The study investigates how governance mechanisms can affect community representation within nonprofit organizations, focusing on Italian Bank Foundations where the community is on board by law. To investigate what governance arrangements increase substantive and symbolic representation, the study adjusts Guo and Musso’s framework by considering several formal mechanisms for appointing board members and the residence of board members as a new aspect of descriptive representation. A content analysis of the statutes and an email survey show that formal mechanisms contribute to substantive representation, whereas descriptive and participatory arrangements enhance symbolic representation. In addition, this study explores the moderating influence of local stakeholders in appointing board members, offering a wider point of view on the relationships among the five dimensions of representation.
AbzugR.GalaskiewiczJ. (2001). Nonprofit boards: Crucibles of expertise or symbols of local identities?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 30, 51-73.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. London, England: Sage.
4.
AnheierH. K. (2001). Foundations in Europe: A comparative perspective. In SchülterA.ThenV.WalkenhorstP. (Eds.), Foundations in Europe: Society, management and law (pp. 35-81). London, England: Directory of Social Change.
5.
BorgonoviE.FattoreG.LongoF. (2009). Management delle istituzioni pubbliche (tras. eng. Public Management). Milan, Italy: Egea.
6.
BrambleT. (2000). Leadership representativeness in the Australian union movement. Australian Bulletin of Labour, 26, 301-327.
7.
BrownW. A. (2002). Inclusive governance practices in nonprofit organizations and implications for practice. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 12, 369-385.
8.
CheckowayB.ZimmermanM. (1992). Correlates of participation in neighborhood organizations. Administration in Social Work, 16(3-4), 45-64.
9.
CnaanR. A. (1991). Neighborhood-representing organizations: How democratic are they?Social Service Review, 65, 614-634.
10.
CornforthC. (2004). The governance of co-operatives and mutual associations: A paradox perspective. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, 75, 11-32.
11.
CortinaJ. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.
12.
CreswellJ. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. London, England: Sage.
13.
DawsonJ. F. (2014). Moderation in management research: What, why, when, and how. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 1-19.
14.
FairchildA. J.MacKinnonD. P. (2009). A general model for testing mediation and moderation effects. Prevention Science, 10, 87-99.
15.
FreemanR. E.ReedD. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: A new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25, 88-106.
16.
FreiwirthJ. (2007). Engagement governance for system-wide decision making. The Nonprofit Quarterly, 13, 38-41.
17.
GarciaD. M.SchmittM. T.BranscombeN. R.EllemersN. (2010). Women’s reactions to ingroup members who protest discriminatory treatment: The importance of beliefs about inequality and response appropriateness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 733-745.
18.
GuoC.MariettaM. (2015). Value of voices, voice of values: Participatory and value representation in networked governance. In BrysonJ.M.CrosbyB.B.BloombergL. (Eds.), Creating public value in practice (pp. 67-86). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
19.
GuoC.MetelskyB. A.BradshawP. (2014). Out of the shadows: Nonprofit governance research from democratic and critical perspectives. In CornforthC.BrownW. (Eds.), Nonprofit governance: Innovative perspectives and approaches (pp. 47-68). New York, NY: Routledge.
20.
GuoC.MussoJ. A. (2007). Representation in nonprofit and voluntary organizations: A conceptual framework. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36, 308-326.
21.
GuoC.ZhangZ. (2013). Mapping the representational dimensions of non-profit organizations in China. Public Administration, 91, 325-346.
22.
HalpinD. R. (2006). The participatory and democratic potential and practice of interest groups: Between solidarity and representation. Public Administration, 84, 919-940.
23.
HarrisonS.MortM. (1998). Which champions, which people? Public and user involvement in health care as a technology of legitimation. Social Policy & Administration, 32, 60-70.
24.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
25.
IecovichE. (2005). The profile of board membership in Israeli voluntary organizations. Voluntas, 16, 161-180.
26.
JassaudN. (2014). Reforming the corporate governance of Italian banks (IMF Working Paper No. 14/181). Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
27.
KissaneR. J.GingerichJ. (2004). Do you see what I see? Nonprofit and resident perceptions of urban neighborhood problems. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33, 311-333.
28.
KrippendorffK. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
LeardiniC.RossiG.MoggiS. (2014). Board governance in bank foundations. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
30.
LeeD.NewbyH. (1983). The Problem of Sociology: An Introduction to the Discipline, London: Hutchinson.
31.
LeRouxK. (2009). Paternalistic or participatory governance? Examining opportunities for client participation in nonprofit social service organizations. Public Administration Review, 69, 504-517.
32.
MoggiS.LeardiniC.RossiG. (2015). Mandatory or not mandatory reporting? Insights from Italian bank foundations. International Journal of Public Administration, 38, 734-742.
33.
OppenheimA. N. (2005). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Continuum Group.
34.
PitkinH. F. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
35.
RagabI. A.BlumA.MurphyM. J. (1981). Representation in neighborhood organizations. Social Development Issues, 5(2-3), 62-73.
36.
RodekampM. (2010). Representatives or experts? Civil society organizations in the EU’s external relations (TranState Working Papers, No. 137). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10419/41590
37.
RodekampM. (2014). Their members’ voice. Civil society organisations in the European Union. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.
38.
RossiG.LeardiniC.MoggiS.CampedelliB. (2015). Toward community engagement in non-profit organizations governance. Voluntary Sector Review, 6, 21-39.
39.
SaxtonG. D. (2005). The participatory revolution in nonprofit management. The Public Manager, 34, 34-39.
40.
SaxtonG. D.GuoC.BrownW. A. (2007). New dimensions of nonprofit responsiveness: The application and promise of internet-based technologies. Public Performance & Management Review, 31, 144-173.
41.
SmithJ. M. (1972). Interviewing in social market research. London, England: Routledge and Keegan Paul.
42.
SwindellD. (2000). Issue representation in neighborhood organizations: Questing for democracy at the grassroots. Journal of Urban Affairs, 22, 123-137.
43.
WeisbrodB. A. (1997). The future of the nonprofit sector: Its entwining with private enterprise and government. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16, 541-555.
44.
ZimmermannU. (1994). Exploring the nonprofit motive (or: What’s in it for you?). Public Administration Review, 54, 398-403.
