There is an increased interest in Civil Society Organizations – the 'third domain' in society – variously labelled NPOs or NGOs (e.g. Salamon et al., 2004; Evers & Laville, 2005). We use the term CSOs, since we do not need to view the identity of these organizations as primarily the negative of 'business' or 'state' activity. Pirates of the Caribbean resemble CSOs: desperately sought after as protectors against corporations and governments, but also breaking laws and challenging stability and institutions themselves; or being exploited as privateers (service contractors). Good and bad, boundaries between legitimate authority and pirating, are blurred in the organizational sea. Our sub-theme addresses different aspects of CSOs. We encourage a theoretical and empirical diversity of contributions to any of the following themes: pirates, privateers, pioneers, and protectors.

1. Pirates address the 'dark matter' of civil society, often outside public scrutiny and empirical investigation. Civil society is mostly discussed in a benevolent spotlight, enhancing growth and welfare, compensating market or public administration failures (Badelt 1990). Theorizing strongly implies CSOs' contribution to social progress, democracy and justice (Ramirez et al., 2003; Meyer, 2006). But we can also conceive of CSOs abusing their power. How do CSOs handle crises and scandals? How do CSOs deal with overt fraud, bribes, and executives or staff using the organization only as a front? Do the ends justify the means? How do CSOs interact with their stakeholders, especially with their staff, members and volunteers? What does this dark side of civil society look like? Bonding social capital, social closure, nepotism, outlaw groups, intolerance, violence and fundamentalism (Wijkström, 1998; Widmalm, 2005)?
    
2. Holding a letter of marque in time of war provides the owner with an official commission to capture and capitalise on enemy ships. In a similar vein, some CSOs advance their own ends through securing contracts as a modern form of privateers with government or entering into strategic alliances or partnerships (PPP) with other actors (van Slyke & Roch, 2004). How do CSOs and 'social enterprises' strike a balance between internal 'noble goals' and the danger of being exploited? Maybe beliefs in knowledge and expertise work as a bridge. The image of the Royal Naval College and its production of professional seafarers correspond with the idea of professional CSOs. Batten down the hatches they become more streamlined and businesslike in stormy seas. Empirical work on managerialism, its antecedents and consequences is especially invited.
    
3. Imagine CSOs as naval pioneers discovering or inventing new worlds. We emphasise the opportunity-spotting, first-off-the-blocks role or responsiveness of CSOs. Topics range from new organizational constellations and hybrid forms to alternative modes of governance and leadership (Kendall & Knapp, 2000), from various levels of innovation to competitive advantages through CSO distinctiveness. But stressing innovativeness might just be an organizational fad; a grasp for legitimacy when all other claims disappear. What determinants foster innovation and social entrepreneurship in and by CSOs and what are the consequences of 'forcing' CSOs to innovate?
    
4. CSOs as the protectors: the 'good' force that improves that lot of all who sail the waters. Casted as liberators, perceived as the faint hope for new spaces of activism, unconventional channels and methods of participation and governance, like organized 'keyboard activism' or 'reclaim' initiatives. But many CSOs are widely detached both from traditional democratic control and market transparency. Some of the most pressing issues in the world today, for example raised by the global justice movement, are attempts to 'reframe' our lives (Della Porta & Tarrow, 2005). The right to public spaces like the internet and the risk of privatising patents on living organizms and native gene pools are highlighted. Borders to 'pirating' are blurred. Hideaways for traditional non-economic values, post-modern 'outlaws', and our last hope for a value turnaround, or rather the vanguard of global rationalisation?

Key readings

Badelt, C. (1990): Institutional Choice and the Nonprofit Sector. In: H.K. Anheier & W. Seibel (eds.): The Third Sector. Comparative Studies of Non-profit Organizations. Berlin.

Della Porta, D. & S. Tarrow, S. (eds.) (2005): Transnational Protest and Global Activism. Lanham.

Evers, A. & J.-L. Laville (2005): The Third Sector in Europe. Cheltenham.

Kendall, J. & M.R.J. Knapp (2000): Measuring the Performance of Voluntary Organizations. Public Management, 2, 1: 105-132.

Meyer, J.W. (ed.) (2006): Weltkultur. Wie die westlichen Prinzipien die Welt durchdringen. Frankfurt/Main.

Ramirez, F., G.S. Drori, J.W. Meyer & E. Schofer (2003): Science in the Modern World Polity: Institutionalization and Globalization. Stanford.

Salamon, L.M., W.S. Sokolowski & Associates (2004): Global Civil Society. Dimensions of the Nonprofit Sector. Bloomfield.

Van Slyke, D.M. & C.H. Roch (2004): What Do They Know, and Whom Do They Hold Accountable? Citizens in the Government-Nonprofit Contracting Relationship. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14, 2: 191.

Widmalm, S. (2005): The Utility of Bonding Social Capital. Journal of Civil Society, 1, 1: 75-95.

Wijkström, F. (1998): Different Faces of Civil Society. Stockholm.

About the convenors

Gemma Donnelly-Cox (IE) is a Lecturer in Organization Theory and Academic Director of the Centre for Nonprofit Management, School of Business, Trinity College Dublin.

Michael Meyer (AT) is Professor at the Department of Management and head of the Research Institute for Nonprofit Organizations at the Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien.

Filip Wijkström (SE) is Associate Professor and Director of the Economic Research Institute at the Stockholm School of Economics.