A resilience Resilience is often presented as a capability to be developed, trained, or even “engineered” in organizations, but in the social sector it often emerges as a prerequisite for existence, rather than as an improvement a posteriori. Non-profit organizations, civil society associations, and social enterprises tend to emerge in contexts marked by institutional gaps, persistent inequalities, and structural injustices, meaning they are born in environments of chronic volatility, rather than being merely exposed to occasional shocks (De Oro, 2021; Cooper, 2024). In this sense, resilience is not merely an optional strategic attribute; it is constitutive of how the social sector organizes itself, survives, and finds meaning under conditions of persistent constraint (Young & Searing, 2022).
Conceptually, resilience has been described as a dynamic process through which social actors adapt, reorganize, and maintain core functions in the face of adversity, emphasizing collective capabilities and relationships rather than individual resilience (Bawati et al., 2025; Rahanra, 2023). This collective orientation is deeply aligned with the functioning of civil society, where people aggregate around shared concerns, combine resources, and experiment with local solutions when state and market responses prove insufficient (UN DESA, 2001; PolSci Institute, 2023). The very act of organizing “from the bottom up,” without guarantees of stability or profit, inscribes adaptive behaviors within the organizational fabric. Volunteering, grassroots mobilization, and the combination of lay and professional knowledge make it possible to quickly reconfigure activities when conditions change, even when formal resources remain scarce (Cooper, 2024; Woznyj, 2023).
The core characteristics of civil society reinforce this idea of resilience as an inherent trait, rather than an accessory capacity. Autonomy from the state and the market allows organizations to critique, challenge, and complement public policies without being fully absorbed by political or commercial logics (PolSci Institute, 2023; Stid, 2025). Pluralism and participation generate dense feedback loops with communities, which support continuous micro-adjustments to programs, narratives, and priorities in response to emerging needs (UN DESA, 2001). The absence of profit demands for shareholders allows non-profit entities to refocus on emerging social problems and longer time horizons, prioritizing mission continuity over short-term financial optimization (Young & Searing, 2022; Shields, 2024). Flexibility, improvisation, and the creative use of available resources are no longer just one-off responses to crises, but have become everyday ways of working in many organizations on the front lines of social provision (Zafar et al., 2025).
At the same time, recent research on organizational resilience in nonprofits and social enterprises complicates any romanticized idea of an unbreakable sector capable of absorbing shocks indefinitely. Studies on organizational resilience show that networks, collaboration, and strategic partnerships function as deliberate mechanisms through which social actors buffer risks, access resources, and co-create solutions (Woznyj, 2023; Bawati et al., 2025). Leaders are encouraged to cultivate mission-aligned alliances, invest in human resources and organizational infrastructure, and strengthen financial management and data utilization capabilities to better manage uncertainty (Young & Searing, 2022; Rahanra, 2023). Social enterprises, in particular, must navigate the dual logic of economic viability and social impact, which requires constant adjustments and strategic clarity in the face of competing pressures (Zafar et al., 2025; Hidayat & colleagues, 2023). These findings suggest that, although the conditions of origin of the social sector predispose it to resilience, this predisposition must be translated into intentional organizational practices to withstand systemic crises such as pandemics, economic recessions or political reversals (Cooper, 2024; Shields, 2024).
Recent work on the resilience of social enterprises in times of crisis is particularly illustrative of the intersection between innate and constructed elements. Qualitative studies highlight internal sources of resilience, such as mission-driven leadership, social branding, and community dynamics, and external sources, including weak ties, mutual cooperation, and access to institutional support (Hidayat & colleagues, 2023; Zafar et al., 2025). Mechanisms such as the creative use of available resources, social innovation, and the management of hybridities are presented as practical ways to translate social values and commitments into concrete adaptive strategies (Zafar et al., 2025; Young & Searing, 2022). During the Covid-19 pandemic, for example, non-profit cultural and artistic organizations and fundraising teams developed new fundraising strategies, combined emotional and behavioral capabilities, and reconfigured networks to secure alternative revenue streams (Rahanra, 2023). These responses indicate that operating “on the edge” is normalized in large segments of the social sector, where uncertainty is treated as permanent and trade-offs are seen as routine, not as exceptions (Cooper, 2024; Woznyj, 2023).
However, characterizing resilience as an innate characteristic of the social sector has significant political and ethical implications. On the one hand, it rightly acknowledges the ingenuity and endurance of organizations that sustain social cohesion and provide essential services when formal systems fail (UN DESA, 2001; Bawati et al., 2025). On the other hand, it risks reinforcing narratives that shift the responsibility for dealing with structural crises to the very organizations that already absorb their consequences (Shields, 2024). If policymakers and funders assume that resilience is something the sector simply “has,” they may underinvest in the framework conditions—fairer funding architectures, favorable regulation, and long-term, trust-based partnerships—that allow this resilience to remain generative rather than extractive (Young & Searing, 2022; Cooper, 2024). The admiration for "doing more with less" can quickly slip into the expectation of "doing everything with almost nothing," pushing teams toward burnout, eroding organizational cores, and normalizing permanent crisis management as the management standard (Shields, 2024; Rahanra, 2023).
A more nuanced position therefore recognizes both the inherent and constructed dimensions of resilience in the social sector. Historically, civil society has demonstrated an extraordinary capacity to respond to shocks—conflicts, epidemics, economic crises—through rapid mobilization, mutual aid, and community self-organization (UN DESA, 2001; Bawati et al., 2025). However, contemporary literature underlines that robust and sustainable resilience depends on long-term strategies: diversification of revenue sources, investment in people and governance, use of digital technologies, and incorporation of learning and reflexivity into organizational routines (Young & Searing, 2022; Zafar et al., 2025). Instead of treating resilience as an inexhaustible moral resource, this perspective situates it within broader systems of power, politics, and financing, insisting that vulnerability must be recognized and shared for resilience to remain credible and equitable (Cooper, 2024; Shields, 2024).
For leaders and professionals, this understanding redefines resilience, moving it away from a heroic narrative and towards a relational and systemic vision. Resilience is not just something that organizations “have” internally; it is also something that is negotiated within their networks, with funders, public institutions, and communities (Woznyj, 2023; Hidayat & colleagues, 2023). Non-profit organizations and social enterprises can argue that their historical and structural position makes them particularly well-suited to navigating uncertainty, while simultaneously requiring governance and funding frameworks that do not exploit this same strength (Young & Searing, 2022; Shields, 2024). In practice, this implies advocating for funding models that distribute risk more equitably, valuing structural costs as the backbone of adaptive capacity, and resisting discourses that glorify chronic scarcity as a virtue rather than a symptom of structural neglect (Cooper, 2024; Rahanra, 2023).
In this context, describing resilience as an innate characteristic of the social sector is both analytically compelling and normatively insufficient. It is compelling because the sector's identity is forged in response to adversity and institutional failure, and because its organizational logics—autonomy, pluralism, participation, and community embeddedness—incorporate adaptive practices from the outset (PolSci Institute, 2023; UN DESA, 2001). It is insufficient because resilience, if it remains merely an informal and underfunded quality, risks becoming unsustainable and unevenly distributed among organizations and communities (Shields, 2024; Bawati et al., 2025). The challenge is not to ask the social sector to become resilient again, but to co-construct political, financial, and institutional arrangements that recognize, value, and reinforce a resilience that has always been there—often taken for granted, rarely central to public policies, but indispensable for the resilience of society as a whole (Young & Searing, 2022; Cooper, 2024).
References:
Bawati, A., & colleagues. (2025). Family and social resilience: A scoping review of the literature. Demographic Research, 52, 705–742.
Cooper, K. R. (2024). Nonprofit resilience and resistance in response to the refugee crisis. Journal of Social Service ResearchAdvance online publication.
De Oro, G. C. (2021). The role and relevance of resilience in the nonprofit sector: A review. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 7(1), 1–24.
Hidayat, R., & colleagues. (2023). Resilience mechanisms of social enterprises in times of crisis. Journal of Community Development Research.
PolSci Institute. (2023). Key characteristics of civil society: Pluralism, autonomy, public engagementPolSci Institute.
Rahanra, F. (2023). Organizational resilience capabilities in nonprofit arts and culture organizations: Fundraising under Covid-19. International Journal of Arts Management, 25(2), 45–59.
Shields, J. (2024). The limits of nonprofit sector resilience: Evidence from the Canadian community nonprofit sector during the pandemic. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 15(1), 1–22.
Stid, D. (2025, August 13). Characteristics of a healthy civil society [LinkedIn post]. LinkedIn.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). (2001). World social situation: Chapter VIII – Civil societyUnited Nations.
Woznyj, H. M. (2023). Building nonprofit resilience through a network. Management Faculty Publications. University of Nebraska–Lincoln.
Young, DR, & Searing, EAM (2022). Resilience and the management of nonprofit organizationsEdward Elgar.
Zafar, S., & colleagues. (2025). Resilience and sustainability of social enterprises: A systematic literature review and bibliometrics using PRISMA. Cogent Business & Management, 12(1), 2493777.
