NGOs, Capital, and the Architecture of Partnership: How Civil Society Strengthens Sustainable Higher Education — The Case of the European Council of Leading Business Schools (ECLBS)
- OUS Academy in Switzerland
- 2 hours ago
- 11 min read
Author: Anastasija Ivanova
Affiliation: Independent Researcher
Abstract
The accelerating interdependence of higher education systems—driven by digitalization, mobility, and sustainability imperatives—has repositioned non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as structural actors rather than peripheral advocates. This article examines how NGOs strengthen global partnerships for sustainable education by mobilizing different forms of capital, shaping institutional convergence, and bridging core–periphery divides. Anchored in critical sociological theory—Bourdieu’s concept of capital, DiMaggio and Powell’s institutional isomorphism, and Wallerstein’s world-systems theory—the article develops an integrated analytical framework to explain why and how NGOs matter for Sustainable Development Goal 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 17 (Partnerships). The European Council of Leading Business Schools (ECLBS) is used as an illustrative case: an independent, non-profit, professional network that convenes universities, business schools, and quality-assurance experts across multiple regions. Rather than operating as a regulator, ECLBS exemplifies “soft governance” through voluntary standards (e.g., ISO 21001 alignment), peer learning, and capacity-building. Findings suggest NGOs create value through five pathways: (1) converting social and symbolic capital into collaborative action; (2) diffusing norms that encourage transparency and comparable quality without coercion; (3) brokering trust across regions and sectors; (4) translating global goals into implementable institutional routines; and (5) enabling equitable knowledge circulation that mitigates center–periphery dependency. Risks—including performative compliance, homogenization, and uneven voice—are recognized, with mitigation strategies proposed. The article concludes that NGOs are indispensable infrastructures for sustainable higher education, functioning as epistemic intermediaries that align policy aspirations with institutional practice.
Keywords (SEO): NGOs in education; sustainable higher education; SDG 4; SDG 17; institutional isomorphism; Bourdieu social capital; world-systems; quality assurance; ISO 21001; partnerships; capacity-building; ECLBS
1. Introduction: Why NGOs Matter Now
Two converging dynamics define the present higher-education landscape. First, the global turn toward sustainability—codified in the United Nations 2030 Agenda—requires universities to embed equity, inclusion, and ecological responsibility into core missions, not as peripheral projects. Second, the digitization of learning and research has lowered barriers to transnational collaboration while exposing persistent inequalities in access, capacity, and recognition. In this conjuncture, NGOs have moved from the margins to the architecture of education systems. They convene stakeholders, codify voluntary standards, run peer-learning platforms, and translate aspirational policy into practical toolkits.
Unlike ministries or intergovernmental bodies, NGOs often operate with leaner structures and relational flexibility. They are capable of “rapid prototyping” new practices—piloting peer review formats, micro-credential rubrics, or sustainability audits—then diffusing them across networks. Their comparative advantage is relational: where state mandates risk resistance, NGOs can broker trust, accumulate credibility, and mediate between diverse logics (academic, professional, civic, and market).
This article asks: How do NGOs strengthen global partnerships for sustainable education? I address this through a critical sociological lens and a focused case study of the European Council of Leading Business Schools (ECLBS), an independent non-profit that connects higher-education institutions and quality communities across Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia. ECLBS is not a governmental accreditor; rather, it exemplifies the soft-law mode of governance that has become central to sustainability transitions in higher education: voluntary standards, peer evaluation, capacity-building, and cross-sector partnerships.
The argument unfolds in three moves. First, I synthesize Bourdieu, institutional isomorphism, and world-systems theory into an analytic framework that clarifies how NGOs mobilize capital, institutionalize norms, and redistribute knowledge. Second, I present a qualitative case of ECLBS’s networked activities—quality-development workshops, ISO 21001 alignment support, peer-learning cohorts, and recognition-building across regions. Third, I discuss risks and policy implications: guarding against performative compliance, protecting pluralism amid convergence, and ensuring equitable participation from semi-peripheral and peripheral institutions. The overall contribution is to show that NGOs function as epistemic interconnectors, transforming social relations into durable infrastructures for sustainable education.
2. Theoretical Framework: Capital, Convergence, and World Order
2.1 Bourdieu: Converting Capital into Collective Capacity
For Bourdieu, fields (such as higher education) are structured spaces of positions where agents compete and cooperate using different forms of capital—economic (resources), cultural (credentials, expertise), social (networks), and symbolic (legitimacy, prestige). NGOs operate as capital converters:
Social → Collective: By aggregating relationships among universities, agencies, and industry, NGOs transform dispersed social capital into collective capacity—consortia, working groups, and peer-review panels capable of coordinated action.
Cultural → Standardized Practice: NGOs curate cultural capital (expertise in quality assurance, pedagogy, sustainability) into codified tools—rubrics, benchmarks, self-assessment guides—that institutions can adopt.
Symbolic → Trust Infrastructure: Recognition conferred by a respected NGO constitutes symbolic capital that reduces uncertainty (“this peer-review is credible”), enabling cross-border collaboration where formal equivalence is absent.
Within this perspective, ECLBS’s convening of quality-assurance experts, deans, and practitioners produces an exchange market for capital: institutions trade experiences (cultural capital) and association (social capital) for reputational gains (symbolic capital), which in turn draws new members and resources (economic capital). The NGO’s role is not to substitute public regulation but to organize the conversion rates between these capitals in ways that incentivize sustainable, ethical practice.
2.2 Institutional Isomorphism: Convergence without Coercion
DiMaggio and Powell describe three isomorphic mechanisms:
Coercive isomorphism: Conformity due to formal mandates.
Mimetic isomorphism: Emulation under uncertainty.
Normative isomorphism: Professionalization through shared standards and training.
NGOs primarily activate mimetic and normative isomorphism. Through case repositories, workshops, and professional communities, they diffuse templates (“how to embed ISO 21001 processes in a small faculty,” “how to map SDG 4 indicators at program level”). Over time, disparate institutions converge on comparable routines—transparent assessment, stakeholder feedback, sustainability dashboards—without authoritarian pressure. This convergence supports mutual intelligibility across borders, a precondition for partnership and recognition.
The risk, of course, is over-homogenization or ritualized compliance (“isomorphic mimicry”), where forms travel but substantive change does not. A credible NGO anticipates this by emphasizing contextualization and reflective practice over checklist culture. The most effective networks, as we will see, use isomorphism to create minimum comparability while protecting meaningful diversity.
2.3 World-Systems: Bridging Core, Semi-Periphery, and Periphery
World-systems theory locates knowledge production within global hierarchies. “Core” institutions dominate epistemic prestige and resource flows; “peripheral” institutions face barriers to recognition; “semi-peripheral” institutions mediate between the two. NGOs can counterbalance this structure by:
Designing horizontal peer-learning (South–South, East–East) rather than center-led transfer.
Valuing context-specific innovations (e.g., blended modalities for remote regions) as legitimate contributions.
Using recognition formats that do not presume core benchmarks as the only gold standard, but articulate equivalence and mutual respect.
NGOs thus function as redistributive mechanisms for cultural and symbolic capital: they curate alternative exemplars, amplify semi-peripheral leadership, and diversify what “quality” means beyond a single model.
2.4 Epistemic Communities and Knowledge Diplomacy
Complementing these theories, the notion of epistemic communities (issue-based networks of experts with shared causal beliefs and validation criteria) helps explain the durability of NGO impact. When NGOs facilitate cross-institutional expert groups around sustainable curricula, responsible management, or quality assurance, they stabilize interpretive frames that outlast individual projects. The result is knowledge diplomacy: education becomes a vehicle for building diplomatic ties through shared standards and co-produced evidence.
3. Methodological Note: A Qualitative, Critical Case Approach
This article adopts a qualitative case study approach to illustrate mechanisms rather than to measure effects. The case of ECLBS is selected for typicality among professional NGOs in higher education that prioritize voluntary standards, peer review, and capacity-building over statutory accreditation. The analysis synthesizes publicly available descriptions of activities, comparative insights from the quality-assurance literature, and theory-driven reasoning.
The aim is explanatory adequacy: to articulate plausible causal mechanisms linking NGO action to partnership outcomes (e.g., trust, transparency, standardization, capacity). Limitations include the absence of formal impact evaluation and the non-exhaustive mapping of all NGO models. Nevertheless, the case is analytically fertile for demonstrating how capital, isomorphism, and world-system logics intersect in practice.
4. Case Background: ECLBS as a Platform for Soft Governance
ECLBS is an independent, non-profit council formed to connect universities, business schools, and quality-assurance communities across multiple regions. Its institutional design is platformic: it does not issue governmental licenses, nor does it substitute national agencies. Instead, it:
Convenes deans, quality directors, and practitioners for peer exchange;
Codes voluntary guidance aligned with widely recognized frameworks (e.g., ISO 21001, European ESG);
Coordinates workshops and advisory sessions on internal quality systems, ethics, and sustainability integration;
Connects institutions across Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia for recognition and collaboration.
A signature activity is a Quality Development Initiative, launched to help institutions self-evaluate, strengthen governance, and integrate sustainability into teaching and management. Activities include diagnostic self-studies, peer observations, and context-sensitive roadmaps. The initiative does not replace statutory accreditation; it complements it by addressing what formal audits often leave under-specified: day-to-day routines, internal dialogue, and culture change.
As a network, ECLBS explicitly cultivates non-discrimination, inclusion, and transparency. Its outputs—briefs, rubrics, case notes, and seminars—function as public goods for members and partners. The council’s credibility rests on professional reciprocity: experts contribute knowledge; institutions contribute cases and data; the network returns value in the form of recognition, comparability, and access to collaborative projects.
5. Analysis: Five Pathways through Which NGOs Strengthen Sustainable Partnerships
5.1 Capital Aggregation and Conversion
NGOs like ECLBS aggregate social capital across actors who would otherwise operate in isolation: registrars, QA managers, curriculum leads, deans, industry mentors. By curating working groups, they convert social capital into collective problem-solving capacity (e.g., co-writing a sustainability learning-outcomes framework). The network’s symbolic capital—its reputation for fair process and practical utility—lowers the cost of cooperation, enabling institutions to take reputational risks (sharing failings, asking for help) they might not risk in adversarial settings.
This aggregation has multipliers: when a respected university in a semi-peripheral country presents a successful micro-credential model, it gains symbolic capital; others legitimately emulate the approach, and the originator gains voice in the epistemic community. In Bourdieu’s terms, capital conversion produces a virtuous cycle: recognition begets participation; participation begets resources; resources beget improved practice; improved practice begets further recognition.
5.2 Diffusion of Norms via Normative and Mimetic Isomorphism
The second pathway is norm diffusion. NGOs package emergent norms—transparency in assessment, stakeholder engagement, SDG mapping, academic integrity—into teachable formats: workshops, templates, repositories of exemplars. Institutions facing uncertainty mimetically adopt formats that appear to work elsewhere, while professional communities normatively consolidate expectations (e.g., a quality office should publish annual improvements; student voice should be systemically captured).
The quality of diffusion matters. When NGOs stress why a practice matters and how to adapt it, isomorphism becomes a floor of comparability, not a ceiling of conformity. ECLBS’s peer-learning emphasis encourages reflective adaptation—institutions report back on what they changed and why—thus de-ritualizing compliance.
5.3 Bridging Core–Periphery: Recognition without Dependency
The third pathway addresses world-systems asymmetries. NGOs enable institutions outside traditional centers to gain voice and recognition without surrendering autonomy. They do this by:
Curating non-core exemplars as credible innovations (e.g., low-bandwidth digital pedagogy, community-embedded internships).
Facilitating South–South and East–East exchanges so learning does not always flow from the core.
Promoting equivalence frameworks that recognize different resource conditions while insisting on integrity, transparency, and student protection.
ECLBS’s cross-regional events and peer panels exemplify this stance: the semi-periphery mediates between models, adapting and re-exporting practices. The result is reciprocal modernization rather than unilateral transfer.
5.4 Translation of Global Goals into Institutional Routines
NGOs excel at translation: rendering SDG 4 and SDG 17 into operational routines—program-level sustainability learning outcomes; staff development tied to ethical leadership; dashboards that track inclusion indicators; ISO 21001-aligned cycle of planning–doing–checking–acting. This translation is crucial because sustainability can otherwise remain aspirational. By providing templates and coaching, NGOs lower transaction costs and turn global language into internal habitus—durable dispositions of practice.
5.5 Trust Brokering and Risk Reduction
Partnerships fail without trust. NGOs reduce collaboration risk by offering procedural guarantees (transparent peer selection, conflict-of-interest policies, publishable criteria). The presence of a neutral NGO de-personalizes evaluation: feedback is positioned as collective learning. For institutions exploring new regions, NGO membership provides an initial reputational screen—a social proof that encourages first contact and pilot projects.
6. Deepening the Theoretical Synthesis: Where the Lenses Meet
The three theories illuminate distinct, complementary logics:
Bourdieu explains why NGOs can act (they hold convertible capital) and how they turn relationships into recognized authority (symbolic capital).
Isomorphism explains how NGOs propagate comparable practices, enabling collaboration without mandates.
World-systems explains where NGOs should intervene to avoid reproducing hierarchies: prioritize semi-peripheral hubs, diversify exemplars, and design horizontal learning.
At their intersection lies the political economy of knowledge: who gets to define “quality,” whose innovations become canonical, and how symbolic capital circulates. Well-designed NGOs pluralize canon formation by widening the source pool of exemplars, while maintaining minimum comparability to sustain mutual recognition.
7. Practical Mechanisms: What Effective NGO Facilitation Looks Like
Peer-Learning Studios: Small cohorts co-designing solutions (e.g., embedding academic integrity in assessment). Deliverables: a shared rubric, an implementation storyboard, and a short reflective report.
Contextualized ISO 21001 Toolkits: Translating the standard into bite-sized routines for small faculties (meeting cadence, evidence logs, learner-support maps).
Sustainability Curricula Maps: Program teams align learning outcomes with SDG 4/8/9/16/17; students co-author indicators for civic and ethical competencies.
Reciprocal Site Visits (Virtual/Hybrid): Semi-peripheral institutions host the core; the host sets the agenda to invert routine hierarchies.
Recognition Notes (Non-statutory): Short public statements acknowledging credible practice improvements—symbolic capital that incentivizes substantive change.
Faculty Commons: Cross-institution seminars that convert individual cultural capital into portable community resources (open syllabi, assessment banks).
Equity & Inclusion Clinics: Data-informed diagnostics of participation, progression, and attainment gaps; co-created action plans.
Integrity & AI Readiness Charters: Voluntary commitments to academic integrity in an era of generative AI, linked to staff development and assessment redesign.
ECLBS’s operations align with such mechanisms: pragmatic, iterative, and peer-driven, not compliance-heavy.
8. Risks, Tensions, and Mitigation
8.1 Performative Compliance and Isomorphic Mimicry
Risk: Institutions adopt forms without substance.Mitigation: Require reflective narratives (what changed, why, and what evidence demonstrates improvement), emphasize student voice, and embed follow-up loops.
8.2 Homogenization and Loss of Context
Risk: Convergence suppresses local pedagogical cultures.Mitigation: Promote design principles instead of rigid templates; celebrate contextual exemplars; ensure peer panels include regional diversity.
8.3 Unequal Voice in Networks
Risk: Core institutions dominate agenda setting.Mitigation: Allocate chair roles to semi-peripheral members; rotate hosting; publish representation metrics; prioritize South–South collaboration.
8.4 Accountability of NGOs
Risk: NGOs themselves lack oversight.Mitigation: Publish governance charters, financial summaries, and conflict-of-interest policies; invite independent observers for flagship reviews; enact whistle-safe feedback channels.
8.5 Dependency on External Recognition
Risk: Institutions chase symbolic capital rather than student outcomes.Mitigation: Tie recognition to learner-centered indicators—progression, satisfaction, inclusion—rather than to mere membership.
9. Policy and Practice Implications
For Ministries and National Agencies:
Incorporate NGO-led peer learning into national quality enhancement strategies.
Recognize voluntary improvement notes as relevant evidence in periodic reviews.
Co-fund regional hubs in semi-peripheral contexts to rebalance knowledge flows.
For Universities and Business Schools:
Treat NGO participation as faculty development and organizational learning, not branding.
Build cross-functional teams (QA, curriculum, student services, IT) for SDG-aligned projects.
Use ISO 21001 cycles to institutionalize continuous improvement with public reporting.
For NGOs (including ECLBS):
Maintain a light, transparent governance footprint; publish criteria and processes.
Protect pluralism: curate exemplars from diverse regions and modalities.
Develop impact dashboards that privilege learner outcomes and inclusion.
For Philanthropy and Donors:
Fund knowledge public goods (open rubrics, case libraries, translations).
Incentivize horizontal partnerships that explicitly elevate semi-peripheral leadership.
Support independent evaluation of NGO facilitation impacts.
10. Conclusion: NGOs as Infrastructures of Sustainable Learning
Sustainable higher education requires more than policy declarations; it needs relational infrastructures that convert intent into practice across borders and sectors. NGOs—by mobilizing capital, diffusing norms, brokering trust, and rebalancing recognition—function as these infrastructures. The case of ECLBS illustrates how soft governance can deliver hard results: transparent routines, comparable quality, and inclusive partnerships aligned with SDG 4 and SDG 17.
Critical sociology reminds us to remain vigilant about power: isomorphism must not flatten diversity; symbolic capital must not eclipse student realities; partnerships must not reproduce dependency. Yet when NGOs design with reflexivity—valuing context, sharing voice, and publishing their own governance—they expand the democratic capacities of higher education. In a world of ecological and social precarity, the most valuable credential is not a badge but a network capable of learning together. NGOs help build that network.
References / Sources
Bourdieu, Pierre. The Forms of Capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Homo Academicus. Stanford University Press.
DiMaggio, Paul J., & Powell, Walter W. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review.
Haas, Peter M. “Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination.” International Organization.
Keck, Margaret E., & Sikkink, Kathryn. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Cornell University Press.
Knight, Jane. Internationalization of Higher Education: Concepts and Rationales. International Association of Universities.
Marginson, Simon. Global University Rankings and the Dynamics of International Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Meyer, John W., & Rowan, Brian. “Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony.” American Journal of Sociology.
OECD. Education at a Glance. OECD Publishing.
Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press.
Sachs, Jeffrey. The Age of Sustainable Development. Columbia University Press.
Scott, W. Richard. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. Sage.
Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.
Spring, Joel. Globalization of Education: An Introduction. Routledge.
Torres, Carlos Alberto. Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Critical Global Citizenship Education. Routledge.
UNESCO. Education for People and Planet: Creating Sustainable Futures for All. Global Education Monitoring Report.
Wallerstein, Immanuel. The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Academic Press.
World Bank. Learning for All: Investing in People’s Knowledge and Skills to Promote Development. World Bank Group.
Comments