Collaboration to support refugees: The importance of local-level relations among civil society organizations

ABSTRACT

Collaboration and relations are essential for most civil society organizations (CSOs). Still, little is known about what drives CSOs to collaborate among themselves when supporting refugees. By analysing drivers for collaboration and relational aspects in Malmö, Sweden, as the empirical setting, including how past, present, and anticipated future relations affect CSOs’ organizational behaviour, the article aims to contribute to our understanding of CSOs’ collaboration when supporting refugees. While collaborative drivers are important to understand the motivation to collaborate, adding a relational perspective helps us understand the complexity of collaboration, especially when CSOs do not exclusively collaborate to benefit their own organization. Past relations are essential for some collaboration, whereas other collaboration and behaviour create new ties and intensify existing ones. Moreover, the results demonstrate that on a local level, a variety of CSOs is crucial as they complement each other in covering different needs.

KEYWORDS:

• Civil society organizations
• refugees
• relational sociology
• collaboration
• Sweden

Introduction

Civil society organizations (CSOs) often play an important role in resolving complex societal challenges, such as supporting refugees (Ambrosini & Van der Leun, 2015; Light, 2004; Morison, 2000). Much of the recent research concerning CSOs’ collaboration to support refugees has paid attention to the so-called ‘refugee crisis’ or ‘refugee system crisis’ in 2015–2016 in Europe (cf. Guma et al., 2019; Ideström & Linde, 2019; Larruina et al., 2019; Larruina & Ghorashi, 2020; Meyer & Simsa, 2018), often with particular attention to the relationships and collaborations between CSOs and governmental organizations (GOs) (Fehsenfeld & Levinsen, 2019; Garkisch et al., 2017; Larruina & Ghorashi, 2020). While acknowledging the value of those relationships, collaboration among CSOs is also essential when supporting refugees (Gustafsson & Johansson, 2018). Collaboration between CSOs might differ drastically from that between CSOs and GOs since CSOs can be more flexible and adaptable than GOs due to fewer regulatory constraints (Larruina & Ghorashi, 2020). However, limited research has addressed the question of how CSOs collaborate among themselves and what motivates such collaboration (for a review, see Garkisch et al., 2017), especially in ‘non-crisis’ situations supporting refugees (see Fehsenfeld & Levinsen, 2019 for one exception). A better understanding of collaboration in the ‘non-crisis’ case improves the chances of being better prepared for future crises.

Many CSOs face a wide range of challenges when collaborating to support refugees. For example, during the extraordinary influx of Syrian refugees to Europe in 2015–2016, CSOs faced a high degree of uncertainty in the initial phase concerning what actions to take, where and when (Jämte & Pitti, 2019; Meyer & Simsa, 2018) and later relating to how to solve emerging conflicts around conflicting views of how to support refugees in the best way (Meyer & Simsa, 2018). The fact that organizations face challenges in different phases of their work is nothing new. By collaborating, organizations can pool their resources and knowledge concerning a specific event (Guo & Acar, 2005). For example, not knowing how a problem should be solved can be overcome by collaboration in which ideas and resources are combined (Emerson et al., 2011). Collaboration can improve organizations’ odds of delivering needed support to a specific group and secure organizational survival (Sowa, 2009). However, many theories focusing on CSO–CSO collaboration ignore the meaning of relations to initiate and maintain collaboration. The solid theoretical emphasis on resources, network structures, negotiations, exchanges etc. to explain collaboration tends to ignore the essentially human side of collaboration – that of relations. As relational sociologists would argue, relations are crucial for how we, as individuals and organizations, perceive our surroundings and how we act (Dépelteau & Powell, 2013; Emirbayer, 1997; Kivinen & Piiroinen, 2018; Kraus, 2019; Lorino, 2020; Morgner, 2020a, 2020b). Donati goes as far as to argue that ‘society is not a space “containing” relations, or an arena where relations are played out. It is rather the very tissue of relations (society “is relation” and does not “have relations”)’ (2015, p. 87). In this sense, relations are not merely an aspect of how well collaboration might work but the very foundation for collaboration to happen in the first place. From this ontological stance, and according to the strongest form of RS, it follows that non-relations between CSOs do not exist, only that they exist and act in parallel. In this article, however, I adopt the weaker position that relations mean that CSOs or people know each other.

To contribute with an increased knowledge of CSO-CSO collaboration focusing on relational aspects, this study aims to advance the empirical and theoretical understanding of collaboration among locally based CSOs supporting refugees. This is achieved by developing a theoretical framework based on drivers for collaboration among CSOs and relational sociology (RS). The article will answer the following research questions:

• - How do drivers for collaboration impact relations between CSOs?

• - How does already existing relations and previous interaction, or the lack thereof, affect collaboration between CSOs?

According to relational theory, collaboration is a fluid and dynamic social process (Dépelteau, 2013; Kivinen & Piiroinen, 2018), consequentially changing over time. It might occur informally and formally, but, in this case, collaboration always aims to increase and develop support for refugees. In international research, CSOs are classified in various ways (Garkisch et al., 2017). In this study focusing on the Swedish context, an inclusive definition of CSOs was applied. CSOs are non-profit organizations, separated from the state and for-profit companies (Wijkström, 2000, 2007), that undertake activities that do not necessarily benefit themselves financially. For example, although costly, CSOs might organize activities for refugees to cover a perceived ‘gap’ in the governmental refugee reception system (Wren, 2007). Historically, Swedish CSOs have not provided services to others than their members. Because of its combined robust civil society and a strong welfare state, Sweden is sometimes referred to as an ideal-typical social democratic non-profit regime (Salamon & Anheier, 1998; Wijkström, 2007). However, the role and function of CSOs in Sweden are under negotiation (Reuter, 2012). CSOs are increasingly subjected to market-based principles (Herz, 2016; Reuter, 2012), providing services to others than their members (Wijkström, 2000, 2007), organizing their activities around projects for funding reasons (Herz, 2016), and are subject to what has been called marketization (Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004). In other words, CSOs are forced to act as for-profit organizations more than before, competing over funding and providing welfare-related services.

The empirical study for this article concerned collaboration and relations between CSOs supporting refugees in the city of Malmö, Sweden. When supporting refugees, Swedish civil society function as an extra ‘safety net’ when and where the public sector fails to provide for those in need or if policies do not provide for all in need (Jarnkvist & Giritli Nygren, 2022). This article aimed not to study a specific period concerning CSOs’ collaboration in Malmö. However, during the interviews, collaboration to support the refugees entering Sweden in 2015–2016 emerged as a natural point of departure for the informants when discussing and describing collaboration and relations. Resultingly, a large share of the result section, although not exclusively, will concern 2015–2016. The strong emphasis on 2015–2016 is not surprising as the refugee-supporting work of CSOs in Malmö was essential to manage the situation (Hansen, 2019; Jämte & Pitti, 2019; Sjöberg, 2018). However, CSOs’ work in 2015–2016 did not end due to stricter immigration laws and closed borders around Europe (Campomori & Ambrosini, 2020; Gustafsson & Johansson, 2018; Ideström & Linde, 2019). Instead, CSOs’ work changed and developed, and so did their relations. By having a local perspective, it is possible to understand collaborations close to refugees and how collaborations occur informally in the everyday activities of CSOs. In addition, CSOs working locally to support displaced people is essential for refugees to adapt and survive in a new country (Ambrosini & Van der Leun, 2015; Fehsenfeld & Levinsen, 2019; Pries, 2018). The local perspective also enables including CSOs not belonging to a national organization. This perspective might be lost by exclusively including representatives from CSOs on a national or regional level (Kings, 2011). Therefore, the focus of this article will allow us to understand better the uniqueness of CSO collaboration in a local context.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows. First, the theoretical framework is presented. Second, the methods are explained, including a description of the informants and the analytical approach. After that follows the results section. Finally, the results are discussed against the research questions, theories, and previous research.

Theoretical Departure: From an Organizational Drivers-Approach to Increased Attention to Relations

No single theory has successfully explained collaboration between CSOs. Instead, many researchers combine various theories, such as Resource Dependency Theory (RDT) and institutional and network theories (Guo & Acar, 2005; Sowa, 2009). In this article, I will use a combination of drivers for collaboration as described by Sowa (2009) and relational sociology (RS) inspired by Dépelteau (2015, 2018; Dépelteau & Powell, 2013) to analyse (i) how drivers for collaboration affect relations between CSOs and (ii) how these relations influence the collaborative opportunities for CSOs.

CSOs’ Drivers for Collaboration

From her empirical research, Sowa (2009) argues that CSOs choose to collaborate for various reasons. Collaboration might be driven by a will to cover identified gaps in service (Sowa, 2009). For example, CSOs might collaborate to provide services they think the government has neglected (Wren, 2007). CSOs also experience institutional pressure to collaborate with others (Sowa, 2009), which is more likely to occur when CSOs are highly visible in a specific context or have influential funders (public and private). Behavioural adaptation due to institutional pressure will most likely result in various forms of isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). Collaboration might also be a way for CSOs to improve their position in the organisational field (Sowa, 2009). For example, well-established CSOs might strengthen their position by assisting less-established CSOs in setting up their organization and launching programs (Larruina & Ghorashi, 2020). Finally, CSOs collaborate when experiencing resource instability. By collaborating, they can reduce instability, thus improving organizational survival. According to Sowa (2009), well-established CSOs are more likely to collaborate with others to combat resource instability.

In supporting refugees, funding is often mentioned as one essential resource. Research shows that established CSOs have an advantage in acquiring funding due to their expertize, infrastructure and market legitimacy (Espadas et al., 2013; Togral Koca, 2019). Therefore, it might be strategically wise for organizations lacking such resources to collaborate with established organizations to improve their odds of succeeding when applying for funding. This might be easier if previous relations exist between organizations. Still, resources are not limited to budget. Resources also concern time to collaborate (Johansson, 2011), having the appropriate number of volunteers, and access to volunteers and staff with the requested competencies (Meyer & Simsa, 2018).

Even if Sowa’s approach to CSO collaboration, to a more significant degree than other theories, can grasp the complexities of collaboration, she tends to ignore the importance of relations when collaborating. This might have to do with her framework being developed in a US context where CSOs generally act more as for-profit organizations or that she departs from institutional theories constructing her framework. I argue that RS can fruitfully complement Sowa’s theoretical arguments and better explain the complexity of collaboration between CSOs.

The Importance of Relational Aspects for Understanding Collaboration

Originating from network theory (Fuhse, 2015), RS theorists argue that relations are crucial for how we, as individuals and organizations, perceive our surroundings and how we act (Dépelteau & Powell, 2013; Emirbayer, 1997; Kivinen & Piiroinen, 2018; Kraus, 2019; Lorino, 2020; Morgner, 2020b; Selg, 2020b). Therefore, RS seeks to understand social life by studying social relations (Dépelteau & Powell, 2013; Powell & Dépelteau, 2013), whether between individuals or organizations.

The approach in this article is greatly inspired by Dewey and Bentley's concept of trans-action (Dépelteau, 2013; Lorino, 2020). Dewey and Bentley first established the concept of trans-action and the concepts of self-action and inter-action to understand how actors relate to each other (Morgner, 2020a). In brief, self-action presumes that social things, here CSOs, act solitarily under their own power, i.e., that they are independent of others and their context. On the other hand, inter-action emphasizes that actors are interdependent, which means that inter-actions are affected by organizational characteristics such as size, accessibility, resources etc. (Dépelteau, 2015). Trans-action, finally, brings in our understanding of ourselves and others and the context in terms of, e.g., social settings and fields, networks, organizations, and processes that are going on (Morgner, 2020a). Organizations in trans-action constantly try to understand the perspective of others, understand others’ experiences, and anticipate future steps (Lorino, 2020). From this follows that A cannot act without trans-acting with B (and vice-versa), thus illustrating the relational ontology previously described (Lorino, 2020; Morgner, 2020b). For example, the increased influx of refugees in 2015 created a specific setting for the CSOs, which differed from previous and potential future settings. The trans-actional approach allows us to analyse how the way a specific CSO act and collaborate is (a) dependent on all the other CSOs and their actions, collaborations, and intentions and (b) will influence the other CSOs and the context in which they operate, i.e., CSOs ‘[…]are what they are and do what they do because they are transactions in this specific social field’ (Dépelteau, 2015, p. 55). Importantly, though not a specific topic for this study, power dimensions are crucial in any relationship and may influence interactions in many ways, especially when viewed from a trans-actional perspective.

Given the contextual aspect of trans-action, any relationship must be understood from its historical perspective. Therefore, the main point of adding RS to Sowa’s drivers is to focus on the becoming of collaboration rather than the already existing one (Madsen et al., 2018). In other words, the addition opens up to analyse how drivers to collaborate create relations and how relations, in some cases, are essential to initiate collaboration. Relational theorists would argue that this is important as CSOs are integrated with their relational context, i.e., they cannot be separated from their history or other context (Morgner, 2020b; Selg, 2020a). Therefore, the relational perspective invites us to think about relations in terms of past, present and anticipated future relations and collaborations. For example, a challenging situation, such as the one in 2015–2016, requiring quick ad hoc collaboration decisions, can, paradoxically, be viewed as an opportunity for inclusion and can trigger collaboration (Larruina & Ghorashi, 2020; Sjöberg, 2018). The situation forces individuals and organizations to come together around a common cause, creating new personal and organizational relations (Sjöberg, 2018), which might result in future collaborations.

As Larruina and Ghorashi (2020) show, once CSOs have started to collaborate and get to know each other, i.e., have created relations, it becomes easier to initiate further contact regardless of formalization, and it is more likely that future collaborations will have a positive outcome. In that way, actors are interdependent and constantly active in various fields of trans-action (Dépelteau, 2013). Consequently, descriptions of events, such as refugee support, are only accepted as tentative and preliminary, which means that new explanations of a specific event might emerge (Lorino, 2020). Therefore, explaining CSO-CSO collaboration exclusively with ‘static’ theory, such as drivers for collaboration, will limit our understanding of the collaborative becoming. For example, when Sowa (2009) argues that established CSOs are more likely to collaborate to improve their competitive advantage, she assumes that CSOs only collaborate in their own interest. However, in the context of refugee support, CSOs do not always collaborate to benefit their own organization or eliminate each other from the market (see, for example, Pape & Skokova, 2022). Instead, CSOs’ collaboration and behaviour are more often explained by symbolic factors such as ideology, morals, and history (Åberg, 2015). Also, the fact that established CSOs collaborate to a higher degree than other CSOs (Sowa, 2009) might have to do with the number of relations. Older CSOs have established a large number of relations over time, and they typically consist of many individual members who can draw on personal relationships if needed. To summarize, many mainstream theories have been criticized for not grasping the complexity of collaboration (see Vangen, 2017, for a discussion). By adopting a relational approach, focusing on how CSOs trans-act, we may identify new explanations of organizational behaviour (Morgner, 2020b), as the trans-action reminds us that they act in this way, only or partly because other CSOs exist and are doing what they are doing (Dépelteau, 2015). Unlike structural approaches, the goal is not to find out who initiated the collaboration and what specific characteristics facilitated the collaboration. Neither is the goal to recreate the process or assess the outcome. Rather, the use of RS adds an interactionist approach focusing on the qualitative content of relations and their connection to collaboration. Specifically, adding relational theory to Sowa’s collaborative drivers can gain a deeper understanding of the reciprocal effects of CSOs’ collaboration and relations.

Methodology

This article analyses collaboration among CSOs supporting refugees in Malmö in southern Sweden. Malmö was strategically selected as it is physically connected to Denmark via the Öresund Bridge and is the first point of arrival in Sweden for many refugees. Malmö is also where many refugees first encounter the Swedish refugee reception system – both formally with the Swedish Migration Agency and the municipality and informally through various CSOs. In a Swedish context, Malmö is unique, with strong bonds to the labour movement and activism, sometimes described as the most vibrant and visible activist scene in Sweden (Hansen, 2019). CSOs, therefore, mobilize in a wide range of questions, from social questions, such as the right of refugees and undocumented migrants (cf. Hansen, 2019), to CSOs trying to create inclusion and give youths and adults in socially excluded areas meaningful activities (Listerborn & Nilsson, n.d).

Selection of Informants

The empirical material for this study consisted of interviews with 14 informants representing 11 CSOs, conducted in 2019 and 2020. In all cases, the informants were operational managers or were responsible for specific activities for refugees in their organizations. Six CSOs were found in a book describing and preserving the memories of CSOs’ work with refugees in 2015–2016 (Sjöberg, 2018). Four CSOs were identified through a network organization for CSOs working with immigrants and refugees in Malmö. The last CSO was identified using snowball sampling (Bryman, 2016), asking informants about crucial CSOs supporting refugees in Malmö. The snowball selection did identify several CSOs relevant to the study. However, all except one were either already included in the empirical material, unwilling to participate, or I was unable to get in contact with them. The trouble accessing CSOs could partly be the result of me being an outsider and lacking personal ties to many of the local and more emergent groups.

All included CSOs have activities and operate in Malmö, a criterion for inclusion. Some of the included CSOs worked in refugee support before 2015, whereas others shifted their work temporarily. All the included CSOs existed before 2015, and all but one are still active. Some are local, i.e., only active in Malmö (n = 2), whereas others are part of a regional (n = 2) or national (n = 8) organization. Consequently, some of the included CSOs only conduct activities in Malmö, while others work throughout Skåne (the county where Malmö is situated) or Sweden.

The included CSOs can be divided into two groups based on how they support refugees, i.e., what activities they provide (Table 1). Seven CSOs directly support refugees and work with human and social rights (HSR). They regularly assist with acute needs, such as food and shelter, but they also provide language training, legal advice and job coaching. Four CSOs work indirectly to educate, help and enable (EHE) other CSOs that support refugees. The work includes support for starting new refugee programs or providing sports clubs with methods to include refugees in their already-established activities. These CSOs also arrange discussion forums, e.g., between religious communities, to promote inclusion, i.e., they work as a type of broker between organizations. As noted, none of the EHE organizations has volunteers that regularly work for them (see Table 1). However, they have volunteers for specific tasks, such as in the acute phase of 2015–2016. But most importantly, they do not have for-profit goals and are organized on ideological grounds to help others. Some CSOs within these two groups are secular (n = 9), while others are based on religious grounds (n = 2). Two CSOs (ID 6 and 10) exclusively work with refugee/immigrant communities, and the other nine organize activities for multiple groups in society.

Table 1. Information about the interviewed CSOs.

ID	CSO focus*	Type of CSO	Number of local employees	Number of local volunteers
1	HSR	National	>400**	>500
2	HSR	National	<20	>500
3	HSR	Regional	<11	<50
4	HSR	Local	0	<50
5	HSR	National	100**	<50**
6	HSR	National	2 (+temporary employees)	<10
7	HSR	National	1 (+temporary employees)	<10
8	EHE	National	<20	0
9	EHE	National	<20	0
10	EHE	National	12	0
11	EHE	Regional	1 (+temporary employees)	0

* EHE = Educate, Help, and Enable; HSR = Human and Social Rights.

** The numbers of employees and volunteers in Malmö were not available. The number in the table refers to employees and volunteers in the region.

Interviews and Analytical Approach

After identifying possible respondents, I approached them with an email introducing the aim of this study and asking them to participate. After they expressed interest and scheduled an interview, the informants received information about ethical considerations and informed consent. The semi-structured interviews lasted 50–90 min and were designed around five broad and general themes: organizational structure and activities, relations, the flow of information and knowledge, roles, and changes from 2015 to 2016. The goal of including questions about changes over time was to grasp changes in collaboration and relations (cf. Majchrzak et al., 2015). The material used in this article is a mix of group interviews and individual interviews. Two group interviews were conducted in a face-to-face setting in 2019 by a group consisting of two and four researchers, respectively. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, individual interviews were conducted using video calls in 2020, except for one group interview scheduled in 2019, which became an individual interview due to illness. All the individual interviews were conducted by the author alone.

The interviews never aimed to exclusively explore relations and collaboration during 2015–2016, but rather collaboration among CSOs supporting refugees in general. However, after the first interviews, it became clear that present collaborations and relations, in many cases, were closely connected to the challenges in 2015–2016. Despite the first interviews being conducted no earlier than 2019, the striking events three years before thus had to be included as a background in the analysis. However, the time gap is not regarded as a limitation. In many cases, the informants often discuss the same collaboration and situation from their respective perspectives. In that way, the informants complemented and confirmed each other’s narratives. By initially conducting focus group interviews, it was possible to identify key relations and events between CSOs that do not exclusively work with refugee support. In the second step, the individual interviews gave in-depth knowledge, of the previously described situations, with CSOs generally working more exclusively to support refugees. As some of the included CSOs support undocumented refugees, they would have been unlikely to participate in a focus group interview and openly talk about their work as they describe many things that might be sensitive to their organization or the individuals they support (see Lambert & Loiselle, 2008 for a discussion about mixing focus groups and individual interviews).

The transcribed interview recordings, just over 100,000 words, were thematically analysed in NVivo In line with relational research practice, I view myself as a co-constructor of the material, as my ways of asking, responding, and reacting to respondents will affect their narrative (Madsen et al., 2018). Therefore, through the work, I kept an open mind to various interpretations of the material and analytical work, including that there were not only one but many ways to interpret the data (see for ex. Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2017). Consequently, the analytic work was initially inductive but guided by the steps suggested by Braun and Clarke (2006) for thematic analysis. After familiarization with the data (Step 1), an initial inductive coding for collaboration and relations between CSOs started (step 2). In this step, both long and short sections were coded. On average, ten per cent of each transcription was coded in 71 excerpts that concerned CSOs collaboration. In a third step, the 71 excerpts were gathered into five sub-themes based on their qualitative content (see Table 2). Later, all data were reviewed and double-checked (Step 4) to identify potentially faulty or un-coded parts. Finally, in Step 5, the themes were named and organized. In total, two main analytical themes were identified, as well as a more descriptive theme (see Table 2).

Table 2. Analytical themes and sub-themes with examples of coded text.

Overarching themes	Sub-themes	Examples of coded text
Descriptive excerpts concerning collaboration (excerpts n = 14; 1 500 words)	n/a*	There are attempts at co-organising. But we are very many organisations in Malmö. In the Rosengård district alone, I don’t know how many non-profit organisations there are in that district. So, to keep track of all of them is almost impossible. We have also started a network of organisations that work with the same target group. We run open house activities and meet perhaps the same individuals so we can see if we are duplicating efforts and so on.
Drivers for collaboration	Relations as dependent on the situation (excerpts n = 19; ∼3,000 words)	… 2015, the ‘refugee umbrella’ also started, and it's like the [CSO name], [CSO name], and [CSO name] to mention some  … there was a, well, some deeper relation because we had to see who was doing what and how and in what way and so on. So, many contacts were established then that still exist today, absolutely.
	Regulating behaviours (excerpts n = 10; ∼500 words)	I know them [members of other CSOs] from before. But at the same time, I don’t see what they can do for us, really … But we will be involved [in the refugee umbrella] because we need to be involved in those contexts for various reasons, such as building relations and broadening our horizons.
Relations first	Relations before collaboration (excerpts n = 11; ∼2,200 words)	You also have to … have the time to get to know each other, and then we have very good collaboration, which also makes it much easier for other future projects […] it takes some resources to build relationships, for it to work. I would say that we have good collaborative relationships with most.
	Relations as important for the future (excerpts n = 17; ∼2,000 words)	We [the CSO] believe more and more that in the long term, we benefit from collaborating […] we can achieve more when we work together. None of our organisations would have managed to arrange a ‘warm shelter’ on their own, for example.

*As the aim of the article was not to analyse collaboration per se, the overarching theme was not further analysed into sub-themes.

The first theme focuses on how drivers for collaboration affect relations, and the second on how existing relations, in some cases, are necessary for initiating collaboration.

Results and Analysis

Even if 2015–2016 is not the primary focus of this article, it is essential background to understand the collaborations of CSOs. When tens of thousands of refugees arrived in Sweden in 2015–2016, the Swedish migration office’s capacity was insufficient to handle the situation (Asp, 2017). To support people arriving at Malmö’s central station, CSOs opened up their facilities to provide refugees with sleeping facilities, food, medical assistance and organized transportation to other places in Sweden and the Nordic countries. The initial and acute phases were characterized by a high degree of uncertainty as many circumstances were unclear (Jämte & Pitti, 2019). Many CSOs had different backgrounds, ideologies and ways of working, which initially limited collaboration and led to frustration. For example, more activist CSOs thought more established CSOs had limited organizational flexibility, as they could not take money from donation boxes to buy train tickets for refugees (CSO 2).

In the summer of 2016, the Swedish government imposed border controls, making a temporary exception to free movement within the Schengen countries, according to the Schengen Agreement. Together with other changes within the European Union, fewer refugees arrived in Sweden in 2016. Therefore, the need for acute assistance and support changed, resulting in adjusted activities provided by CSOs to meet the needs of refugees. Even if many refugees, primarily undocumented refugees or those in between different refugee statuses, still required acute help, including food and shelter, many CSOs shifted attention in 2019. They became more centred on social law advice and assistance in contacting governmental agencies. CSOs also provided activities that were not acute but essential for the potential success of individuals in adapting to living in a new country, including obtaining identification and payment cards, learning the language, supporting school homework, and writing job applications. The non-acute type of activities is generally an essential supplement to official activities for refugees, as they are often regarded as insufficient (Gustafsson & Johansson, 2018).

Collaborative drivers are essential as they affect CSOs’ will and need to collaborate. The main identified driver is collaboration over resources. Even if the informants did not directly discuss how to increase their resources, they considered how they exchange, receive and contribute with resources to work complementarily. Not collaborating would limit CSOs’ possibility to support refugees in the way they think is needed. The complementary work many CSOs talk about is, as will be further analysed below, achieved due to relational aspects and trans-action in many cases. The collaboration exemplified by empirical cases in this article can be short-term, e.g., at a specific event, or more lasting, such as undertaking regular activities together. Still, to add to previous research, the focus in both upcoming sections is on relations rather than collaborative drivers. The two main analytical themes, presented below, will focus on drivers for collaboration as a relational trigger and how relations can enable CSOs to collaborate over drivers.

Drivers for Collaboration as a Relational Trigger

This section focuses on how collaborative drivers affect present, past and anticipated future relations, understanding collaboration for various drivers as a fluid and dynamic social process (Dépelteau, 2013). The first section exemplifies how straining circumstances, like in 2015–2016, can shape relations and become an opportunity for new collaboration. Furthermore, while Swedish news media often described the 2015–2016 situation as a crisis, researchers have critically questioned this conceptualization as it is unclear for whom it was a crisis (Olofsson et al., 2016). The second section instead focuses on how CSOs do not want to hurt potential future relations and thereby regulate their behaviour to act in accordance with the norms among CSOs. Both sections largely build on the concept of trans-action.

Relations as Situation-Dependent: Crisis as an Opportunity and Trigger

The huge influx of refugees from 2015–2016 created an increased workload for CSOs, particularly in Malmö. It allowed CSOs to intensify past and present relations, initiate new connections to collaboration and enhance future collaboration, resulting in an increased number of new ties. CSO representatives often returned to this as a starting point in the interviews:

There was an explosion of relations in all directions. All over the community, you can say that. All from local schools to mosques to different businesses, to … well, of course, all local associations and political parties. (CSO 4, 11/2/2019)

A crisis can trigger collaboration and create relations (Sjöberg, 2018). However, different religions, aims, and ideological views, generally viewed as critical dimensions for establishing relationships and collaborations (Tsasis, 2009), were not considered important during this time. Instead, the CSOs acted according to ideology, morals, and history (Åberg, 2015). As Larruina and Ghorashi (2020) have previously observed, a ‘crisis’ can be viewed as an opportunity in terms of collaboration; collaboration might be intensified when CSOs unite for a common cause, and CSOs identify a gap that needs to be filled (Sowa, 2009). In this empirical case, many CSOs identified gaps in service concerning the provision of winter clothes, sleeping facilities and warm food. All CSOs described how the situation created a stressful setting, but they could solve many acute needs through collaboration. In many cases, what CSOs decided to collaborate on, and in what way, was a result of their contextual environment. Some of the relations and collaborations established during this episode also resulted in an umbrella organization for CSOs supporting refugees in the Malmö region.

Because of [the circumstances in] 2015, the refugee umbrella was created, the Swedish Church, Red Cross, Save the Children to … . [mention some large-sized CSOs] So that created deeper relations, also, because you had to see who does what, when, and how[,] and so on … So[,] a lot of the relations that were established then, we still have [them]. (CSO 5, 2/4/2020)

Once the contact was initiated and the new umbrella organization was established, the informants described that trust between the organizations increased over time, leading to further collaboration and positive outcomes (cf. Larruina & Ghorashi, 2020). The intensified relationship-building makes it easier for CSOs to exchange information and initiate collaboration today.

I think that what we need to learn from 2015 is better coordination, but now, I think the trust between organisations is better [making it easier to collaborate now]. (CSO 1, 30/3/2020)

Knowing and trusting each other help CSOs coordinate activities, despite having different backgrounds and views on collaboration. This typically comes down to individual relationships (Larruina & Ghorashi, 2020; Tsasis, 2009) and an intent to understand each other’s perspective (Lorino, 2020).

It is a bit comic that we, with all our different backgrounds, could find each other in this […] I think it was about we, as people, saw that we needed to do something in this situation. (CSO 1, 30/3/2020)

The representative cited above (CSO 1) argued that collaboration was facilitated because most had the same view of human rights and ideological values (cf. Åberg, 2015) and that they connected on a personal level. The established relations and collaboration made it possible for CSOs to solve critical needs for refugees. However, it also had positive effects on the collaborating CSOs as it increased their trust in each other and contributed to better coordination. Still, collaboration is not always friction-free. As discussed below, CSOs must balance various values, for example, when applying for funding, to avoid others viewing them as undesirable partners (Tsasis, 2009).

Anticipated Future Relations: Balancing Behaviour to Keep Relations and not Limiting Future Collaboration

For CSOs, gaining resources is one of the main drivers for initiating collaboration (Sowa, 2009). In a Swedish context, CSOs are becoming more dependent on project funding. Nowadays, CSOs more often must compete for funding (Herz, 2016; Wren, 2007), which sometimes affects relations. Relations are not limited to the past and present (Morgner, 2020a). Also, the hope of keeping the existing relations and anticipating the future is important to understand how CSOs behave when trying to allocate funding. Most informants stated that they have good relations but also acknowledged that future collaboration depends on present actions. Applying for funding is sometimes viewed as a minefield for CSOs as they navigate between portraying themselves as better and more competent than other CSOs and being humble to avoid negatively influencing future collaboration. One informant noted,

You need to beef it up and say how good you are [when applying for funding] … and then, maybe [later], you will have a different project or initiative, and you will have to make sure that you have not stepped on anyone’s toes. (CSO 11, 30/3/2020)

Thus, even if CSOs can be understood as agents in a free market competing over funding (Eikenberry & Kluver, 2004), they must also balance their behaviour concerning the established norms and expectations of the relational context. Consequently, funding and collaboration for funding is a matter of balancing various values carefully and not risking the possibility of future competitive advantages, i.e., what could be understood as positions in the field (Sowa, 2009). If CSOs act in a way others deem unsubstantiated, it might limit their future collaboration possibilities (Tsasis, 2009). CSOs, therefore. trans-act with other CSOs attempting to understand the perspective of others and anticipate future steps (Lorino, 2020). Consequently, behaviours that break the unofficial rules among the CSOs, for example, applying for funding that clashes with their organizational aim or collaborating with organizations that are viewed as non-legitimate, risk losing relations, their (power)position in the field and future collaborations.

This section has shown how collaborative drivers can create relations and how drivers are handled in a specific relational context. As CSOs balance their behaviours, in an attempt to not limit future collaborations, the trans-actional approach highlights that CSOs act in a particular way because other CSOs exist and have specific norms and values (cf. Dépelteau, 2015).

The next section highlights the importance of having past relations to establish and continue the collaboration.

Relations First, Collaboration Second

In some cases, collaborating to cover perceived gaps in service provision requires already existing relations. The collaboration can include anything from sharing information about specific activities or individuals to receiving and providing financial support. In this analytical theme, the informants’ narrative can help us better understand how existing relations might be essential for some types of collaboration drivers and, second, how CSOs use relations to make sure to support the CSOs that they think are needed to support refugees.

Relations to Initiate Collaboration: Sharing Information and Working Complementarily

Information sharing primarily involves informing each other on what day they have activities for refugees and the content of the activities. By increasing knowledge about what others do, when and how, CSOs can organize what activities to have and complement others’ work to cover identified needs and gaps in service (cf. Sowa, 2009). This exchange mainly reduces the workload and competition (cf. Snavely & Tracy, 2000 for similar results in other CSO contexts; van Wessel et al., 2019), but it also enables CSOs to refer refugees to each other’s activities. CSOs describe how they need each other because of their differences (Lorino, 2020), which shows how CSOs cannot be separated from their relational context (Morgner, 2020b; Selg, 2020a),

We kind of need each other; we [CSO name] cannot answer legal questions or help them. So that’s why we need to refer them to others […] we cannot do everything. We are not experts. But we can tell them where to go. (CSO 3, 8/2/2019)

The CSOs argued that complementary work is essential as the work of local governmental organizations (LGOs) has been limited to a minimum and is regarded as insufficient to cover the needs of refugees (CSOs 1, 2, 4, and 6).

Exchanging information is also about getting knowledge ‘from the ground’ (Jämte & Pitti, 2019; O’Brien & Evans, 2017). Many CSOs meet the same refugees in different activities and sometimes exchange information about specific individuals. The exchange occurs when someone is absent from activities for an extended period or when the representatives are worried about someone’s mental or physical health. Collaboration to obtain knowledge about specific individuals seems to occur more often among CSOs that work with HSR, which might be explained by the fact that HSR CSOs work closely and more directly with refugees. Significantly, trust and existing previous relations are described as essential for this collaboration. In other words, without previous good relations, CSOs would not be able to achieve this type of collaboration of sensitive information.

Likewise, existing relations and trust are essential to initiate collaboration to reach the target group. One representative said,

In Malmö, this place is established, many people know about it, and many of them come because they feel safe here. So[,] many other organisations come here to meet them. (CSO 6, 23/4/2020)

In supporting refugees, small-sized CSOs have something that the large-sized ones lack: a closer connection with the target group. Not having access to the target group is a concern as it can limit the ability of some CSOs to fulfil their organizational aim and thereby question their existence. Are they needed if they lack connections with the group they intend to support? In this empirical context, small CSOs work as gatekeepers and a ‘safety net’ for vulnerable groups or individuals, only allowing access to what they describe as ‘safe’ organizations. Even if not articulated directly, ‘safe’ organizations are, in this context, other organizations that are known, that share the same goals, have the same view on human rights and where relations and trust have been built over a more extended period.

Relations to Secure the Future: Making Sure Relevant CSOs Survive

Financial stability is a significant concern for many CSOs (Sowa, 2009). It affects what activities they can organize and, ultimately, the existence of CSOs. During the most intense phase of the refugee reception in 2015–2016, the Swedish government gave money to a large-sized and well-established CSO to enhance the official reception system (Swedish Government, 2015). This confirms previous studies showing that established CSOs have a greater chance of acquiring funding (Espadas et al., 2013; Togral Koca, 2019). In this case, responders described the distribution of government funding as unfair.

It was incredibly unfair, the whole group [of refugees] was upon us, and we were struggling [financially], but we did not get any money. However, [the larger CSOs] that did not reach this group received it. (CSO 6, 23/4/2020)

This quotation highlights a critical point: established CSOs can more easily acquire funding but might have limited access to vulnerable groups, such as unaccompanied youths. Besides the limited connection with the group for which the money was intended, the distribution was also described as problematic and unfair by the CSO receiving the funding. To overcome, what they describe as inequality, CSO 6 used existing relations to initiate collaboration and thus benefit from the government’s funding. Below, both CSOs individually reflect upon this. –

We had to find other ways to collaborate with this CSO [that got funding], so we could get a share of this money. (CSO 6, 23/4/2020)

Well, it was the same thing when this government money was handed out; they [CSO 6] did not get a share. They [the government] looked at large and established organisations. Therefore, we shared our money with them [CSO 6], and they often felt forgotten. They are an approved national organisation, but they have a hard time. (CSO 2, 11/2/2019)

The collaboration was established due to previously good relations between the two CSOs, and CSO 2’s recognition of the other in supporting refugees. Still, the exchange and collaboration do not reflect a one-time occurrence but a pattern of long-term collaboration and relations showing how vital past and present relations are for resource collaboration within this context (Espadas et al., 2013). Here, CSOs collaborate to deliver support that help refugees and not to maximize the organization’s profit, even if they could have used their power advantage to solely benefit themselves. As CSOs meet the same group of individuals but cover different needs, when one CSO disappears, it leaves a gap in the system, increasing the workload for other CSOs, i.e., it affects the organizational context. As one informant said,

If they disappear, that will not be good. We meet the same individuals. (CSO 6, 23/4/2020)

When one CSO disappears, the rest will face more people in desperate need of food, shelter or economic support, which CSOs might struggle to meet due to limited resources, competencies and time. Therefore, CSOs try to collaborate to ensure that essential organizations, according to them, have sufficient resources to survive. Hence, collaborating about financial resources is not strictly related to helping a specific organization but instead maintaining a balance of actors that complements each other and creates stability in the relational context.

Discussion and Conclusion

This study aimed to advance the empirical and theoretical understanding of collaboration among locally based CSOs supporting refugees. This was achieved by developing a theoretical framework based on drivers for collaboration among CSOs and relational sociology (RS). To summarize and conclude the results, the analysis shows that relations might have two different functions concerning collaborative drivers. First, collaborative drivers create a need to initiate relations to be able to collaborate. Here, a situation like the one in 2015–2016, with a large number of refugees seeking protection in Sweden, created an opportunity to initiate new and intensify existing relations, i.e., it works like a trigger. However, the analysis also shows that, in some cases, existing relations are essential for initiating collaboration. In other words, for CSOs to respond to collaborative drivers, they need to have existing relations to draw on.

Concerning Sowa’s (2009) identified drivers and motivators for collaboration, mainly two are identified as important in this context, resources and covering support gaps. However, without the relational approach (Dépelteau, 2013, 2015, 2018), it would have been difficult to fully understand what CSOs can gain by collaborating aside from solving a critical question. Even if resources are crucial for organizational survival, as discussed by Sowa (2009), securing their organization’s survival is not addressed by informants as a driver for collaboration. By adding a relational approach, the article shows that creating, keeping, and establishing relations and acting according to the established norms are important as they otherwise risk losing future relations and potential collaborations. Therefore, other explanations for collaboration emerge in a field with strong ideological and moral values where CSOs do not strive to maximize profit. CSOs collaborate to work complementary and to reduce the risk that other CSOs, which they find important, might disappear from the field. To use a relational term, CSOs are trans-acting (Dépelteau, 2013; Lorino, 2020). In all cases, a CSO’s action can be traced to other CSOs’ actions or their anticipation of the future. The main point is that CSOs’ collaboration and behaviours can only be understood and explained in relation to each other’s actions and behaviours. In other words, they are both contextual and processual.

Furthermore, the results indicate that theoretical frameworks for collaboration developed in, for example, the USA, such as Sowa’s (2009), have problems addressing the complexity of civil society collaboration (see Vangen, 2017 for a similar critique of non-collaboration in civil society). Especially problematic for the theories is understanding CSO-CSO collaboration to support refugees in countries where civil society has not traditionally provided support to vulnerable groups or generally acts as for-profit organizations, which is the case in many European countries. Therefore, future research would benefit from paying more attention to relational and temporal dimensions when theorizing CSO collaboration. That would make theories more relevant and applicable for a European context, not least in the countries described as welfare regimes. Importantly the collaboration and relations created gave rise to other positive consequences. The intensified relations were argued to have increased trust and the ability of organizations to coordinate support. As shown elsewhere (e.g., Harris et al., 2017), getting to know each other and negotiating what should be done and how might be the most important aspect when it comes to creating strong bonds and thereby creating sustainable collaboration and resilient societies. Therefore, a stressful situation like the refugee system crisis can have positive outcomes on an organizational level. Regardless of the situation, societies wanting to create sustainability and inclusion and promote civil society collaboration should attempt to create appropriate arenas where CSOs can and want to meet on their own terms. Even though CSOs are largely run by volunteers (with some exceptions) and their time is limited, networking can often be seen as an activity that can be prioritized (e.g., Johansson, 2011; Kolmodin, 2023). In these cases, a systemic crisis like the one in 2015–2016 offers a unique opportunity for CSOs to form relations. Lastly, the empirical data were limited to the Swedish context and largely the refugee influx of 2015-2016, which can be understood as a trigger to initiate collaboration. The contextual limitations and the fact that two CSOs (out of 11) were based on religious grounds might have affected the results of this article. Still, Malmö serves as a great example of CSOs collaboration concerning refugee reception as CSOs in Malmö were essential to managing the situation (Hansen, 2019; Jämte & Pitti, 2019; Sjöberg, 2018), and was where many refugees in 2015 first encounter the Swedish refugee reception system. Still, it is relevant and necessary to confirm the results with further research on CSO collaboration. For example, it would be necessary to focus on power relations effect on collaboration as well as including contexts with different conditions for CSOs. Potentially such research could highlight how CSOs in rural areas, with fewer CSOs, fewer people and more considerable geographical distances, collaborate, how these characteristics potentially create other complexities and if the importance of relations differs. While the results are context-dependent and most likely unique in their exact nature, they point to important theoretical and practical insights related to collaboration among CSOs supporting refugees and the need to incorporate relational aspects into future analyses.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Agency for Civil Protection and Emergency Planning (MSB) (Grant number MSB1264), and is a part of the research project Societal Resilience in Sweden. As the author, I wish to confirm that there are no known conflicts of interest associated with this publication and that the financial support for this work has not influenced its outcome.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Agency for Civil Protection and Emergency Planning Myndigheten för Samhällsskydd och Beredskap [grant number: MSB1264], and is a part of the research project Societal Resilience in Sweden.