As with other evolutions that philanthropy has been facing over time (e.g. the development of “venture philanthropy”), the emergence of digital platforms with a social mission has posed a key question to established philanthropic foundations. Should these platforms be part of the philanthropic field or not? In our recent article in the Journal of Management Studies, we present a qualitative case study of Belgian philanthropy to explore what happens when philanthropic foundations diverge in their responses to the emergence of social-mission platforms. Between 2016 and 2021, we observed how foundations managed such divergence. While most foundations perceived these platforms as a risk and sought to keep field boundaries shut, a small minority saw them as an opportunity and chose to collaborate with them against the stance of the majority. We show how, counter-intuitively, a minority of incumbents can subtly reshape the field’s boundaries, working with external actors to overcome the resistance of majority incumbents. Our research challenges the assumption that field-level change requires consensus or external disruption. 

Field, membership and boundaries 

Being part of a field to interact with organizations sharing similar practices grants access to resources (like funding, reputation, and networks). But membership requires meeting certain criteria that define who is eligible to the field and its resources. These criteria give rise to boundaries that distinguish between those who are recognized as members and those who are not. Membership criteria are typically defined by powerful, incumbent field members, drawing boundaries that reflect and protect their privileged positions. 

There are two types of boundaries at play. The symbolic boundary marks the conceptual line between insiders and outsiders by identifying field members’ core characteristics. The social boundary refers to the practical line that determines who has access to resources. For example, audit firms have to comply with membership criteria as defined by the law and implemented by professional associations to be recognized as legitimate members (symbolic boundary) and benefit from access to clients, public contracts and collaborations with other audit firms (social boundary).  

Boundaries can be challenged, especially when new actors with fresh ideas emerge at the periphery of the field. Such moments prompt incumbents to engage in boundary work:  

• Incumbents either protect the existing boundaries, such as when major music labels resisted online music services.  

• Or incumbents reconsider membership criteria and expand the boundaries, such as when traditional media give visibility to independent bloggers. 

Most research has focused on situations where incumbents share a common stance and respond collectively. But what happens when they diverge in their responses? That is the puzzle that our study explores.  

The rise of social-mission platforms 

Over the last decade, digital platforms have increasingly been used to tackle societal challenges, giving rise to what Logue & Grimes (2022) called social-mission platforms (SMPs). SMPs aim to enable participatory and tech-enabled forms of giving. Examples include crowdfunding and volunteer-matching platforms. The emergence of SMPs sparked debate within the philanthropic field, traditionally dominated by foundations. Most foundations expressed skepticism, particularly due to SMPs’ commercial nature, and refused to associate them with philanthropy. We referred to these foundations as “protectors”. A minority of foundations, however, saw the emergence of these platforms as an opportunity to renew philanthropic practices. As they took an expansive approach, we referred to these foundations as “expanders”. Surprisingly, over time, the minority of expanders successfully convinced the majority of protectors to welcome SMPs as a new type of philanthropic actor. To expand field membership, they used four mechanisms that strategically shifted symbolic and social boundaries. 

Four mechanisms of membership expansion 

Affirming divergent expansive posture 

Unlike most foundations, expanders were among the first to recognize the potential of SMPs and affirmed their expansive posture by publicly supporting them: inviting SMPs to events, showcasing them online, and treating them as legitimate partners. Expanders made it harder for others to ignore the platformization trend and opened the door to rethinking who belongs in philanthropy. In other words, they challenged the field’s symbolic consensus. This move inevitably raised opposition from protectors. 

Leveraging definitional ambiguity 

Philanthropy in Belgium lacked a clear legal definition, leaving room for interpretation. Expanders used this ambiguity to advocate for a flexible understanding of who counts as a “philanthropic actor”, arguing that SMPs represented new forms of philanthropy. Meanwhile, protectors struggled to agree on what “truly philanthropic” meant and could not build a unified case against platforms. SMPs embraced this openness, positioning their work as complementary to foundations. As one SMP put it, “Foundations need to distribute their money in a more participatory, more transparent way.” By collaborating with expanders, SMPs gained access to funding, visibility, and networks. This broadened access to resources marked a clear expansion of the social boundary. 

Demonstrating comparative reinforcement 

By collaborating with SMPs, expanders gained access to tech-based expertise and innovative tools. SMPs added value to their projects by offering crowdfunding options or fundraising advice. These collaborations allowed expanders to showcase successful examples to protectors, demonstrating that partnering with platforms could strengthen foundations. In contrast, protectors became increasingly isolated. Their platform initiative, which they tried to build without SMPs, eventually failed. Seeing the success of expanders’ partnerships led protectors to reconsider their stance and recognize SMPs’ philanthropic nature.  

Facilitating shared buy-in 

Although initial collaborations helped shift protectors’ views and foster symbolic recognition of platforms, expanders feared that underlying resistance could still create a divide among foundations. To ease tensions, they introduced the label “philanthropic entrepreneurs” to distinguish platforms from foundations. This symbolic move allowed protectors to selectively endorse and collaborate with SMPs they saw as aligned with philanthropic values – namely, the least commercial ones. This final step cemented platforms’ symbolic and social inclusion, thereby expanding field membership.  

Implications  

Our article suggests two implications for theory and practice: 

• Divergence among incumbents matters and it does not lead to paralysis or field breakdown. Membership expansion does not require an initial collective consensus: it can be a contested, multi-actor process, where even a minority who see opportunity where others see risk can successfully bring new actors into the field. For practitioners, this means embracing disagreement as part of strategic action. The four mechanisms identified offer them concrete strategies to navigate internal resistance to membership expansion. 

• Symbolic and social boundaries are interconnected: change in one can trigger change in the other. Expanders used social collaborations (e.g. integrating SMPs into grantmaking projects) as a “de facto” move to legitimize symbolic recognition, which in turn enabled large-scale collaborations (e.g. foundations and SMPs joint advocacy for changes in Belgium’s fiscal legislation on philanthropy). 

Logue, D., & Grimes, M. (2022). Platforms for the people: Enabling civic crowdfunding through the cultivation of institutional infrastructure. Strategic Management Journal, 43(3), 663-693.