. Corporate Governance, 13(5), 482–497.
Boons, F., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-
the-art and steps towards a research agenda. Journal of Cleaner production, 45, 9–19. Bourdieu, P. (1979). Les trois états du capital culturel. Actes de la recherche en sciences
sociales, 30(1), 3–6.
Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le capital social: notes provisoires. Actes de la recherche en sciences
sociales, 31(1), 2–3. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital Handbook of theory and research for the sociology
of education (pp. 241–258). pp. 241–258. New York: Greenwood.
Bourdieu, P. (1993). The field of cultural production: Essays on art and literature. Columbia
University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (2013). Symbolic capital and social classes. Journal of classical
sociology, 13(2), 292-302. Brehmer, M., Podoynitsyna, K., & Langerak, F. (2018). Sustainable business models as
boundary-spanning systems of value transfers. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4514–
4531.
Brint, S. (2005). Creating the future:‘New directions’ in American research universities.
Minerva, 43(1), 23–50.
Bromley, P., & Meyer, J. W. (2017). “They are all organizations”: The cultural roots of blurring
between the nonprofit, business, and government sectors. Administration & Society, 49(7),
939–966.
Brundtland, G. H. (1987). What is sustainable development. Our common future, 8(9). Bryce, H. J. (2017). Financial and strategic management for nonprofit organizations. Walter
de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
20
Certo, S. T., Busenbark, J. R., Woo, H. S., & Semadeni, M. (2016). Sample selection bias and
Heckman models in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal,
37(13), 2639–2657.
Chad, P., Kyriazis, E., & Motion, J. (2013). Development of a market orientation research
agenda for the nonprofit sector. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 25(1),
1–27.
Chesbrough, H. (2007). Business model innovation: it’s not just about technology anymore.
Strategy & Leadership, 35(6), 12–17.
Cotterlaz-Rannard, G., Bocquet, R., & Ferrary, M. (2017). Partnering with firms: Do non-profit
organizations sell their soul to the devil?. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol.
2017, No. 1, p. 13730). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management. Crow, M. M., & Dabars, W. B. (2015). Designing the new American university. JHU Press.
Dahan, N. M., Doh, J. P., Oetzel, J., & Yaziji, M. (2010). Corporate-NGO collaboration: Co-
creating new business models for developing markets. Long range planning, 43(2-3), 326–
342. Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2010). Business model evolution: in search of dynamic consistency.
Long Range Planning, 43(2–3), 227–246.
Demil, B., Lecocq, X., & Warnier, V. (2018). “Business model thinking”, business ecosystems
and platforms: the new perspective on the environment of the organization. M@ n@
gement, 21(4), 1213–1228. Duke, D. (2016). Why don’t BOP ventures solve the environmental problems they initially set
out to address?. Organization & Environment, 29(4), 508–528. Durand, T., & Dameron, S. (2011). Where have all the business schools gone? British Journal
of Management, 22(3), 559–563.
Easterly, L., & Miesing, P. (2009). NGOs, social venturing, and community citizenship
behavior. Business & Society, 48(4), 538–564. Foster, W. L., Kim, P., & Christiansen, B. (2009). Ten nonprofit funding models.
Freeman, R. E., Wicks, A. C., & Parmar, B. (2004). Stakeholder theory and “the corporate
objective revisited”. Organization science, 15(3), 364–369. Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. New York
Times.
Geissdoerfer, M., Vladimirova, D., & Evans, S. (2018). Sustainable business model innovation:
A review. Journal of cleaner production, 198, 401–416. Grewal, R., Dearden, J. A., & Llilien, G. L. (2008). The university rankings game: Modeling
the competition among universities for ranking. The American Statistician, 62(3), 232–
237.
Heckman, J. J. (1979). Sample selection as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161. Jansen, L. (2003). The challenge of sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production,
11(3), 231–245.
Jensen, M., & Wang, P. (2018). Not in the same boat: How status inconsistency affects research
performance in business schools. Academy of Management Journal, 61(3), 1021–1049.
Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinvesting your business
model, w HBR’s must-reads on strategy. Harvard Business Review, 59–68. Joyce, A., & Paquin, R. L. (2016). The triple layered business model canvas: A tool to design
more sustainable business models. Journal of cleaner production, 135, 1474–1486.
Kennedy, P. A guide to econometrics. 2008. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Kolk, A., & Lenfant, F. (2016). Hybrid business models for peace and reconciliation. Business
Horizons, 59(5), 503–524. Laasch, O. (2018). Beyond the purely commercial business model: Organizational value logics
and the heterogeneity of sustainability business models. Long Range Planning, 51(1),
21
158–183.
Le Ber, M. J., & Branzei, O. (2010). Value frame fusion in cross sector interactions. Journal of
Business Ethics, 94(1), 163–195.
Li, M., Shankar, S., & Tang, K. K. (2011). Catching up with Harvard: Results from regression
analysis of world universities league tables. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(2), 121–
137.
Lu, J. (2018). Organizational antecedents of nonprofit engagement in policy advocacy: A meta-
analytical review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(4_suppl), 177S–203S. Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2010). Towards a conceptual framework of'business models for
sustainability'. Knowledge collaboration & learning for sustainable innovation, R. Wever,
J. Quist, A. Tukker, J. Woudstra, F. Boons, N. Beute, eds., Delft. Maguire, M. (2009). The nonprofit business model: Empirical evidence from the magazine
industry. Journal of Media Economics, 22(3), 119–133. Marginson, S. (2006). Dynamics of national and global competition in higher education. Higher
Education, 52(1), 1–39.
Marginson, S. (2008). Global field and global imagining: Bourdieu and worldwide higher
education. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 29(3), 303–315.
Marginson, S., & Van der Wende, M. (2007). To rank or to be ranked: The impact of global
rankings in higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 306–
329.
Marx, K. (1867). 1976. Capital, vol. 1. New York: Modern Library.
Massa, L., Tucci, C. L., & Afuah, A. (2017). A critical assessment of business model research.
Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 73–104.
Mehta, P. D. (2015). Control Variables in Research.
Miller, K., McAdam, M., & McAdam, R. (2014). The changing university business model: a
stakeholder perspective. R&D Management, 44(3), 265–287. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder
identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy
of management review, 22(4), 853–886.
Moore, M. H. (2000). Managing for value: Organizational strategy in for-profit, nonprofit, and
governmental organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1_suppl),
183–204.
Myers, L., & Robe, J. (2009). College Rankings: History, Criticism and Reform. Center for
College Affordability and Productivity (NJ1).
Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. R. (2009). Why sustainability is now the
key driver of innovation. Harvard business review, 87(9), 56–64.
O’shea, R. P., Allen, T. J., Chevalier, A., & Roche, F. (2005). Entrepreneurial orientation,
technology transfer and spinoff performance of US universities. Research Policy, 34(7),
994–1009.
Oster, S. M. (1995). Strategic management for nonprofit organizations: Theory and cases.
Oxford University Press.
Osterwalder, A. (2004). The business model ontology a proposition in a design science
approach (Doctoral dissertation, Université de Lausanne, Faculté des hautes études
commerciales). Osterwalder, A., & Pigneur, Y. (2010). Business model generation: a handbook for visionaries,
game changers, and challengers. John Wiley & Sons. Pedersen, E. R. G., Gwozdz, W., & Hvass, K. K. (2018). Exploring the relationship between
business model innovation, corporate sustainability, and organisational values within the
fashion industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 149(2), 267–284.
Petitgand, C. (2018). Business tools in nonprofit organizations: a performative story.
22
International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 24(3), 667–682.
Pfeffer, J., & Fong, C. T. (2004). The business school ‘business’: Some lessons from the US
experience. Journal of management studies, 41(8), 1501–1520. Porter, M. E. (2007). Doing well at doing good: Do you have a strategy?. Global Leadership
Summit, South Barrington, IL, 10. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). The Big Idea: Creating Shared Value. How to reinvent
capitalism—and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review,
89(1–2). Pret, T., Shaw, E., & Drakopoulou Dodd, S. (2016). Painting the full picture: The conversion
of economic, cultural, social and symbolic capital. International Small Business Journal,
34(8), 1004–1027.
Richardson, J. (2008). The business model: an integrative framework for strategy execution.
Strategic Change, 17(5‐6), 133–144.
Robertson, S., & Komljenovic, J. (2016). 13 Unbundling the University and Making Higher
Education Markets. World Yearbook of Education 2016: The Global Education Industry,
211. Schaltegger, S., Hansen, E. G., & Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2016). Business models for sustainability:
Origins, present research, and future avenues. Semadeni, M., Withers, M. C., & Trevis Certo, S. (2014). The perils of endogeneity and
instrumental variables in strategy research: Understanding through simulations. Strategic
Management Journal, 35(7), 1070–1079.
Smart, A. (1993). Gifts, bribes, and guanxi: A reconsideration of Bourdieu’s social capital.
Cultural Anthropology, 8(3), 388–408.
Smith, J. K., & Smith, R. L. (2016). Socially responsible investing by universities and colleges.
Financial Management, 45(4), 877–922.
Stinebrickner, T. R., & Stinebrickner, R. (2000). The relationship between family income and
schooling attainment: evidence from a liberal arts college with a full tuition subsidy
program (No. 2000-8). Research Report. Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Planning,
43(2–3), 172–194.
Utz, S., & Breuer, J. (2019). The Relationship Between Networking, LinkedIn Use, and
Retrieving Informational Benefits. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking,
22(3), 180–185.
Volkwein, J. F., & Sweitzer, K. V. (2006). Institutional prestige and reputation among research
universities and liberal arts colleges. Research in Higher Education, 47(2), 129–148.
Wacquant, L. J. (1987). Symbolic violence and the making of the French agriculturalist: an
enquiry into Pierre Bourdieu's sociology. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of
Sociology, 23(1), 65–88.
Weisbrod, B. A. (1998). Guest editor's introduction: The nonprofit mission and its financing.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17(2), 165–174. Yang, Y. (2014). Bourdieu, Practice and Change: Beyond the criticism of determinism.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(14), 1522–1540.
Yip, A. W., & Bocken, N. M. (2018). Sustainable business model archetypes for the banking
industry. Journal of cleaner production, 174, 150–169. Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models:
Lessons from the Grameen experience. Long range planning, 43(2-3), 308–325. Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The business model: recent developments and future
research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042.
TABLE 1 The main differences between for-profit organizations and non-profit organizations
23
For-profit organizations Nonprofit organizations
Purpose Generating revenue to shareholders
(Osterwalder, 2004)
Achieving its social purpose for society
(Bryce, 2017; Moore, 2000)
Means Economic value creation as the means
and final purpose (Laasch, 2018;
Osterwalder & Pigneur, 2010;
Pedersen et al., 2018)
Economic value creation as a means to
achieve its social purpose
Sources of
revenue
Revenues earned by the sales of
products and services to willing
customers; profit sharing with
shareholders through dividends
(Osterwalder, 2004)
Donations as the main source of funding
(Chad et al., 2013; Foster et al., 2009;
Moore, 2000)
24
TABLE 2 Main dimensions of the business models of for-profit vs. nonprofit organizations
The business model
of for-profit
organizations
The business model of
hybrid organizations
The business model of
nonprofit organizations
Conventional
business model
Sustainable business
model
Purpose/finality Profit-oriented
(economic purpose)
Profit-oriented (economic
purpose)
Social purpose (Moore,
2000)
Value creation Economic value
creation (Laasch,
2018; Osterwalder &
Pigneur, 2010;
Pedersen et al., 2018)
Economic value creation
and, to a lesser extent
social value creation (N.
Bocken et al., 2019;
Laasch, 2018; Pedersen et
al., 2018)
Social value creation
(Bryce, 2017; Moore,
2000)
Architecture
(Richardson,
2008)
Value
proposition
Value creation
Value capture
What the firm will
deliver to its
customers
How the firm will
create and deliver this
value to its customers
How the firm
generates revenue and
profit
What the firm will deliver
to its customers and all
relevant stakeholders
How the firm will create
and deliver value to its
customer and its whole
range of stakeholders
How the firm generates
profit and sustainable
value
How the nonprofit will
achieve this purpose for
society
How the nonprofit will
create and capture value to
sustain its business models
How the nonprofit sustains
its business model and
achieve its social impact
25
TABLE 3 Tobit estimation results
Symbolic_capital
Intermediary_status Ref.
High_status 52.1297 ***
(7.2740)
Low_status -45.9612***
(7.4661)
Age .0587
(.0617)
Fields_N 2.4731
(3.3420)
Usnwr_2013 .4020***
(.1079)
_cons -7.630338
Number of observations 205
Log pseudo-likelihood -468.8194
Wald 2 188.70***
*** Significant at 1%. ** Significant at 5%. * Significant at 10%.
Marginal effect; robust standard error into brackets.
TABLE 4 Regression models results
Model 3a
Tuitions
Model 3b
Selection
Model 3c
Graduates
Symbolic_capital_p 254.3352***
(13.0625)
.0033***
(.0003)
55.4481***
(.6.3871)
Age 17.4426
(11.1067)
.0009***
(.0003)
-1.3573
(5.4308)
Fields_N -188.9548
(551.5889)
-.0205**
(.0133)
3.7535
(269.7087)
Median_income .2615***
(.06862)
1.93e-06
(1.66e-06)
.0320
(.0336)
_cons 21610.72*** .1271** 945.9745
Number of observations 205 205 205
Adj R-squared .5525 .5173 .35
*** Significant at 1%. ** Significant at 5%. * Significant at 10%.
Marginal effect; robust standard error into brackets
26
FIGURE 1 The accumulation and conversion of economic, social and cultural capital into
symbolic capital
FIGURE 2 The business model of NPO according to the Bourdieusian theory
Symbolic Capital
Economic
Capital Social Capital
Cultural
Capital
Social Purpose
Value
Creation
Value Capture
Hypothesis 2
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 1
27
APPENDIX 1 Variable definitions
VarName Label Data source
Variables used in the classification procedure
Economic_capital Stock endowment held by each university in 2016
(in log)
College and university
business officers and the
Commonfund Institute
Cultural_capital Number of academic publications produced by
each university in 2016 (in log)
Database ISI Web ok
Knowledge
Social_capital Number of alumni of the university on LinkedIn
pages (data collected on December 2018, in log)
LinkedIn website
Variables used in the Tobit model (first step)
Symbolic_capital
(dependent variable)
Score obtained (from 0 to 100) in the US News
and World Report "Best Global Universities”
(2018)
USNWR
Intermediary_status (ref.)
(independent variable)
=1 if the university belongs to university cluster
1, 0 otherwise
Classification procedure
High_status
(independent variable)
=1 if the university belong to university cluster 2,
0 otherwise
Classification procedure
Low_status
(independent variable)
=1 if the university belongs to university cluster
3, 0 otherwise
Classification procedure
Age
(control variable) Age of the university (in years)
USNWR
Fields_N
(control variable)
Number of fields in which the university is active
(from 1 to 5)
The World Ranking
University
Usnwr_2013
(instrumental variable)
Score obtained (from 0 to 100) in the US News
and World Report “Best global Universities”
ranking (2013)
USNWR
Variables used in the regression model (second step)
Tuitions
(dependent variable)
Attending cost for each university for 2018-2019
in dollars
Database
CollegeTuitionCompare
Graduates
(dependent variable)
Number of graduate students for each university
for 2018-2019
USNWR
Selection
(dependent variable)
Admissions rate for each university for 2018-
2019
Database PrepScholar
Symbolic_capital_p
(independent variable) Predicted symbolic capital variable
Tobit model procedure
Median_income
(control variable) Median household income by state in 2018
Census bureau
28
APPENDIX 2 Correlations for the variables introduced in the Tobit model and regression models
Mean SD 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Symbolic_capital 25.71 32.46 1.0000
2. High_status .20 .40 .7852 1.0000
3. Low_status .47 .50 -.6471 -.4894 1.0000
4. Intermediary_status (Ref.) .32 .47 .0057 -.3520 -.6440 1.0000
5. Age 138.79 47.22 .4113 .4227 -.3184 -.0292 1.0000
6. Graduates 2988.00 4034.37 .5699 .5944 -.4708 -.0162 .2624 1.0000
7. Fields_N 4.19 .96 .3985 .3458 -.3927 .1181 .1825 .2709 1.0000
8. Usnwr_2013 9.99 23.24 .4741 .2920 -.3861 .1582 .0718 .2422 .2005 1.0000
9. Symbolic_capital_p 4.82 45.57 .8466 .8053 -.8279 .1822 .4494 .6020 .4689 .5595 1.0000
10. Tuitions 40246.6 10122.63 .7154 .6187 -.6132 .1154 .4121 .4128 .3385 .3859 .7080 1.000
11. Selection .42 .23 .7047 .7203 -.5089 -.0857 .4777 .5233 .2305 .2529 .6945 .6228 1.000
12. Median_income 63871.47 6987.37 .0933 -.0110 -.1001 .1171 .1080 .0926 -.0491 .0453 .0595 .2192 .1232 1.000
29
APPENDIX 3 Interpretation of the three university clusters
Mean
Economic_capital Cultural_capital Social_capital
Cluster 1: High_status (n=42) 9.4909 3.6095 4,9862
Cluster 2: Intermediary_status (n=66) 8.4095 2.2496 4.5841
Cluster 3: Low_status (n=97) 7.8586 0.0439 4.2409
Total (n=205) 8.3704 1.4846 4.5041
Notes: Mean values in bold are significantly higher in the considered cluster.
(i) “High status” comprises American nonprofit universities that have a large stock of economic, social and
cultural capital. (ii) “Intermediary status” includes American nonprofit universities that have a medium stock of
economic, social and cultural capital, and (iii) “Low status” corresponds to universities with a low stock of
economic, social and cultural capital.