Chapter Five

Collaborative Value Creation Processes

According to results published in 2010, respondents representing an overwhelming 83 percent of surveyed businesses and 89 percent of surveyed nonprofits believe that partnerships will play a more important role in corporate and NGO agendas in the future.1 Processes are the motors for value creation in partnerships. They are the means by which partners structure, develop, and sustain relationships in ways that multiply resources and create actual value. Processes range from informal to formal, from internal to external, and from implicit to explicit. Developing efficient, effective, and inclusive processes contributes to value creation not only for the organizations directly involved in a collaboration but also for society.2

This chapter discusses partnership processes as the fourth component of our Collaborative Value Creation framework, showing how processes can deliver maximal value. Partnership development involves four interrelated phases, which constitute value creation process pathways: formation, selection, implementation, and institutionalization. For each value creation process pathway, we identify the corresponding subprocesses that enable different sources of value to produce various types and amounts of value. We will again point to the CVC Framework’s four sources of value (resource directionality, resource complementarity, resource nature, and linked interests) and to its four types of value (associational value, transferred-asset value, interaction value, and synergistic value). Value accumulates as a collaboration moves through each of the four phases. In the formation and selection phases, the subprocesses are shaping the potential value of the partnership, value that may then be realized as a function of the subprocesses belonging to implementation and institutionalization, the next two phases of partnership development. In effect, the pathways constitute the Collaboration Process Value Chain, which generates environmental, economic, and social value for individuals, organizations, and society, as depicted in Figure 5.1. This chapter describes how managers can improve collaboration by adding or changing key subprocesses in each of the four value creation process pathways. Although rich process is a source of value in a collaboration, this chapter also recognizes that a combination of complex processes and social issues can be a source of failure if not managed effectively.3

Figure 5.1. The Collaboration Process Value Chain

Collaborative value creation can be planned, or it can simply emerge in the course of interactions across organizations. In either case, using processes to maximize the potential for value creation means incorporating two key elements:

The combination of intention and flexibility in the design of processes can maximize the value potential of partnerships, allowing for intention to guide and for flexibility to adjust the processes as the collaboration evolves.

Four Phases of Partnership Development

The first two phases, formation and selection, are closely interrelated partnership phases in which processes can maximize the potential creation of collaborative value through early identification of the sources of value before a final decision is made to proceed with the next two phases—implementation and institutionalization of the partnership. In this section of the chapter, we describe the value creation process pathways in each phase and show the different value-adding effects of their associated subprocesses.

Phase 1: Formation

We use the term formation to group processes that lead to the emergence of a partnership. Partnership formation refers to the prepartnership period. This is not just for a start-up collaboration but can also include situations in which an existing partnership moves to a higher and distinct stage on the Collaboration Continuum (see Chapter Four), as from a philanthropic to a transactional relationship, or from a transactional to an integrative relationship. Comparable terms often used in the literature8 are initial partnership conditions,9 problem-setting processes,10 coalition building,11 and partnership preconditions.12

There are two traditions in examining partnership formation. One commingles it with the implementation process13 so that the processes of formation and implementation “overlap and interact.”14 The other examines formation as a distinct phase that takes place prior to partnership selection and implementation.15 In order to analyze more systematically the determinants of collaborative value creation potential, we examine partnership formation and selection as distinct although interrelated phases. Employing a process-based view,16 we also move from examining the static characteristics of partnerships17 to examining “the variety of managerial challenges and conditions affecting collaborations as they progress through stages.”18 In effect, each phase has corresponding processes that shape the cumulative potential and realized value as the partnership develops.

Decision makers commonly underestimate the costs and potential negative effects of poor organizational pairing. The problem may be insufficient experience in the co-creation of value, planning, and preparation.19 For example, 85 percent of businesses and 89 percent of nonprofits are aligned with the view that effective planning at the beginning leads to successful partnerships,20 but managers often “think about it” without investing “a huge amount of time in that process.”21 In fact, neglect of planning during formation can lead to inappropriate partner matching and poor value creation potential, resulting in time delays and unnecessary costs. For effective intentional planning and, ultimately, large value potential, formation processes must be robust.

The formation phase for start-up collaborations and for shifts to higher stages can last from a few months to several years. In other words, the interval is variable, as illustrated by the collaborations between Rio Tinto and Earthwatch and between the Royal Bank of Scotland Group and the Prince’s Trust.

A formation process can be either formal or informal, depending on organizational aims and the amount of resources allocated to developing collaborative value potential. By considering systematically the subprocesses in the formation value creation process pathway, managers can improve their ability to anticipate and capture the full potential of collaborative value.

The value creation process pathway in the formation phase includes the following six subprocesses, as depicted in Figure 5.2:

Figure 5.2. The Collaboration Process Value Chain: The Formation Phase

The six subprocesses that we discuss here provide early indications23 of the benefits that are likely to be produced by the partnering organizations as they assess value creation potential, usually referred to in the literature as partnership fit.24 Our conceptualization25 of value creation potential in the formation value creation pathway reveals how subprocesses have different value-adding effects. As an early assessment mechanism, formation allows the partners to evaluate the likelihood of the collaboration’s evolution to the integrative or the transformational relationship stage,26 where the value creation potential for the partners and society is higher.27 Deciding which partner holds the higher potential for the production of synergistic value28 is time-consuming and challenging but should begin with an understanding of the social problem that the collaboration intends to address.

1. Articulating the Social Problem

Articulating the social problem is the first subprocess in the formation value creation pathway (see Figure 5.2). How two organizations articulate a social issue reveals their perspectives on it, including commonalities or differences in how they perceive its dimensions.29 This important discussion reveals to what extent partners are aligned in how they frame the social issue and the dimensions of it that affect each of them.30 It is often hard to develop a shared definition of the problem,31 but that is a key subprocess in identifying different perspectives that can signal incompatibilities or lead to identifying linked interests.32 This subprocess commences in the formation phase, but it continues during partnership selection, resurfacing as one of the linked interests of the partners.

Assessing the position of a potential partner on a social issue can be tricky because positions are often dynamic rather than static and often require continuous surveillance. Do not assume homogeneity across organizations within an economic sector. Likewise, time is a crucial parameter because the strategies, frames, and positions of a company or a nonprofit organization can shift dramatically.

2. Determining the Partner’s Intentions

This second subprocess involves assessing the partner’s motivations and missions as an early indication of the partner’s intentions, and hence of the expected outcomes,38 including those that are transformational. For example, integrative and transformational relationships require a long time horizon,39 and instances of previous value creation—such as transferred-asset value, through the transfer of resources like cash, or associational value, through improvement in employees’ morale, productivity, and motivation40—can be clues to the expectations of the partners. There is a tendency to assume that an NGO has inherent moral legitimacy because of its mission, but one should scrutinize its actions, just as one should examine a company’s track record.41 This assessment subprocess can safeguard the appropriateness of fit between the organizations and enable the generation of synergistic value, which is likely to lead to greater value creation. Mission fit—a key indicator of linked interests—is a particularly important element to be assessed in measuring organizational compatibility. When the partners’ missions align strongly with the partnership,42 the relationship has more potential to be important to both organizations for a long time, a requirement of generating substantial value. Therefore, when the social issue is strategically important to the business, the potential goes up for a long, valuable partnership.

Many nonprofit organizations now include cross-sector collaborations in their missions or strategies, whereas other, more traditional nonprofits collaborate with business only as a tactic for generating income. Collaborative nonprofits often have extensive experience in partnering with business, and so fewer barriers to collaboration are likely to exist, but such organizations are equally likely to provide a less exclusive relationship with a company, since they probably have many partners.43 The articulation of the organization’s mission in printed or electronic literature, and in previous and current collaborative projects, will provide the first indicators of the organization’s intentions and thus will serve as a window into the potential for value creation.

3. Charting the Value Creation Experience

This charting subprocess is also important for estimating potential collaborative value. Each partner’s experience in creating value,46 including each partner’s unique history47 in developing value relations, identifies existing capabilities48 while uncovering novel ones.49 Charting this experience will indicate the degree of “structural embeddedness,”50 that is, the extent to which the partners have interacted positively and consistently in the past to produce value.51 The history of the interactions between two organizations, or with previous partners, will also reveal aptitude for moving toward an integrative or transformational relationship.52 The more the partners deploy their distinctive organization-specific resources, the greater the potential for value creation. Similarly, the value potential is also dependent on the direction and use of resources across the partners, that is, the extent to which the exchange of resources has been unilateral, bilateral and reciprocal, or characterized by a conjoined intermingling of organization-specific and complementary resources. Unilateral flows or parallel exchanges can create value, but combining resources can co-create greater value, and so it is important to examine previous mutual interactions53 or interactions with other partners54 in order to assess the availability of resources and the likely direction of resource flows.

Often it is difficult to develop high-quality insights very early in the formation stage, especially if an organization has little previous experience. Online company reports—specifically, those pertaining to corporate social responsibility, sustainability, citizenship, and shared values—can be a source of real but limited help.

4. Assessing Compatibility on the Question of Visibility

One frequent central motive for forming partnerships is to gain visibility59 so as to generate associational value that may enhance reputation,60 public image,61 and public relations.62 Visibility contributes to social license to operate, access to local communities63 for high-risk industries, credibility,64 and increased potential for funding from the for-profit sector.65 In effect, positive visibility can be a highly desired outcome for business and nonprofit partners; we consider it one measure for value creation potential that should be used either explicitly or implicitly during the process of formation. The heart of this essential subprocess is for each partner to determine its comfort level with the potential quality (negative or positive) and type (low or high) of the potential partner’s visibility. This determination will depend on the previous organizational history, the level of risk associated with the sector, and organizational reputation.

The corporate responsibility index FTSE4Good refers to high-, medium-, and low-impact sectors (FTSE Group, n.d.), particularly in relation to its inclusion of environmental criteria demonstrating the existence of a correlation between sectors and levels of risk. This suggests greater risk of negative reputation being associated with certain industries. Partnerships have been deemed to be risk-management instruments, particularly for controversial industries.66 Partnering with a high-profile company may bring undesired visibility and criticism to a nonprofit organization. Therefore, the potential cost of negative visibility should be taken into account during the process of assessing the value creation potential in the formation phase. For example, Nestlé, McDonalds, Nike, and Coca-Cola are high-visibility global brands that could be prestigious partners for nonprofits, but these companies also have been among the most boycotted companies around the world.67 As a result, close association with these companies could also bring criticism and scrutiny. If the nonprofit organization is not prepared, or lacks the capacity, to deal with such high-visibility issues, it should think carefully before developing a long-term partnership with a high-risk industry or a high-profile company, since incompatibility on the issue of visibility could result in negative value creation.

5. Mapping the Potential Collaborative Value Portfolio

This fifth subprocess involves mapping the potential collaborative value portfolio, which is significant because each type of value (associational value, transferred-asset value, interaction value, and synergistic value) serves a distinct function, and their combination will lead to the optimal mix for each organization. Analyzing the collaborative value portfolio is a good way to develop a deeper understanding of the sets of key assets the organization is missing before embarking on the selection phase. Several steps are important:

• Each partner organization needs to determine the relative strategic importance of each of the four types of value. Emphasizing associational value might make sense for a particular organization in a controversial industry.
• Each partner should position its relationships with existing collaborating organizations on the Collaboration Continuum68 to assist in identifying organizations that have the potential to co-create the four different types of value.69 The compatibilities and differences across the partners allow for diverse sets of generic resources, organization-specific resources, and key success-related resources70to become unique combinations of resources that not only can benefit the partners in new ways but also can externalize the socioeconomic value to society.
• From that follows the step of recognizing the nature of the resources that each partner brings to the relationship, including tangible resources (money, land, facilities, machinery, supplies, structures, natural resources) and intangible resources (knowledge, capabilities, management practices, and skills). This step is needed in order to assess the complementarity of the resources and their value creation potential and, in particular, the types of value created.

By showing how a potential collaboration might fit into one’s existing collaborative value portfolio, this mapping subprocess can reveal the potential value-added factor of the collaboration under consideration. Will the collaboration under consideration fill a gap in the current partnering mix? The optimum portfolio mix allows organizations to increase their impact strategically by focusing their collaborations according to social issues and geographical regions while spreading the risk across different partners.71

Most organizations have a range of stakeholder organizations to interact with in order to deliver value, depending on the issues in focus and the resources available. One strategy for developing a collaborative value portfolio is to focus on the central social issue for the potential partnering organization. A recent survey of Australian partnerships around poverty issues in developing countries showed that companies within a given industry tend to focus on the same social issues and the same measures for alleviating poverty; as a result, the companies’ collaborative value portfolios72 appear to be intentionally focused and to be directed by the way in which the industry’s core business and its poverty-focused activities seem to align. For example, the banking industry contributes to poverty alleviation through new-product offerings and education, the health and life sciences industry focuses on health programs, and the consumer goods and services industry concentrates on supply-chain practices, whereas in the mining and energy industry and in the professional and legal services industry, 47 percent and 38 percent of the respondents, respectively, expressed the belief that infrastructure development is the most important business activity contributing to poverty alleviation.73 By employing and evolving their core competences and core skills, businesses can co-create value at the local level. It is crucial for nonprofit organizations to understand these important underlying patterns in order to identify the companies and types of collaborations that will have both strategic priority for a business and the potential to deliver the high impact being sought by the nonprofit.

Many companies choose to concentrate their community social investments74 on one issue in order to maximize the impact of their collaborations. For example, IBM focuses on public education, Citibank concentrates on the promotion of microcredit lending in Latin America,75 and HP focuses on education, entrepreneurship, and health globally. Nestlé, the company that employs the term shared value,76 prioritizes rural development, water conservation, and nutrition;77 the first two areas are relevant to the company’s supply chain, and the latter is relevant to its consumers. In other cases, however, partnerships have been developed to reduce a community’s dependence on company-funded infrastructure. For example, in the Maasai region of Kenya, the Magadi Soda Company, a soda-ash extracting firm, facilitated the design of a community development plan for teaching local communities how to plan, design, and implement development initiatives.78 Magadi’s aim was to reduce the load of multidimensional welfare it was providing. Clearly, collaborative value portfolios can vary widely in order to meet the specific needs of each organization.

6. Detecting Prepartnership Champions

The final strategically important subprocess along the formation value creation process pathway is detecting prepartnership champions,79 particularly among senior executives. When senior executives show long-term commitment to a potential relationship, cross-functional teams are likely to develop within, across, and beyond the organizations. Experts suggest that “the correct partnership is everything,”80 but also essential is having the correct people on board from the formation stage onward. One study, which dealt with sixty-six health partnerships comprising multiple partners promoting health and well-being in communities in twenty-eight U.S. states across urban, suburban, and rural areas, reported high levels of synergy associated with leadership that effectively facilitated “productive interactions among partners by bridging diverse cultures, sharing power, facilitating open dialogue, and revealing and challenging assumptions that limit thinking and action.”81 Other, previous research has shown the importance of identifying leaders in partnerships in different phases (formation, selection, and implementation) and at different levels (corporate, strategic, and operational). Partnerships need leaders to champion the social issue, the relationship, and the partnership vision and to identify people for the partnership team who are able to understand the different perspectives of the organizations and people involved.

Phase 2: Selection

Academic and practitioner communities agree that selecting the most appropriate partner is fundamental to a partnership’s success. The selection subprocesses83 take place mainly at the organizational level of each partner. In addition, interactions across external multiple stakeholder groups are encouraged as a way of managing power distribution and thus demonstrating that collaboration can be a different model of political behavior rather than being devoid of political dynamics.84

The selection process builds on and extends the assessment of value creation potential that was introduced in the formation phase. Avoiding poor collaboration pairing85 and loss of valuable resources, such as critical time,86 will require a systematic process that combines formal/informal, internal/external, and explicit/implicit subprocesses. In searching and negotiating, the process requires “collaborative know-how,”87 encompassing specific “knowledge, skills and competences.”88 It also requires the freedom to terminate, early on,89 relationships that do not portend substantial co-created value. The selection process can be brief or prolonged,90 depending on whether the partners have shared a previous relationship. Parties without prior collaborative experience are more likely to pay inadequate attention to selection.91 The result can be a short-lived collaboration. Long-term collaborations92 usually hold the highest value creation potential, allowing for integrative and transformational collaboration to emerge.93 During the formation phase, some subprocesses take place separately within each organization, and interactions may be sparing and occasional. During the selection phase, however, the relationship moves into active, frequent interactions, providing a first deep understanding of a potential partner’s people, processes, and structures. The value creation process pathway in the selection phase encompasses the following five subprocesses:

Figure 5.3 adds feedback loops94 and other details to the basic partnership-selection process. Feedback loops are particularly important in informing the risk-assessment subprocesses and allowing the partners to make their final selections before moving forward to the implementation stage.

Figure 5.3. The Collaboration Process Value Chain: The Selection Phase

Source: Adapted from M. M. Seitanidi and A. Crane, “Implementing CSR through Partnerships: Understanding the Selection, Design, and Institutionalisation of Nonprofit–Business Partnerships,” Journal of Business Ethics 85 (2009).

1. Mapping Linked Interests

Successful mutual selection requires knowing the breadth and depth of shared linked interests. Steps include determining what constitutes value for each potential partner and identifying the unique amalgamations of value co-creation that the linked interests will allow. When the social problem is linked to the interests of both organizations, the potential rises for institutionalizing the partnership. This will lead to better value capture at the meso-level and the micro-level, for the organizations and for the intended or unintended beneficiaries.95 Assessing external linkages moves “beyond how the benefit pie is divided among the collaborators . . . to the potential of cross-sector partnerships to be a significant transformative force in society.”96 If the partners are encouraged to look at the potential partnership’s “broader political implications”97—that is, if they are encouraged to examine the partnership’s implications at the macrolevel—the partnership can serve as a global governance mechanism,98 and the chances of spreading transformational outcomes to an entire industry or region will increase. In effect, if organizations are able both to link their interests and to draw on links with broader societal betterment through articulation of the social issue, this can be an early indication of high potential for co-creation of value for the social good (that is, synergistic value capture at the societal level). This central subprocess requires in-depth discussions to identify current and potential common interests that can lead to innovation.

2. Determining the Value of Resources

In this second subprocess along the selection value creation process pathway, partners formally assess overall the four sources of potential value (resource directionality, resource complementarity, resource nature, and linked interests) by collecting and analyzing information about previous interactions of the potential partner. Partners can exchange organizational documents and analyze notes from meetings with different levels of executives across departments. Informal discussions, in which partners share their expectations and perceptions of each other, are equally important in assessing both the partner’s potential and one’s own resources. Gradually the partners develop a clear picture of the nature of the resources available, the potential for bilateral and conjoined resources, the extent of resource compatibility, and the linked interests that draw on these resources and determine the potential for economic, social, and environmental value creation. These interactions begin to build mutual understanding and a platform for creating trust.

The next step in this subprocess is to relate the possible sources to their projected value. The Value Configuration Matrix (Figure 5.4) can help partners think systematically about which mix of the four sources of value might produce the desired mix of the four types of value (associational value, transferred-asset value, interaction value, and synergistic value).

Figure 5.4. The Value Configuration Matrix

3. Recognizing Organizational Capabilities

The third selection subprocess is to assess the organizational capabilities of a potential partner. The potential partner’s structural and nonstructural organizational characteristics100 should also be identified.

The following structural characteristics should be determined for the nonprofit partner:

• Whether the nonprofit is a programmatic organization or a grant-making organization
• Whether the organization is independent or controlled by a central headquarters
• Whether the organization is big and well established or small and entrepreneurial
• Whether the development of cross-sector social partnerships is inherent in its mission or just one of its options

The followng structural characteristics should be determined for the business partner:

• Organizational structure (flat versus hierarchical)
• Target market or markets (a broad consumer market versus specific target markets)
• Branding (preeminent versus less eminent brands101

The following nonstructural characteristics can determine the potential compatibility of the partners:

• Ideology and point of view regarding collaboration with the other sector
• Reputation
• Level of confidence (which is linked to size, reputation, and years of experience)102

Combining both partners’ structural and non-structural characteristics with their intentions (determined during the formation phase) yields the organizational capabilities.

Recognizing the organizational capabilities of a potential partner presupposes an understanding of the type of value and key assets the organization requires. Therefore, in order to recognize the complementarities across the organizations, it will be essential to identify their generic resources, their organization-specific resources, and their key success-related resources.

4. Developing Partnership-Specific Criteria

Intentionally or unintentionally, partners usually have been exploring partnership simultaneously with more than one organization. The fourth selection subprocess builds on the knowledge the partners have accumulated to date during the formation and selection phases. The literature includes the following suggested examples of selection criteria:

• Industry of interest
• Scope of operations
• Cost-effectiveness (investment required versus generation of potential value)
• Time scales of operation
• Personal affiliations
• Availability and type of resources105

Creating specific criteria can reveal how well the potential partnership could tap into each of the four sources of value (resource directionality, resource complementarity, resource nature, and linked interests) and what that configuration might yield in terms of the four types of value (associational value, transferred-asset value, interaction value, and synergistic value). In order for partners to realize value, they must also be (or become) organizationally compatible. The difficulties entailed in developing high-value integrative and transformational collaborations are extensively documented in the literature.106 Differences may exist in goals and characteristics,107 values, motives and types of constituents,108 objectives,109 missions,110 and organizational characteristics and structures.111 Such differences require early measurement of fit, to gauge the potential for co-creation of value. The following problems may be discovered:112

• Misunderstandings
• Misallocation of costs and benefits
• Mismatches of power
• Lack of complementarity in skills, resources, and decision-making styles
• Mismatching of time scales
• Mistrust

Many such partnership problems, but not all, are predictable and may eventually be resolved.113 Early measurement of partnership fit114 and compatibility can help the partners assess existing and potential value creation.

When selecting partners, many organizations forgo formal, explicit criteria. But the need for systematic criteria grows as collaboration becomes imperative, and as legislation proliferates in connection with the co-creation of environmental, economic, and social value. An example of such legislation is Chapter 3 of the United Kingdom’s Public Services (Social Value) Act of 2012.115

5. Assessing Risks

Despite the need for risk management in partnerships,118 models of partnership selection do not usually include a risk-assessment process.119 But it can be inspirational and mutually comforting to start a partnership by focusing on clear synergies between the partners, and systematic due diligence on both sides can save costs and unnecessary delays at the implementation phase. Risk assessment is particularly necessary in cases of potentially high adverse visibility (that is, negative associational value), or where there is significant uncertainty about compatibility.120

In a formal internal risk-assessment subprocess, one collects information about a potential partner’s previous interactions. Sources can include internal reports, process and output reports, and external assessment of previous collaborative projects. In a formal external assessment, one gathers assessments from previous partners of the potential partner, to uncover formal incidents or serious concerns.

An informal internal risk-assessment subprocess121 consists of an open dialogue among the constituents of each partner organization (including a nonprofit’s employees, trustees, members of the board, and beneficiaries) and informal meetings between the partners and particularly the potential members of the partnership teams. An informal external risk-assessment subprocess consists of open dialogue of each partner with its peer organizations within their own sector and across other sectors in order to collect anecdotal and other evidence regarding the potential partner’s accountability and decision-making mechanisms.122 The informal gathering of information begins during partnership formation, but its assessment is conducted during the selection process.

At the integrative and transformational stages of value creation, one type of risk appears when value creation reaches the stage of product or process innovation. Developing rigorous criteria is usually one way to protect the likelihood of high-quality outcomes, which are assessed only after the implementation phase. Beyond developing rigorous product or process criteria, the next two elements of most importance for mitigating risk are vigilance and patience.

Phase 3: Implementation

In the implementation value creation process pathway, collaboration actually begins to pay off. This phase encompasses design and operations, and its four main subprocesses lead to a decision to continue or exit the relationship, as depicted in Figure 5.5.

Figure 5.5. The Collaboration Process Value Chain: The Implementation Phase

During the formation and selection phases, partners will have discussed a few decisions about the development of partnership policies and programs, but most decision-making needs will emerge only at implementation. A survey in the United Kingdom revealed that businesses as well as nonprofits see implementation as necessarily including steps that ensure “clear processes for reviewing and measuring performance” and steps to get “internal colleagues to understand and value cross-sector partnering.”125 Successful implementation for collaborative value creation also requires having established what the linked interests are. Linked interests guide interactions internally, both at the collaborative (partnership) level126 and at the intraorganizational level (between the partnership team and the rest of the organization). A broad set of deeply linked interests can produce the highest degree of value potential for both partner organizations. When the partners’ interests are well linked, connected to the social problem, and clearly articulated, stakeholders will find it easier to anchor their perceptions of value to the partnership during the implementation.

Participation in implementation activities by local communities of beneficiaries brings inclusivity and embeds the partnership in the community, a feature of cross-sector partnerships that over 90 percent of CEOs seek.127 Mark Moody-Stuart, former chairman of Anglo American PLC, comments that if there is no local benefit of a corporation’s activities, then the corporation’s activities “are called into question and [its] business becomes untenable . . . As businesses, we cannot and should not try to address this issue on our own.”128 Therefore, efforts must be made to safeguard the internal and external mandate for inclusive implementation. An inclusive mindset will facilitate the production of value and its later capture and diffusion at different levels.

In the theoretical analysis of partnerships, there are two traditions. The first, which we term the process school of partnership analysis, views processes as distinctive elements to be analyzed. In response to calls129 for more complex130 studies on the processes of interactions, it develops microstage models.131 For example, this approach conceives of implementation as a distinct system of subprocesses132 and therefore does not incorporate examination of outcomes into its implementation processes. The second tradition, which we term the governance school of partnership analysis, incorporates outcomes133 into implementation. Its aim is to inform the governance of organizations by demonstrating connections between partnerships’ broad chronological stages and their outcomes.

Nevertheless, such models often do not examine subprocesses in sufficient detail and thus do not provide adequate guidance for practitioners. For the implementation phase, we move beyond broad-stage chronological models.134 Instead, we follow the process school of partnership analysis. We provide a process-based dynamic view135 while introducing subprocesses as a way of addressing implementation difficulties136 and of demonstrating the steps toward high-quality collaboration processes. We extend the model of Seitanidi and Crane137 by discussing how the dynamics between the partners can facilitate the co-creation of social, environmental, and economic value. We further indicate the two levels of implementation: organizational and collaborative.138

The design and operations phase of partnership implementation aims to develop the structures and processes that will facilitate the collaboration’s creation of value. As shown in Figure 5.5, this process pathway includes feedback mechanisms between experimentation and operationalization, allowing for adaptations at every circle of experimentation. Similar feedback travels between experimentation and evaluation, allowing for continuous value renewal, that is, for the formulation of new value-creating propositions that fuel collaborative continuance. The subprocesses range from formal to informal influence and from explicit to implicit influence over the quality of implementation and, eventually, outcomes. In the interest of effective partnering, design parameters and operating actions need to be spelled out. For example, one should be explicit about the participation139 of parties that have a direct stake in the social issue, since this will increase the likelihood of inclusive solutions.

The following new sets of competencies are among those that will be required by many processes for design and operations:

• Managing interdependent generic resources, organization-specific resources, and key success-related resources
• Coordinating laterally (that is, without hierarchical authority)
• Responding to heightened requirements for adaptation of bilateral, reciprocal, or conjoined resources140

We now examine each of the four subprocesses of the implementation phase:

1. Experimenting

The first group of subprocesses in the implementation phase includes setting up structures and processes for the co-generation of value that will allow both partners to experiment with the procedural and substantive partnership issues:141

• Setting objectives and structural specifications142
• Formulating rules and regulations143
• Drafting a memorandum of understanding144
• Establishing leadership positions145
• Deciding organizational structures146
• Agreeing on the partnership’s management147

These subprocesses take place both within and across the two organizations,148 adding congruency of structure and purpose149 and contributing to organizational compatibility and to the generation of interaction value. Co-designing coordination mechanisms collectively adds value to the partnership,150 allowing key employees from different functions within each organization to become familiar with the partnership and buy into the co-creation of value.

Throughout this initial period, and continuing thereafter, another fundamental and critical subprocess is to build trust. Trust is developed through personal interactions. A vital role is played by those individuals primarily responsible for managing the partnership’s interface. These “boundary spanners” have several essential qualities: perceived competence, goodwill toward the partner, commitment to making the extra effort to help the collaboration, and sufficient decision-making authority to ensure that promises will be kept.151 Trust can also be built when the partners undertake initially small initiatives, which enable each to interact with the other and gain the experience and mutual confidence that will then provide the basis of trust for larger undertakings.152 Ben Peachley, director of communications for the International Council on Mining and Metals, observes, “You have to have process integrity and you must understand the power of taking the time to build trust. In the long term, you will [realize] the value of the time invested.”153 Trust is perhaps the most valuable form of interaction value.

Partnerships are resource-intensive relationships that require comprehensive teams on both sides. Discovering how best to interact is often the result of experimentation. As part of this process, drafting a memorandum of understanding is an important task that can vary in complexity.

2. Adapting

Gradually, through experiments at the organizational and collaborative levels, internal and external partnership subprocesses and structures adapt. Policies, programs, and actions develop and change. Through these adaptations, new frames of creation lead to interactive and synergistic value. In this sense, value creation both requires and produces valuable intangibles. A collective learning subprocess propels the adaptation.

To solve problems that require social change, partners must embrace their adaptive responsibilities156 and take a collaborative value approach to co-designing new approaches. A prerequisite to such co-creation is recognizing the value of a partner’s knowledge, which is more difficult in cross-sector partnering because of the multitude of organizational differences. Partner relations that promote greater communication enable understanding and appreciation of the partner’s knowledge and its value.157 One study of intense collaborations158 revealed that deliberate and continuous adaptation of the role of each partner organization, as a response to the other partner’s changing needs, drives successful social innovations. This research stresses the need for change within the partnership (facilitated by the partners’ linked interests) in order for the partnership to contribute to the potential for change outside the relationship—in other words, to reach the transformational level.

Despite the positive connotations of the word adaptation (agreeable learning and positive outcomes), adaptations may be, in reality, among the most difficult but doable steps in value creation. For example, in a partnership between a Canadian hospital and a digital imaging company, the partners detected signs of failure, but instead of abandoning the collaboration, they engaged in deep reflection and intensive interaction to redesign their roles in order to reverse the process.159 Thus, despite the challenges of the implementation phase, gradual adaptations and role recalibrations at the organizational or collective level allow for rebalancing the course of a relationship.

Through adaptation, it is possible for the collaboration to escalate to higher value creation. The key subprocesses for driving value creation during experimentation and adaptation are joint discovery and learning.

3. Operationalizing

Decisions gradually reach operationalization, passing through several adaptations because of internal or external factors,162 and lead to stabilization of the partnership’s content, processes, and structures163 until the next cycle of iteration. In each cycle, the value drivers of alignment, engagement, and leverage intensify (see Chapter Four). As interactions intensify in quantity and quality, trust increases, managerial complexity intensifies, and processes become increasingly intertwined, leading to sophisticated amalgamations of resources. Resource complementarity increases because of the partners’ familiarity with the content, structures, and processes of the partnership.

Operational measures can be formal or informal. Formal measures, including control mechanisms,164 are likely to be introduced at the early stages and play an important role in developing familiarity across the organizations. Informal measures, however, are more likely to be effective in dealing with tensions around indeterminacy, vagueness, balancing interpretations between the partners,165 and uncertainty.166 Sometimes this involves exerting symbolic power that can influence individual organizations and industry macroculture.167 Informal measures of control, such as trust-based governance, can play an important role in nonprofit–business partnerships,168 in determination of a partnership’s viability,169 and in co-creation of value. The following factors are relevant here:

• Management of the partnership’s culture so as to blend and harmonize two different organizational cultures170
• Charismatic leadership, to inspire employees’ participation171
• Types of communication that enable the formation of trust (indeed, communication subprocesses are at the heart of interactions)172
• Mutual respect, openness, and constructive criticism with external as well as internal audiences173
• Continual learning174
• Management of conflict175
• Encouragement of open dialogue176

These factors produce interaction value and also enable and preserve collaborative value creation. Among the intangible resources they produce are trust, relational capital, learning, knowledge, and joint problem solving, all of which contribute to the co-creation of value and thus generate benefits for partners, individuals, and society.

4. Evaluating

The fourth implementation subprocess focuses on operational evaluation. Part of operationalization is establishing routines and setting performance expectations. Against these standards, evaluation identifies which aspects of the operations are working well and which are marked by problems. Assessment information flows continuously from operations, often informally, and periodically and more formally from evaluation procedures. Hunter refers to this element of performance management as “formative evaluation,” which monitors, on an ongoing basis, what is being done, and how, in order to inform “tactical decision making” aimed at making adjustments to strengthen operations.177 To be effective, these evaluation efforts need to be accompanied by subprocesses that hold staff and managers accountable for performance.

Phase 4: Institutionalization

Institutionalization, the fourth value creation process pathway, includes three subprocesses (see Figure 5.6):

Figure 5.6. The Collaboration Process Value Chain: The Institutionalization Phase

1. Embedding Collaboration

Collaboration processes evolve into operational routines. Gradual stabilization of structures and processes (partnership operationalization) leads to the institutionalization of the partnership. A partnership has reached institutionalization when its structures, processes, and programs are accepted by the partner organizations and their constituents and are embedded within the organizations’ existing strategies, values, structures, and administrative systems.178 One way to test the level of the collaboration’s embeddedness is to assess how the partners refer to the relationship. If the partnership team members use we instead of us and them, this demonstrates that the relationship has been successfully ingrained within each organization. A second way is to examine the impact of crises. If the impact is low, it indicates high embeddedness. In the partnership between the Prince’s Trust and the Royal Bank of Scotland, there were several crises, but both organizations dealt with these situations in a mature way, which testified to the level of institutionalization. A final acid test of institutionalization is whether the collaboration is able to survive the exit of key leaders on both sides.

One subprocess of embedding collaboration within organizations could be called mastering relationships, that is, accepting and managing both the strengths and the weaknesses of the partner organization.179 This is part of the subprocess of institutionalizing trust, in which the trust-building work of individual boundary spanners and others gets translated into organizational routines, practices, and matching expectations.180 “Competency trust”181 rests on the belief that the partner can deliver on its promises.

Another important embedding subprocess is the accumulation of interaction value. Information interactively turns into knowledge, and knowledge turns into capabilities. This important subprocess progresses through the following stages:

• Information is collected. During the formation, selection, and early design of the partnership, the partners have only the information they have gathered about each other.
• Information becomes knowledge. This basic information about the key product/service value proposition gradually increases, first among the members of the partnership team and later among other departments of the organization. As interactions intensify, they gradually transform information into knowledge.
• Knowledge grows into capabilities. As explicit knowledge grows, and as the partners become more and more familiar in their interactions, their tacit knowledge of each other also expands. Together with positive interpersonal chemistry, this tacit knowledge locks the partners together emotionally. A higher level of knowledge is integrated with enthusiasm and pride, and with the explicit aim of sharing the unique resources of the organizations. As the partnership progresses, knowledge about the partner organization, its resources, and its use of resources becomes deeper and turns into capability. At this stage, the partner is able to apply the knowledge in the contexts of both organizations. The partners are able to speak the same language and embark on co-creation that may produce innovative products, services, and skills.

This subprocess is a manifestation of the iterative and accumulating generation of interaction value, which can also progress to synergistic value.

2. Converging the Value Frames

Diagnostic frames encode individuals’ experiences and assist in the assessment of a problem; prognostic frames use those experiences to assess a possible solution.182 In order to co-generate social, environmental, and economic value, partners must adjust their perspectives on value so that the frames converge183 or fuse.184 Frame fusion is defined as “the construction of a new prognostic frame that motivates and disciplines partners’ cross-sector interactions while preserving their distinct contribution to value creation”185 by retaining the identity and differences of each partner. In effect, the partners get their ways of thinking about value in sync. Value-frame fusion assists in overcoming the partners’ disagreements and allows for transformation of the “current means into co-created goals with others who commit to building a possible future.”186 To bring this about, each partner needs to do the following things:

• Perceive the strategic direction of the other’s decisions187
• Observe organizational change processes188
• Participate in multiplayer interactions189
• Monitor and interpret the other partner’s frames190

When partners align their perceptions of value, they create a shared language by developing a vocabulary of meaning.191 Stafford, Polonsky, and Hartman192 provide evidence for how the partners align their socioeconomic value frames in order to co-create “entrepreneurial innovations that address environmental problems and result in operational efficiencies, new technologies and marketable ‘green’ products.” Stafford and Hartman193 demonstrate that partners may consciously decide to embark on a transformational collaboration. In many cases, however, the potential for social change or social innovation emerges from within the process.194 Partners can have quite different and even conflicting value perspectives.195 These differences can adversely affect outcomes,196 but they may also lead to creative reconciliation that generates even greater value.

Particularly novel tasks198 allow for balancing the potential tension associated with power dynamics;199 collaborators may face unprecedented undertakings that make the partners equally important for the creation of a distinctive solution. Adaptations are essential to survival200 and present opportunities at the individual, organizational, and sectoral levels201 to unlearn and (re)learn how to frame and act collectively in order to develop a synergistic framework, which in turn is essential to providing solutions for social problems. The value capture will depend on the linked interests of the partners, which will influence the level of institutionalization of the co-creation of value.202

A subprocess that fosters value-frame convergence is the development of personal familiarization at the individual level across the members of the two organizations, as illustrated by the following example.

3. Governing Collaboratively

The final subprocess of the institutionalization value creation pathway deals with achieving collaborative governance. Partnerships are faced with issues of accountability,204 appropriateness of the standards developed, effectiveness and enforceability of mechanisms, decision making by for-profits and NGOs, and control.205 Therefore, there have been calls for shared decision making,206 consensus decision making,207 and co-regulation208 in order to balance the power dynamics across the partners.209 But power does not have to be shared equally in order to be workable. A weaker power position may actually be a preferable path that fits an organization’s culture or strategy.210 Subprocesses for creating enduring collaborative governance include the following:

• Allowing multiple stakeholders to voice concerns
• Incorporating feedback loops211
• Decentralizing social-accountability checkpoints
• Inviting suggestions from the grassroots to facilitate answerability, enforceability, and universality212

The partners’ respective managerial incentive systems need to explicitly incorporate accountability for the collaboration’s performance.

In effect, to co-generate social, environmental, and economic value, particularly as one moves into the transformational stage, there needs to be a highly engaged, decentralized community network.213 This expands participation from a few stakeholders to a broader constituency. Such broadening could even include engagement with fringe stakeholders as a means to achieve creative destruction and innovation for the partners and society.214 Incorporating as many voices as possible allows not only internal value renewal but also external value renewal and eventually institutionalization of the collaboration externally. In effect, many voices increase a collaboration’s opportunities to deliver impact. When the collaboration achieves scale, it gains the potential not only to be successful for the partners and organizations directly involved but also to externalize the value creation to the macro-level.

In the integrative and transformational stages of collaboration, social betterment takes center stage, and so multiple stakeholders become a key component in the co-creation process and in the reshaping of the dialogue,215 which allows for value capture at multiple levels. Embedding the partnership across interested communities introduces a new layer of partnership institutionalization outside the original business–nonprofit partners (see Figure 5.6). This can take the form of a network with distinct governance processes. According to Wei-Skillern, Silver, and Heitz, “In the network mindset, trust and shared values are far more important than formal control mechanisms such as contracts or accountability systems.”216

A look back at Figure 5.6 will reveal the reiterating phase of institutionalization. Although partnerships may end unexpectedly, they have the potential to deliver continuing cycles of value creation, depending on the quality of the processes, the evolution of the partners’ interests and capabilities, and changes in the environment and the level of internal and external communication.

Reviewing the Collaboration Value Creation Processes

The following example is a good illustration of how the value creation process pathways can create value in practice.

Each of the four phases of partnership development—formation, selection, implementation, and institutionalization—constitutes a value creation process pathway consisting of a multitude of subprocesses. In the formation and selection phases, the first two value creation process pathways in the Collaboration Process Value Chain, the subprocesses are identifying and shaping the potential collaborative value. Then, in the implementation and institutionalization phases, potential value can be converted to actual value.

Along each of these four sequential pathways, value is created by the multitude of subprocesses that tap into the different sources of value and convert them into various types and amounts of value. To reiterate, the four sources of value are resource directionality, resource complementarity, resource nature, and linked interests; the four types of value are associational value, transferred-asset value, interaction value, and synergistic value, with their respective value subsets, as previously discussed. Value accumulates across the Collaboration Process Value Chain, ultimately manifesting as economic, social, and environmental value accruing to individuals, organizations, and society.

For each value creation process pathway, or phase, this chapter has identified a set of distinct subprocesses that enable value creation to occur. In the formation phase, there are six main subprocess areas. Each of the potential partners (1) examines how the other articulates the social problem to be addressed in the collaboration, in order to judge whether common ground exists regarding the basic focus. Each potential partner also needs to (2) determine what the other’s intentions are regarding the kind of collaborative relationship that is sought. To provide empirical evidence, each (3) looks at the other’s actual collaboration experience. Each also tries to (4) assess compatibility on the issue of desire for visibility. To make a judgment regarding the additional value that this partnership would add, both partners need to (5) assess how it would fit into their existing portfolios of collaborations. There is also an effort to (6) identify individuals in both organizations who would champion the potential collaboration. Each of these six subprocesses is made up of other, more specific microprocesses.

In the selection phase, the five subprocess areas are aimed at consummating the collaboration. There is (1) a more detailed mapping of the potential partners’ linked interests, a fundamental fountain of value. Each partner also examines the complementarity of (2) the other’s resources and (3) distinctive organizational capabilities. Moving beyond these critical and always present elements, the partners (4) develop selection criteria tailored to their specific organizational situations and context. Before proceeding, they should also (5) carry out a systematic assessment of the risks accompanying the collaboration.

Having chosen each other, the partners enter the implementation phase. The initial subprocess area involves (1) experimenting with the design of the collaboration. The resultant learning about what works and what does not leads to (2) the adaptation subprocesses. Gradually, (3) the operations develop routines, and the collaboration stabilizes. Nevertheless, there are (4) informal and formal operational evaluations. Although the partners may conclude that the collaboration is not feasible, the evaluation subprocesses primarily provide feedback aimed at adjustments that will strengthen implementation.

In the institutionalization phase, the collaboration is (1) embedded into each partner’s mission, strategy, values, structures, and operating systems. The partners have a deep sense of joint ownership. The collaboration is able to survive crises and leadership changes. Information becomes knowledge, and knowledge becomes capabilities. At this point, (2) the value frames converge. Each of the partners is sensitive to the other’s changing needs, and each is able to make adjustments that keep the partners’ views on value creation synchronous. As a result, (3) the partnership is governed collaboratively and inclusively, and power imbalances are addressed constructively. The web of personal interrelationships across the partnering organizations expands and provides collaborative cohesion.

Through the value-creating power of the formation, selection, implementation, and institutionalization phases, the Collaboration Process Value Chain produces cumulative economic, social, and environmental value for individuals, organizations, and society. In Chapter Six, we take a closer look at these value outcomes.

Figure 5.7 presents a more fully elaborated picture of the Collaboration Process Value Chain.

Figure 5.7. The Elaborated Collaboration Process Value Chain

Notes

1. C&E Advisory, 2010.

2. Austin and Seitanidi, 2012a; Austin and Seitanidi, 2012b.

3. McCann, 1983; Gray, 1989; Bryson, Crosby, and Middleton Stone, 2006.

4. Mintzberg, 1978.

5. Brest, 2012; Seitanidi, 2010.

6. Mintzberg, 1978.

7. Vurro, Dacin, and Perrini, 2010; McCann, 1983; Gray, 1989; Seitanidi and Ryan, 2007.

8. Selsky and Parker, 2005.

9. Bryson, Crosby, and Middleton Stone, 2006.

10. McCann, 1983; Gray, 1989.

11. Waddock, 1989.

12. Waddell and Brown, 1997.

13. McCann, 1983; Gray, 1989; Waddock, 1989.

14. McCann, 1983.

15. Clarke and Fuller, 2010; Waddell and Brown, 1997; Seitanidi, Koufopoulos, and Palmer, 2010; Seitanidi and Crane, 2009; Seitanidi, 2010.

16. Vurro, Dacin, and Perrini, 2010.

17. Bryson, Crosby, and Middleton Stone, 2006.

18. Bryson, Crosby, and Middleton Stone, 2006, p. 51.

19. Berger, Cunningham, and Drumwright, 2004; Jamali and Keshishian, 2009.

20. C&E Advisory, 2010.

21. Austin, 2000b; Jamali and Keshishian, 2009.

22. Seitanidi, 2010.

23. Seitanidi, Koufopoulos, and Palmer, 2010.

24. Berger, Cunningham, and Drumwright, 2004; Gourville and Rangan, 2004; Austin and Seitanidi, 2012b.

25. Seitanidi, Koufopoulos, and Palmer, 2010.

26. Seitanidi, Koufopoulos, and Palmer, 2010.

27. Austin, 2000b; Austin and Seitanidi, 2012a; Austin and Seitanidi, 2012b.

28. Austin and Seitanidi, 2012a.

29. McCann, 1983.

30. Gray, 1989.

31. McCann, 1983; Gray, 1989.

32. Austin and Seitanidi, 2012b.

33. Lubbers, 2002, p. 38.

34. Lubbers, 2002.

35. Seitanidi, 2010.

36. Lubbers, 2002, p. 27.

37. Browne, 1997.

38. Seitanidi, 2010.

39. Austin, 2000b.

40. Gourville and Rangan, 2004.

41. Baur and Palazzo, 2011.

42. Berger, Cunningham, and Drumwright, 2004; Gourville and Rangan, 2004.

43. Berger, Cunningham, and Drumwright, 2004.

44. http://www.earthwatch.org/europe/aboutus/our_mission

45. Seitanidi, 2010.

46. Hardy, Phillips, and Lawrence, 2003.

47. Barnett, 2007.

48. Seitanidi, Koufopoulos, and Palmer, 2010.

49. Brickson, 2007; Plowman, Baker, Kulkarni, Solansky, and Travis, 2007.

50. Bryson, Crosby, and Middleton Stone, 2006.

51. Jones, Hesterly, and Borgatti, 1997; Ring and Van de Ven, 1994.

52. Seitanidi, Koufopoulos, and Palmer, 2010.

53. Goffman, 1983; Seitanidi, Koufopoulos, and Palmer, 2010.

54. Seitanidi, 2010.

55. Seitanidi, 2010.

56. Austin, 2000b.

57. Nestlé, 2011.

58. Hewlett-Packard Company, 2011, p. 157.

59. Sakarya, Bodur, Yildirim-Öktem, and Selekler-Göksen, 2012.

60. Tully, 2004.

61. Heap, 1998; Alsop, 2004.

62. Milne, Iyer, and Gooding-Williams, 1996.

63. Greenall and Rovere, 1999; Heap, 1998.

64. Gourville and Rangan, 2004.

65. Heap, 1998; Seitanidi, 2010.

66. Andrioff, 2000; Andrioff and Waddock, 2002; Heap, 1998.

67. Tran, 2005.

68. Austin, 2000b; Austin, 2000d; Austin, 2003b; Austin and Seitanidi, 2012a.

69. Austin and Seitanidi, 2012a; Austin and Seitanidi, 2012b.

70. Austin and Seitanidi, 2012a; Austin and Seitanidi, 2012b.

71. Austin, 2003b.

72. Austin, 2003b.

73. Ryan, Richardson, and Voutier, 2012.

74. Muthuri, 2007.

75. Austin, 2003b.

76. Bockstette and Stamp, 2011.

77. Nestlé, 2011.

78. Muthuri, 2007.

79. Rondinelli and London, 2003; Alsop, 2004.

80. Weiser, Kahane, Rochlin, and Landis, 2006, p. 6.

81. Weiss, Anderson, and Lasker, 2002.

82. Winchester, 2014.

83. Seitanidi and Crane, 2009.

84. Seitanidi, 2010; Gray, 1989.

85. Holmberg and Cummings, 2009.

86. Huxham, 1996.

87. Simonin, 1997; Austin, 2000b; Gray, 1989; Rondinelli and London, 2003.

88. Draulans, deMan, and Volberda, 2003.

89. Kumar and Nti, 1998.

90. Rondinelli and London, 2003; Seitanidi, 2010.

91. Harbison and Pekar, 1998.

92. Pangarkar, 2003.

93. Austin and Seitanidi, 2012a; Austin and Seitanidi, 2012b.

94. Clarke and Fuller, 2010.

95. Le Ber and Branzei, 2010b.

96. Austin, 2010.

97. Crane, 2010.

98. Seitanidi and Crane, forthcoming.

99. Austin and Reavis, 2002.

100. Seitanidi, Koufopoulos, and Palmer, 2010; Berger, Cunningham, and Drumwright, 2004.

101. Berger, Cunningham, and Drumwright, 2004.

102. Seitanidi, Koufopoulos, and Palmer, 2010.

103. Austin and Reavis, 2002.

104. Seitanidi, 2010.

105. Holmberg and Cummings, 2009; Seitanidi and Crane, 2009; Seitanidi, 2010.

106. Crane, 2010; Kolk, Van Tulder, and Kostwinder, 2008; Seitanidi and Ryan, 2007; Teegen, Doh, and Vachani, 2004; Berger, Cunningham, and Drumwright, 2004; Austin, 2000b; Austin, 2000d.

107. McFarlan, 1999.

108. Di Maggio and Anheier, 1990; Milne, Iyer, and Gooding-Williams, 1996; Crane, 1998; Alsop, 2004.

109. Heap, 1998; Stafford and Hartman, 2001; Green, Groenewegen, and Hofman, 2001.

110. Shaffer and Hillman, 2000; Westley and Vredenburg, 1997.

111. Berger, Cunningham, and Drumwright, 2004.

112. Berger, Cunningham, and Drumwright, 2004.

113. Berger, Cunningham, and Drumwright, 2004.

114. Berger, Cunningham, and Drumwright, 2004.

115. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/3/enacted

116. Seitanidi, 2010; Seitanidi and Crane, 2009.

117. Seitanidi, 2010; Seitanidi and Crane, 2009.

118. Selsky and Parker, 2005; Tully, 2004; Warner and Sullivan, 2004; Wymer and Samu, 2003; Bendell, 2000; Heap, 2000; Andrioff and Waddock, 2002; Heap, 1998; Le Ber and Branzei, 2010a.

119. Seitanidi, 2010; Le Ber and Branzei, 2010a; Andrioff and Waddock, 2002.

120. Le Ber and Branzei, 2010c.

121. Seitanidi and Crane, 2009.

122. Hamann and Acutt, 2003.

123. Austin and Reavis, 2002.

124. Austin and Reavis, 2002.

125. C&E Advisory, 2010.

126. Clarke and Fuller, 2010.

127. World Economic Forum Global Corporate Citizenship Initiative, 2005, p. 5.

128. World Economic Forum Global Corporate Citizenship Initiative, 2005, p. 17.

129. Godfrey and Hatch, 2007; Clarke, 2007a; Clarke, 2007b; Waddock, 1989.

130. Selsky and Parker, 2005.

131. Seitanidi and Crane, 2009.

132. Seitanidi, 2010; Seitanidi and Crane, 2009.

133. Clarke and Fuller, 2010; Hood, Logsdon, and Thompson, 1993; Dalal-Clayton and Bass, 2002.

134. Bryson, Crosby, and Middleton Stone, 2006; Berger, Cunningham, and Drumwright, 2004; Googins and Rochlin, 2000; Wilson and Charlton, 1993; Westley and Vredenburg, 1997; McCann, 1983.

135. Vurro, Dacin, and Perrini, 2010.

136. Pressman and Wildavsky, 1973.

137. Seitanidi and Crane, 2009.

138. Clarke and Fuller, 2010.

139. Gray, 1989; Barr and Huxham, 1996.

140. Gray, 1989; Barr and Huxham, 1996.

141. Gray, 1989.

142. Glasbergen, 2007; Arya and Salk, 2006; Bryson, Crosby, and Middleton Stone, 2006; Andreasen, 1996; Halal, 2001; Austin, 2000d; Googins and Rochlin, 2000.

143. Das and Teng, 1998; Gray, 1989.

144. Seitanidi and Crane, 2009.

145. Austin, 2000b; Waddock, 1986.

146. Berger, Cunningham, and Drumwright, 2004; McCann, 1983.

147. Seitanidi and Crane, 2009; Austin and Reavis, 2002.

148. Clarke and Fuller, 2010; Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi, and Herremans, 2010; Bryson, Crosby, and Middleton Stone, 2006.

149. Andreasen, 1996, pp. 47–50, 55–59.

150. Seitanidi, 2008; Bryson, Crosby, and Middleton Stone, 2006; Selsky and Parker, 2005; Brinkerhoff, 2002; Milne, Iyer, and Gooding-Williams, 1996.

151. Kroeger, 2012.

152. McCarter, Mahoney, and Northcraft, 2011.

153. Business in the Community, 2012.

154. Austin and Reavis, 2002, p. 10.

155. Seitanidi, 2010; Seitanidi and Crane, 2009.

156. Seitanidi, 2008.

157. Murphy, Perrot, and Rivera-Santos, 2012.

158. Le Ber and Branzei, 2010a.

159. Le Ber and Branzei, 2010a.

160. Stadtler, 2011, p. 99.

161. Business in the Community, 2012.

162. Austin, 2000b.

163. Seitanidi and Crane, 2009.

164. Das and Teng, 1998.

165. Orlitzky, Schmidt, and Rynes, 2003.

166. Waddock, 1991.

167. Harris and Crane, 2002.

168. Harris and Crane, 2002.

169. Arya and Salk, 2006.

170. Wilkof, Brown, and Selsky, 1995.

171. Bhattacharya, Sen, and Korschun, 2008; Berger, Cunningham, and Drumwright, 2004; Andreasen, 1996.

172. Austin, 2000b; Googins and Rochlin, 2000.

173. Austin, 2000b; Googins and Rochlin, 2000.

174. Bowen, Newenham-Kahindi, and Herremans, 2010; Senge, Dow, and Neath, 2006; Austin, 2000b; Rondinelli and London, 2003.

175. Seitanidi, 2010; Gray, 1989.

176. Elkington and Fennell, 2000.

177. Hunter, 2013.

178. Seitanidi and Crane, 2009.

179. Seitanidi, 2010; Seitanidi and Crane, 2009.

180. Kroeger, 2012.

181. Eng, Liu, and Sekhorn, 2012.

182. Le Ber and Branzei, 2010c; Kaplan, 2008.

183. Noy, 2009.

184. Le Ber and Branzei, 2010a.

185. Le Ber and Branzei, 2010a.

186. Wiltbank, Dew, Read, and Sarasvathy, 2006, p. 983.

187. Kaplan, 2008.

188. Balogun and Johnson, 2004.

189. Croteau and Hicks, 2003; Kaplan and Murray, 2010.

190. Le Ber and Branzei, 2010c.

191. Crane, 1998; Dalal-Clayton and Bass, 2002.

192. Stafford, Polonsky, and Hartman, 2000.

193. Stafford and Hartman, 2001.

194. Rondinelli and London, 2003; Austin, 2000b.

195. Gray, 1989.

196. Kaplan 2008, p. 744.

197. Hamann, Pienaar, Boulogne, and Kranz, 2011.

198. Seitanidi, 2010; Le Ber and Branzei, 2010c; Heap, 2000.

199. Utting, 2005; Tully, 2004; Millar, Choi, and Chen, 2004; Hamann and Acutt, 2003.

200. Kaplan, 2008.

201. Seitanidi and Lindgreen, 2010.

202. Le Ber and Branzei, 2010c.

203. Seitanidi and Crane, 2009.

204. Reed and Reed, 2009.

205. Brown, 1991.

206. Austin, 2000b; Ashman, 2000.

207. Elbers, 2004.

208. Utting, 2005.

209. Seitanidi and Ryan, 2007.

210. Schiller and Almog-Bar, forthcoming.

211. Clarke and Fuller, 2010.

212. Newell, 2002.

213. Collier and Esteban, 1999; Heuer, 2011.

214. Gray, 1989; Murphy and Arenas, 2010.

215. Cornelious and Wallace, 2010; Fiol, Pratt, and O’Connor, 2009; Barrett, Austin, and McCarthy, 2000; Israel, Schulz, Parker, and Becker, 1998.

216. Wei-Skillern, Silver, and Heitz, 2013, p. 2.

217. McDonald and Young, 2012.

218. Sharfman, Gray, and Yan, 1991.