Upload
merry-ong-kelly
View
223
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
1/46
1
CHAPTER 1
ORGANIZING FOR SUSTAINABILITY:
WHY NETWORKS & PARTNERSHIPS?
Philip H. MirvisResearch Fellow
Global Network on Corporate Citizenship28 Water Street
Ipswich, MA [email protected](978) 356-8742
&
Christopher G. WorleySenior Research Scientist
Center for Effective OrganizationsMarshall School of Business
University of Southern California3415 S. Figueroa Street, #200
Los Angeles, CA [email protected]
(213) 740-9814
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
2/46
2
ABSTRACT
Purpose
This chapter introduces the volumes theme by considering how the forces of globalization
and complexity are leading organizations to reshape and redesign themselves, how meeting
the challenges of sustainable effectiveness and shared value require multi-organization
networks and partnerships, and how networks and partnerships develop, function, and can
produce both private benefits and public goods.
Design/methodology/approach
We apply findings from social and political evolution frameworks, partnership and
collaboration research, and design for sustainability concepts to induce the likely conditions
required for sustainable effectiveness from a network perspective.
Findings
Successful partnerships and collaborations in service of sustainable effectiveness will require
individual organizations to change their objective function and build new and varied internal
and external capabilities.
Originality/value
The chapter sets the stage for the volumes contributions
Paper category: General Review
Keywords:Sustainability; corporate social responsibility (CSR); multiparty networks;
multisector partnerships, transorganizational development
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
3/46
3
Where globalization means, as it so often does, that the rich and powerful now have
new means to further enrich and empower themselves at the cost of the poorer and
weaker, we have a responsibility to protest in the name of universal freedom. NelsonMandela
Several technological and political forces have converged, and that has produced a
global, web-enabled playing field that allows for multiple forms of collaboration
without regard to geography or distance - or soon, even language.Thomas Friedman
Exercising leadership in cross-sector or multi-stakeholder contexts requires a higher
level of both inner and interpersonal skills to deal effectively with the diversity of
worldviews, values, assumptions, languages and experiences. Alain Gauthier
It is the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to
collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed.Charles Darwin1
A headline in a January 16, 2013Irish Times(Healy, 2013) articlereads, Food
Watchdog Uncovers Contamination. Investigations by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland
found horse DNA and horse meat in supplies of beef from a processing plant that made
burgers, lasagna, and other products. One report described a typical multiplayer scenario (see
Exhibit 1). A French food producer, in response to a customer order or in anticipation of
demand, orders a variety of beef products from one of its subsidiaries in Luxembourg. The
Luxembourg factory orders the meat from a French processor who then sources it through a
subcontractor in Cyprus. The Cyprus subcontractor uses a trader in the Netherlands to order
the meat from an abattoir (slaughterhouse) in Romania. The meat is delivered to the French
food producer who then manufactures the products and distributes them to retailers.
[Insert Exhibit 1]
Somewhere along this network chain, horsemeat was mixed in with beef. Over the
next month, businesses, government agencies, and the media began their own investigations.
By late February, the horse meat scandal involved EU regulators and national governments,
1Mandela speech at National Civil Rights Museum, November 2000.
http://db.nelsonmandela.org/speeches/pub_view.asp?pg=item&ItemID=NMS919&txtstr=22%20November;Daniel Pink interview with Thomas Friedman.http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/friedman.html;Gauthier, A. (2008). Developing Generative Change Leaders Across Sectors: An Exploration of IntegralApproaches. Integral Leadership Review.http://integralleadershipreview.com/5061-feature-article-developing-
generative-change-leaders-across-sectors-an-exploration-of-integral-approaches;and attributed to Darwin, C.R. The Origin of Species (Vol. XI, pp. 190914).The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son;Bartleby.com, 2001.www.bartleby.com/11/
http://db.nelsonmandela.org/speeches/pub_view.asp?pg=item&ItemID=NMS919&txtstr=22%20Novemberhttp://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/friedman.htmlhttp://integralleadershipreview.com/5061-feature-article-developing-generative-change-leaders-across-sectors-an-exploration-of-integral-approacheshttp://integralleadershipreview.com/5061-feature-article-developing-generative-change-leaders-across-sectors-an-exploration-of-integral-approacheshttp://integralleadershipreview.com/5061-feature-article-developing-generative-change-leaders-across-sectors-an-exploration-of-integral-approacheshttp://www.bartleby.com/11/http://www.bartleby.com/11/http://integralleadershipreview.com/5061-feature-article-developing-generative-change-leaders-across-sectors-an-exploration-of-integral-approacheshttp://integralleadershipreview.com/5061-feature-article-developing-generative-change-leaders-across-sectors-an-exploration-of-integral-approacheshttp://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/friedman.htmlhttp://db.nelsonmandela.org/speeches/pub_view.asp?pg=item&ItemID=NMS919&txtstr=22%20November8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
4/46
4
supermarkets, food producers, retailers, and other businesses along the supply chain, and was
making its way into other parts of the world. Plants were closed, government agencies reeled
under accusations of negligence, executives explained how their already rigorous standards
were being strengthened, criminal investigations were started, the media was having a field
day, and the public was outraged.
Some of the blame was laid at the feet of EU lawmakers for a 2012 regulatory change
that forbid the use of cheaper "de-sinewed meat" (from cows and other cud-chewing animals)
in beef processing which raised cost pressures along the supply chain. Others faulted a 2006
rule change that no longer required daily plant inspections and provided advanced notice of
inspectors visits. Businesses in the supply chain also took a beating. Rayner (2013), author
of the upcoming book,A Greedy Man in a Hungry World, notes that The price pressures on
the supermarkets, desperate not to lose market share, are huge. Along the same lines,
Prescott (2013) opines that the almighty dominance of supermarkets and their relentless
obsession to drive down the cost of goods has provided motivation to cut corners.
And finally, there is the most interesting culprit: all of us. While the public supports
the idea of sustainable agriculture, we all-too-eagerly respond to marketing messages that
promise us greater variety, higher quality, andlower prices in goods-and-services. But at
what costs and for whom? Of course we rue the exploitation of cheap labor, environmental
degradation, and social disruption wrought by global supply chains that lead businesses on a
race to the bottom when it comes to ethical conduct. And when we learn of swollen profit
margins, outsized executive bonuses, and evidence of cheating or corruption, we shake our
fingers at business and say shame on you for being so greedy. But seldom do we frame this
as a systemic matter and locate consumers (ourselves!) at the nexus of social, ecological, and
human waste.
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
5/46
5
Shifting the balance in this arena requires more transparency, accountability, and
responsibility by all concerned, including and especially consumers. This could lead to
higher food costs, smaller profit margins, and tougher penalties for bad behavior. But it
could also motivate innovation, promote a sense of shared responsibility among network
players, and stimulate a race to the top in terms of food safety, security, and value-for-
money. That is what sustainability calls for: seeing the big picture, engaging complex
webs connecting institutions, interests, and actors (including ourselves), and devising new
and more effective ways of organizing for a better future (Ehrenfeld, 2008; Elkington, 2013)
On Networks & Partnerships
The horsemeat scandal is not some isolated incident. It is emblematic of what can go wrong
when multiple organizations interactwhether in a supply chain, service delivery network,
or distribution system, or as part of an industry coalition, private-public partnership, or
business-NGO alliance. Witness charges that Anheuser-Busch began diluting its beer after
its merger with InBev, continued finger-pointing among oil rig operators BP, Halliburton,
and Transocean over who was most-at-fault in the Gulf oil spill, the lingering effects of
cronyism between the Wall Street banks, credit agencies (e.g., the Pimps of Wall Street),
and regulators (e.g., the SEC and See No Evil, Hear No Evil Department of Justice), as
well as various scandals involving the United Way, the Bishops Estate, and China Charities
Aid Foundation for Children.
At the same time, there is a growing body of evidence on what can go right when
multiple organizations interact effectively: Consider health care networks that improve
services and reduce costs, innovation clusters that give new dynamism to cities and regions,
and the widespread adoption of collaborative practices like open sourcing, user-driven
design, stakeholder consultation, and the like. Partnering across organizations is increasing
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
6/46
6
in areas of social-and-environmental sustainability. There are, for example, multibusiness and
multisector initiatives regarding climate change (alliances for carbon trading and energy
conservation), natural resources (partnerships around sustainable fish, water, agriculture, and
food), human rights (codes for supply-chain management and fair labor practices), and access
to medicines, health care, and education.
Looking at sustainability through the lens of networks and partnerships is the theme
of this third volume in the series on Organizing for Sustainable Effectiveness. We introduce
this theme by considering in this introduction: 1) how globalization and complexity lead
organizations to reshape and redesign themselves and extend beyond their fence-lines to
connect to other organizations; 2) how meeting challenges of sustainable effectiveness and
shared value require multi-organization networks and partnerships; and 3) how networks and
partnerships develop, function, and can produce both private benefits and public goods.
Consider each of these themes in brief:
Globalization and Complexity. Applying a network lens means looking at a system as
a whole and the global context within which individuals and organizations are making
decisions and taking action. The horsemeat story is not just a business, industry,
government, or consumer problem; it involves a complex network of interests driven by
consumers looking for bargains, investors looking to maximize their returns, managers
facing daunting competition, and regulators diminished in their authority, funding, and
reach. The feed to farm to food processing supply chain is global today and operators
large and small compete intensively and sometimes, as this case shows, by cheating.
Where are the strong, reciprocal ties in this network versus the weak, anything-goes
links? Where are governance and regulation built in and where are they missing? Mark
Price, the chief executive of Waitrose, one of the UKs leading food retailers, said this
about the horsemeat scandal, If the question is 'Who can sell the cheapest stuff? Im
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
7/46
7
afraid it is inevitable that there will be a slackening of product specifications He then
adds that that if consumers want to know that their food is safe and genuine, they cannot
view it as a cheap commodity (Quinn, Lewis, & Sawer, 2013). This systemic look is
central to the case studies and analyses in this volume.
Sustainable Effectiveness. Sustainable effectiveness represents top performance in
economic, social, and environmental terms (Lawler & Worley, 2011). Shifting from an
organizational to network framing means examining the interests of each of the parties,
their purposes for working together, and the specific ends sought and attained. When, as
in this case, any part of a system attempts to maximize its own gains at the expense of
others, a vicious cycle of self-dealing can be triggered and, in the end, everyone can lose.
On a larger tableau, this raises questions about whether aggressive economic growth, a
single-minded devotion to efficiency, and the pursuit of profit maximization can co-exist
with sustainability in our social and ecological conditions.
Examples of systems gone awry because of exploitation, profiteering, and collusion are
all too common. But there are many examples, too, of companies enlisting their
suppliers, business partners, customers, and end consumers to activate a virtuous cycle of
responsible and profitable conduct (Googins, Mirvis, & Rochlin, 2007). The business
case for doing so is indisputable: Surveys by Cone Inc. (2012) show that the publicas
consumers, investors, and employeestakes a punitive view of bad corporate behavior
and great majorities want to do their business with companies with a good reputation for
sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR). In addition, there is a growing
worldwide move toward healthy and sustainable consumption; the size of the LOHAS
(Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability) market will grow to $845 billion by 2015.
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
8/46
8
Working Together Better. Finally, the network perspective invites us to inquire into
what it takes for organizations to work together to contribute to both economic progress
and a more sustainable world. Self-interest, competition, profit-maximizing, and the like
are facts of life in commerce today and can, under the right conditions, contribute to
innovation, sensible cost-cutting, and wealth creation. But collective interests,
cooperation, and profit-optimization may be better means to more sustainable ends when
it comes to the successful operation of multi-organization networks and partnerships.
Each organization in the warped beef product supply chain was trying to do what was
best for itself, then someone decided what was best for me should come at the expense of
what was good for all of us. The cases in this volume provide insight and instruction
about what it takes to develop capabilities of partnership and collaboration to pursue a
common good.
Globalization and Complexity
Globalization creates economic policies where the transnationals lord over us, and
the result is misery and unemployment.Evo Morales
Technology causes problems as well as solves problems. Nobody has figured out a
way to ensure that, as of tomorrow, technology won't create problems. Technology
simply means increased power, which is why we have the global problems we face
today. Jared Diamond
We must ensure that the global market is embedded in broadly shared values and
practices that reflect global social needs, and that all the world's people share the
benefits of globalization. Kofi AnnanGlobalization is forcing companies to do things in new ways. Bill Gates2
The globalization of modern commerceduring a period of time that has seen the growth of
the internet and cellular phones, the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and rise of
2Tim Padgett interview with Evo Morales
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1198906,00.html#ixzz2NRl7jS9e
Pat Joseph interview with Jared Diamondhttp://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200505/interview.aspKofi Annanhttp://thinkexist.com/quotes/kofi_annan/Bill Gateshttp://thinkexist.com/quotation/this_is_a_very_exciting_time_in_the_world_of/147293.html
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/evomorales435149.htmlhttp://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/evomorales435149.htmlhttp://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/evomorales435149.htmlhttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1198906,00.html#ixzz2NRl7jS9ehttp://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200505/interview.asphttp://thinkexist.com/quotes/kofi_annan/http://thinkexist.com/quotation/this_is_a_very_exciting_time_in_the_world_of/147293.htmlhttp://thinkexist.com/quotation/this_is_a_very_exciting_time_in_the_world_of/147293.htmlhttp://thinkexist.com/quotes/kofi_annan/http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200505/interview.asphttp://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1198906,00.html#ixzz2NRl7jS9ehttp://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/evomorales435149.htmlhttp://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/evomorales435149.html8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
9/46
9
Sub-Saharan Africa, plus the emergence of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China)
as economic powerhouses has unleashed the mobility of technology, capital,
communication, ideas, and people. Today, almost any product or service can be designed,
made, transported, and bought anywhere in the world. Information crosses borders quickly--
distributed by multi-media channels and amplified by social media chatterand people can
connect effortlessly to networks of friends, co-workers, colleagues and customers spanning
the globe. All of this has led to the unprecedented expanse of knowledge and relationships
and to unparalleled economic growth.
Globalization: Blessing or Curse? There are, however, different stories about the
fruits of globalization and who benefits from it (Korten, 1995; Friedman, 2006). New
manufacturing and technology workers in China or India mostly say globalization is good. It
has brought them capital, access to lucrative international markets, and a wireless connection
to the world. Their nations are more prosperous as a result. Multinational corporations
(MNCs), their shareholders, and many who work for them have made dramatic gains. Access
to new markets and cheaper inputs create impressive profit margins and greater returns on
capital and knowledge. Globalization has driven real price decreases for many consumer
products and made branded goods more available around the world. And talent markets in
Bangalore, Beijing, and Sao Paulo are just as heated up as in New York, London, and Tokyo.
Yet the same benefits have not accrued to everyone and there is increasing concern
over globalizations social and ecological consequences (Cooperrider & Dutton, 1999; Chua,
2003; Perkins, 2004; Stiglitz, 2012). Many developing countries lack sufficient governance,
infrastructure, and human capital to find a niche in the competitive global system. Poor
farmers have been pitted against one another in export markets and must compete with
cheaper (often subsidized) imports from richer nations. Small-scale manufacturers have been
driven out of business. Meanwhile, the prospects for youth the world over have fallen behind
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
10/46
10
the rapid pace of change, creating an atmosphere of instability and discontent that affects
everyone. Consider a sampling of issues that globalization raises:
The inequality gap is widening.In the last decades, the gap between the average per-
capita GDP in the twenty richest and poorest countries has doubled; and, despite some
recent improvement, over 3.6 billion people still live on less than $2 per day (World
Bank, 2013). In the U.S., the top one-percent accounts for 25% of the nations income
and 40% of the wealth, up from 12% and 33% a quarter century ago (Stiglitz, 2011).
Eco-productivity and natural systems are in serious decline. One in four mammal species
are at risk, mainly due to human activity; fish stocks are eroding; the worlds wetlands
and forest cover are declining markedly; and desertification puts some 135 million people
worldwide at risk of being driven from their lands (World Business Council for
Sustainable Development, 2006). Costs of mitigating the effects of climate change are
estimated to be $140 to $175 billion a year over the next 20 years (with associated
financing needs of $265 to $565 billion).
Outsourcing and offshoring have displaced workers in developed nations.According to
the Bureau of Economic Analysis, 10 million U.S. jobs have been sent overseas since
2001. And while this creates jobs in poorer countries, it is estimated that 150 million
internal migrants in China work in sweatshops, absent state benefits or protection, and
that 250 million children, ages 14 or younger, work in factories, many in deplorable
conditions.
Health threats reach across the spectrum. Close to half of all people in developing
countries suffer at any given time from health problems caused by water and sanitation
deficits. Two million die annually from infectious diarrhea, 90% of them children.
Europeans and Americans, who constitute just 28% of world population, account for 42%
of deaths from cardiovascular diseases and cancersdiseases often triggered by smoking,
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
11/46
11
sedentary lifestyles, and eating foods rich in salt, sugar, and fat. Obesity is growing into a
pandemic in the U.S. as well as in China and India.
Western monoculture is spreading throughout the world. Some argue that globalization
is good for countries and cultures, citing examples of how music, art, political thought,
technology, and other artifacts of culture have crossed boundaries and enriched peoples
experiences (Cowen, 2002; Bhagwati, 2004). Meanwhile, the Chinese government is
trying diligently to preserve its cultural and political underpinnings amidst a rapid influx
of western goods and services, and many other developing nations face pressures to move
to a Western capitalism model despite questions as to whether it is appropriate for their
cultures (International Forum on Globalization, 2002). Moreover, businesses implement
global strategies based on an economic logic of standardization and efficiency that offers
little practical incentive to account for cultural or governmental differences.
Insecurity in the world is intensifying and widespread. The Arab Spring, bailouts of
organizations too big to fail, an extended drug war in Mexico, and the Occupy
movement remind us of the instability and dangers of an interconnected world. On the
economic front, the spread of global capitalism has yielded many benefits, but contributes
to short-term thinking and unintended consequences. The financial markets fixation on
rapid returns (along with the motivations and incentives of executives that work in them)
were proximate causes of the 2009-2010 recession (Chan, 2011). Toyotas errant drive to
become the biggest automaker and BPs aggressive profit pursuits resulted in loss of life,
property, and reputations. And, as the rich get richer, Stiglitz (2011) warns, The more
divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to
spend money on common needs.
Business Challenges. Significant movements of goods, services, technology, human
resources, and capital across international borders have changed the business environment as
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
12/46
12
we know it. This has largely been a boon for MNCs and the private sector overall. Increases
in productivity due to innovation and specialization have improved competitiveness and
efficiency; greater market opportunities worldwide have raised revenues and expanded the
scope of business activity; and access to cheaper sources of labor and raw materials lowers
costs. These advantages have raised the power position of business, often beyond national
governments. The private sector is now the power leader of today, but it has a role that is not
without complexity and challenge.
Consider just a sampling of the sort of operating challenges a business faces today:
Increasing competitive pressures on a global scale are forcing companies to continuously
cut costs;
Globally integrated production requires complex management and monitoring of supply
chains;
Operating around the world increases the number and variety of stakeholders to manage;
Increased competition and consumption are depleting stocks of natural resources;
Public services in health, education, and welfare are strapped for funds and require more
cost-sharing and engagement of the private sector;
Heightened expectations from consumers, employees, regulators, and the public at large
means that businesses must not only operate more responsibly but also take responsibility
for addressing social, economic, and environmental issues in society.
On a macro scale, the integration of the global marketplace has intensified economic
interdependence among organizations andnations. While this opens up trade, it also means
that economic problems in one part of the world spread rapidly to others. The United States
2007-2008 fiscal crisis evolved quickly into a global recession sending the EU into a
financial tail spin and impacting the economies of almost every region of the globe.
Differences between countries cultural, political, and religious practices have rendered
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
13/46
13
global markets uncertain and sometimes conflictive. Persistent tensions in the Middle East
have made nations and their businesses more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, diplomatic and
military conflicts, and disruptions in energy supply. And while globalization expands access
to natural resources, it also makes the planet more susceptible to abuse by organizations with
shoddy environmental practices and by governments with loose environmental regulations.
Capitalizing on Complexity. It is clear that the world is becoming smaller and more
tightly interconnected economically, socially, and ecologically. What does this mean for
leaders in business and in society? The great majority of some 1500 top executives surveyed
by IBM (2010) find their operating environments to be more volatile and uncertain than ever
before. IBMs report about the challenges of global integration comes to two conclusions:
1) The worlds private and public sector leaders believe that a rapid escalation of complexity
is the biggest challenge confronting them. They expect it to continue indeed, to
accelerate in the coming years.
2) They are equally clear that their enterprises today are not equipped to cope effectively
with this complexity in the global environment (pg. 3).
So how are leaders responding to a competitive and economic environment unlike
anything that has come before? The IBM study finds that those who are capitalizing on
complexity are redesigning their organizations to make them more flexible and fluid and
reconfiguring themselves through new relationships with other businesses, NGOs, and
governments.
For the past two decades, scholars have been mapping a landscape where companies
routinely reshape and resize themselves, regularly buy and sell off businesses, outsource
nonstrategic functions, and partner with other institutions to do their work (Tushman &
OReilly, 1996; Galbraith, 2001; Saltz & Mirvis, 2002). Handy (1989), as one early example,
described a federalist organization design featuring three layers of activity from core to non-
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
14/46
14
core tasks. These layers would be populated, respectively, by core full-time personnel,
independent contractors and partners, and contingent workers. The underlying logic is that
this enables an organization to reconfigure its human systems quickly and efficiently in
response to environmental demands, such as new market openings, competitors responses,
and supply chain costs and reach, while preserving its core competencies. Many firms have
since adopted the extended enterprise concept where they work with partners throughout
their global supply chain and contract with other firms to handle transportation, warehousing,
procurement, public relations, and even information technology while focusing their capital
investments and attentions of the valued-added components of their business.
More generally, what has come to be called the post-bureaucratic structurewhether
depicted as a boundaryless organization, flexible firm, or virtual corporationfeatures less
vertical hierarchy, more lateral interaction, and constant exchange between the firm and its
environment at every level and in every part of the organization (Volberda, 1999; Galbraith,
2005). Specialists in organization design contend that these features give a firm sufficient
variety in structure and skill to better sense and react flexibly to complexity in its markets and
operating environments (Trist, 1983; Cohen & March, 1986).
Globalization has expanded the scale and scope of these new designs. Intel, as one
example, developed the global factory concept with a worldwide supply chain of plants,
transportation and distribution systems, R&D facilities, and sales organizations that depends
on tight integration. And while each of the facilities is required to meet strict operational
requirements that facilitate integration, they are also encouraged to take advantage of local
cultural customs. IBM, in turn, has developed an enterprise model where it reconfigures
businesses to deliver greater value by rethinking what is done in house versus through
collaboration. This has led the company to undertake hundreds of acquisitions the past
decade, develop a global supply chain network involving thousands of business partners,
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
15/46
15
establish corporate centers of excellence in different regions of the world, and devise new
business models where it sells to and services an ecosystem of diverse customers to create
smarter cities and a smarter planet.
In the face of increasing complexity, these organizations and others that thrive on the
global stage have been built to change (Lawler & Worley, 2006). Their rapid redesign
capabilities give them agility and adaptability (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998; Haeckel, 1999)
and their networks and partnerships yield what Huxham (1996) and others call a
collaborative advantage. The case studies in this volume show how a variety of
organizations--large and small, public and private, commercial and communalhave
redesigned themselves and forged partnerships for this purpose.
We wonder, however, whether these new designs and collaborations will lead to
sustainable effectiveness. No responsible leader or citizen can take comfort in the idea that
the horsemeat scandal and beggar-thy-neighbor stratagems employed are inevitable in our
competitive capitalist system. In other times, a national government or coalition of nations
were able to take control of these kinds of situations and respond with new policies and
remedies. But no such force exists today to regulate and remedy the undesirable social,
economic, and environmental consequences of global capitalism. There are, however, some
animating ideas, market forces, and developments in the political-economy that point the way
to a more sustainable version of competitive capitalism. There are some forward thinking
business leaders, too, that have a more inclusive and longer-term view of effectiveness where,
as one CEO puts it: commercial success is no longer a matter of company-to-customer
relationships; it also involves the success of relationships with governments, NGOs,
academic institutions, and other companies.
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
16/46
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
17/46
17
reward systems that promote the irrational use of natural capital (Hawken, Lovins, & Lovins,
2008).
Responsible Capitalism? The ideals of capitalism are that free markets make free
men (Friedman, 1974, pg. 3) and that human well-being is best advanced by liberating
individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework
characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade (Harvey, 2005,
pg. 3). In theory, the Anglo-American model is not only concerned with maximizing a firms
economic performance, it contains the logic for upholding and even enhancing the quality of
social and environmental conditions in which a firm exists. For example, sustainability
should enter into market decisions through either resource scarcity or consumer demands.
Dwindling supplies or more costly extraction of fossil fuels should shift input costs up and
drive the search for alternative fuels; and consumer demand for more ecologically friendly or
socially relevant outputs should incent organizations to shift their products/services.
But it does not always work that way in practice. Various market conditions (e.g.,
asymmetric information flows, mobility barriers, government tax policies), market failures
(e.g., decreasing marginal costs, unaccounted for environmental and social externalities,
sticky assets), and consumer contradictions (e.g., we say we want sustainability but are not
willing to pay more for it) can warp free markets and produce unsustainable consumption.
Organization balance sheets account for the costs of acquiring resources (e.g., oil, gas,
minerals) provided by the ecology but do not fully account for services provided to maintain
ecosystems (e.g., cleaning the air, water, and habitat or keeping the peace in the Mideast).
And excessive CEO pay and executive bonuses and growing gaps between the haves-and-
have-nots resist market corrections.
Sustainable Effectiveness. These issues are fueling a movement to reform the
orthodoxies of Anglo-American capitalism and redefine profit, efficiency, and growth in the
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
18/46
18
logic and language of sustainable effectiveness. Proponents of a new order do not argue
about whether businesses should make a profit but are concerned rather about how they make
their profits, how much profit they make, and at what costs to the commonweal. They
contend that the concentration of wealth, environmental damage, and social injustices that
have been incurred in the name of maximizing shareholder return warrant a rethinking of
value creation in the economy.
Three developments in the political-economy add impetus and direction to calls for a
new definition of value creation. First is the growing acceptance of stakeholder theory which
proposes that corporations bear responsibilities not only to their financial shareholders, but
also to employees, customers, suppliers, business partners, communities, and others who are
touched by corporate behavior (Freeman, 1984; Parmar et al., 2013). These are people,
groups, and interests that have a stake in a company, may care about its success or how a
company treats them, or be concerned about the impact a company has on others, society, and
nature. The great majority of business leaders today acknowledge responsibilities to multiple
stakeholders (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2008).
Second, growing social movements concerning consumer protection, investor rights,
employee well-being, and the health of the planet embody economic power and carry with
them the possibility of regulation and legal remedy for harms. In the most societies, the
interests of the public and private sector are not fully aligned and businesses are wary of and
opposed to regulation and oversight over their affairs in these domains. Accordingly, there is
a strong preference in business to make adaptations to these social movements voluntary
rather than regulatory. In this respect, there is a strong business case for companies to adopt
more socially responsible and sustainable practices (Bonini, Koller, & Mirvis, 2009).
Finally, growing legions of NGOs that represent varied stakeholders are operating at
the nexus of business and society (Hawken, 2007). Over two hundred thousand new citizen
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
19/46
19
groups have been formed around the world since the mid-1980s and global NGOs have been
rising in numbers, scale, and scope. Amnesty International, for example, has nearly two
million members in every country where multinational corporations do business and the
World Wildlife Fund has over five million. Both of these groups, as well as Oxfam,
Greenpeace, and thousands more, have forced companies to account for their economic,
social, and environmental inaction or misdeeds.
Shared Prosperity. Proposals for new variants of capitalism and new models of
responsible conduct are many and varied including, for instance, calls for a more conscious
capitalism (Mackey & Sisodia, 2013) that transcends profit maximization and calls for deeper
engagement of employees, customers, and communities, for natural capitalism (Hawken et
al., 2008) that emphasizes the economic value of nature and speaks to its restoration and
renewal, and for a more community-based capitalism which is based in local living
economies and emphasizes social sustainability (Hess, 2009). While there are those who call
for reduced economic growth and restraints on consumption, the unifying feature of most
calls for reform is their focus on shared prosperity. Consider three examples of shared
prosperity ideas already making their way into practice.
Albert (1993) describesRhine capitalismas a highly successful synthesis of Anglo-
American capitalism and social democracy. In contrast to the traditional model, Rhine
capitalism proposes that the interests of shareholders and management should be
reconciled with the interests of labor and other stakeholders, that markets should be
guided to balance the rights of private capital vs. the longer-term, social needs of a
functioning economy, and that information sharing and consensus building among
stakeholder allows coordinated action in pursuit of long-term economic and social goals.
Furthermore, by relying on banks to fuel and guide investment rather than stock market
capital, the model seeks to smooth out the volatility of market forces.
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
20/46
20
Worley and Lawler (2010) propose a policy framework of responsible progress that is
more rooted in traditional economic criteria of efficiency, risk-and-return, innovation, and
full employment (Scherer, 1980). Grounding responsible progress in this traditional
economic logic, they contend that creating social and ecological value should have equal
standing with creating economic value. Recognizing and addressing the achievement of
economic, social, and ecological outcomes as part of the responsible progress criteria
creates a larger number of available and socially acceptable solutions to challenges of
economic development (Nattrass & Altomare, 1999). Responsible progress calls for
businesses, governments, NGOs, and other stakeholders tojointly optimize (as opposed to
maximize) economic development, technological innovation, cultural diversity, and
ecological health to achieve sustainable effectiveness.
Porter and Kramer (2011) offer the concept of shared valuewhere processes,
products, and services are key to interests of both business and society. The underlying
rationale for shared value is that the competitiveness of a company and the health of the
communities surrounding it are mutually dependent. If organizations, governments, and
civil society interests could recognize and capitalize on this dependency, the next wave of
global growth could be initiated. Shared value can be created by reconceiving products
and markets, redefining productivity in the value chain, and enabling local cluster
development. Redefining products and markets to meet social as well as economic needs
would create new opportunities for growth and innovation. Similarly, innovation in the
supply chain could radically improve efficiency and redress environmental damage.
Finally, a more local orientation could increase resiliency and lower volatility in the
system (Poire & Sabel, 1984).
How are these theories translating into practice? A number of contemporary practices
embody and build on the Rhine capitalism model. Stakeholder engagement and consultation,
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
21/46
21
as noted, are becoming the norm for big business. In terms of market coordination, Matten &
Moon (2008) report that corporate responsibility policies and practices in Europe are
embedded in institutional frameworks and norms, are often codified, and define proper
obligations of corporate actors in collective rather than individual terms. As an example, the
EU and majority of OECD countries have adopted standards about public reporting by
businesses and the Nordic countries have legislation requiring disclosures by companies
about their performance in select environmental, social, and governance areas.
As the name implies, however, Rhine-style capitalism features far more in Europe
than in the U.S. and rest of the world where notions of responsible progress in a market mode
have more traction. John Elkingtons (1997) idea that business performance be directed
toward a triple bottom lineeconomic, social, and environmentalfits this ethos. Its logic
has been embraced by many companies globally and is evident in their strategizing, planning,
and reporting. In China, by comparison, market-based commerce operates under the
dominion and direction of a state that must balance aspirations for economic growth against
environmental degradation and social cleavages. The former Premier of China summed the
Chinese version of joint optimization in this way: Companies should be responsible to
society and consciously accept supervision by society. (Gefei, Weiyang, & Fushun, 2009).
Finally, there is no doubt that a turn to shared value opens up new avenues for value
creation. At once it can join a companys interest in creating new markets at the base-of-the-
pyramid with expanding its offerings for green and ethical consumers. When these threads
are joined into business models, it can unleash employees energy and turbo-charge
innovation in a company. And, it can also create real value for society. However, as Mirvis
and Googins (2012) note, shared value as such does not do very much to reconnect business
to society, reduce mistrust, or redress the rich-poor gap and other social divides. The
corporation remains at the center of this Copernican universe, and the other planets
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
22/46
22
(governments, NGOs, other stakeholders) merely align around its gravitational profit-
maximizing pull.
Beyond producing shared value, Mirvis and Googins recommend that companies
work toward shared values(adding an 's' to value) with their stakeholders.This speaks not
only to joint-optimization but also to power-equalization. A framework of shared values
requires that corporate aspirations for profits and efficiency be considered alongside social
progress and equityThis takes business out of the center of the universe and produces a
solar system of interdependent and interacting sectors where cooperation is the mode of
working and social harmony and sustainability are the measures of success.
Shared Responsibility. To close this discussion of political economy, consider the
question of who creates the value that produces shared prosperity. In the U.S. and many
market-driven societies, there has historically been a clear division of responsibility among
the public, private, and civil society sectors. The job of business has been to produce
products and services for markets, to create jobs, to earn and distribute profits, and to pay
taxes. Governments role has been to establish and enforce regulations, set tax policy, and
provide a safety net for those whose needs are not served by the market. And the roles of
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been to fill-in-the-gaps and address other
social and cultural needs.4
There are today, however, signs of sector bending or blurring (Dees & Anderson,
2003) such that traditional divisions of responsibility between the business, government, and
NGOs are being reconfigured. The wealth and power of business has increased dramatically
over the past decades. Meanwhile, government in the U.S., UK, and other OECD nations has
retracted through privatization of its services and reductions in expenditures in social welfare
4In its neo-classic economic formulation, the market is the preferred form of organization and governmental
intervention emerges from a market failure whenever a sufficiently large segment of the polity demandsresponsiveness from the state. NGO activity, in turn, arises from both market and government failurewhereby private interests organize to address the unmet needs of smaller segments of the public.
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
23/46
23
as a percentage of GDP. This combination of increasing business power and shrinking
government largesse has led to calls for corporations to take on greater responsibilities for the
commonwealdomestically and in their overseas operationsand to use their capabilities to
also serve the public interest (Visser, 2011).
In turn, NGOs have taken on three overlapping and sometimes contradictory functions
versus business and government: 1) as an advocate for those disadvantaged by the market
and disenfranchised by government; 2) as a watchdog over the behavior of the other two
sectors; and, increasingly, 3) as their partner in policy making and service delivery.
Thus what was once a reasonably clear division of responsibilities between the sectors
with regard to societys economic progress, social welfare, and environmental protection now
features overlap and interdependencies (see Figures 2 and 3). While this can create sectoral
ambiguity and conflict, it also opens up possibilities for actors and interests in government,
business and civil society to assume shared responsibility (Mirvis, Googins, DeJongh,
Quinn, & van Velsor, 2010) and work together for the benefit of each party and the common
good.
[Insert Figures 2 and 3 here]
Working Together Better
Being responsible does not mean doing it all ourselves. Responsibility is a form of
sharing, a way of recognising that were all in this together. Sole responsibility is an
oxymoron. Wayne Visser.
A company cannot execute its strategy alone. Adam Werbach.
Any business that wants to profoundly alter its operating environment, any
government that seeks to undertake fundamental reform, and any people who want to
improve the world must partner with others from outside their sector. Steve Waddell.
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
24/46
24
Multi-stakeholder and cross-sector approaches to problem-solving offer one of our
greatesthopes for meeting, together, the challenges of the twenty first century. JaneNelson.5
Multi-organization networks and partnerships enable organizations to perform tasks and
achieve goals that are too costly or complicated for a single organization to do on its own.
There is a vast multidisciplinary literature on why organizations participate in multi-party
networks and partnerships that draws from organizational economics, theories about agency,
stakeholders, and resource dependence-and-exchange, as well as social network,
communication, and institutional theories (see reviews by Gulati & Gargiulo, 1999; Monge &
Contractor, 2001; Zeng & Chen, 2003; Borgatti, & Foster, 2003; Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve,
& Tsai, 2004; Provan, Fish, & Sydow, 2007; Parmigiani and Rivera-Santos, 2011; Austin, &
Seitanidi, 2012a, 2012b). While even a cursory review of these theories is beyond the intent
and scope of this volume, select chapters in this volume demonstrate how multi-organization
arrangements can:
Increase trust and reduce transaction costs between parties;
Spread the costs and risks of investment and innovation;
Increase communication flows and produce joint learning;
Combine resources and diverse expertise to address complex problems;
Help common interests to enlarge and conflicting parties to cooperate;
Open new market opportunities and produce socio-technical and cultural innovations;
Forge relationships that transcend the perspective of a single organization and addressmultiple stakeholders interests.
Factoring in Sustainability. In research as to why actors and interests participate in
networks and partnerships, main motivations compress to 1) increased revenue and/or growth
5Quotes from Wayne Visserhttp://3blmedia.com/blog/Wayne-Visser/Meaning-Responsibility;Werbach
http://hbr.org/product/the-network-of-sustainability-partners-a-company-c/an/3426BC-PDF-ENG;SteveWaddellhttp://www.pegasuscom.com/levpoints/bigsyschange.html;Nelson, J. (2002).Building Partnerships:
Cooperation between the United Nations system and the private sector. (Monograph). New York: UnitedNations Publications.
http://3blmedia.com/blog/Wayne-Visser/Meaning-Responsibilityhttp://hbr.org/product/the-network-of-sustainability-partners-a-company-c/an/3426BC-PDF-ENGhttp://www.pegasuscom.com/levpoints/bigsyschange.htmlhttp://www.pegasuscom.com/levpoints/bigsyschange.htmlhttp://hbr.org/product/the-network-of-sustainability-partners-a-company-c/an/3426BC-PDF-ENGhttp://3blmedia.com/blog/Wayne-Visser/Meaning-Responsibility8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
25/46
25
opportunities, 2) reduced risks and/or costs, and 3) organization-specific motives relating to
innovation, knowledge transfer and use, and gains in reputation and legitimacy, as well as
competitive positioning (Powell, 1990; Oliver, 1990; Alter & Hage, 1993; Huxham, 1996).
Naturally, variants of these material motives feature in nearly every chapter.
Our interests in this volume, however, also concern motivations for sustainability
which can include the motivations listed above but introduce three other considerations in the
formation, goal setting, and operation of multi-organizational arrangements. First,
stakeholder theory, as articulated by Freeman (1984) and extended by Freeman et al., (2010),
proposes that an organization has fiduciary andnormative responsibilities to stakeholders,
including those who can affect or are affected by an organizations activities. This more
expansive view of responsibilities and inclusive view of stakeholders raises questions about
stakeholder democracy (Matten & Crane, 2005) and how multiple stakeholders interests
and voices are best represented in organizational arrangements. Networks and partnerships
can be prime vehicles for incorporating multiple stakeholders, directly or indirectly, in a
cooperative ventures goals, decisions, and results. Several of the case studies here address
how stakeholders are selected and enlisted into a multi-organizational network or partnership
or, if not directly engaged, how their interests are represented by proxies.
Second, incorporating criteria of sustainable effectiveness and shared value turns
attention to how the mission of a network or partnership is defined, and to how multiple and
sometimes conflicting goals are adjudicated and managed. On the conceptual aspects,
Freeman (1994) proposes that organizations are bound by the doctrine of fair contracts and
serve the interests of allstakeholders who, in turn, have the right to participate in the
governance of a firm. On the side of reciprocity, he then argues that this creates a collective
interest whereby stakeholders individually and collectively have a stake in the continued
existence and prosperity of other members including a firm. On the practical side, various
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
26/46
26
chapters herein consider how power relations and governance can be embedded in different
multi-organization forms (e.g., hierarchical, heterarchical, or shared governance); how trust is
developed and reinforced (e.g, contracts, co-investment, or norms of reciprocity); and how
work gets done (e.g., coordination, cooperation, or integration).
Third, several of the chapters here examine networks and partnerships aimed at the
sustainability of societies and the planet. Here we find the worlds biggest problems and
both common and competing interests across sectors and industries over how to address
them. Complex and interdependent economic, social, and environmental problems call for
complex solutions. Organizations from different industries and sectors bring unique and
essential assets to the work of social change (Waddell, 2005). Yet the literatures on
organization design, capabilities, and management practices are primarily addressed to
competitiveness and to the economic effectiveness of a single firm (Porter, 1980; Teece,
Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). What organization designs, capabilities, and practices are most
germane to cooperative ventures and to their success in terms of the triple bottom line (Gray,
1985; Huxham & Vangen, 2000; Worley, Feyerherm, & Knudsen, 2010; Gulati, Puranam, &
Tushman, 2012)?
Types of Collaboration and Partnership. Multi-organization networks and
partnerships come in different shapes and sizes. Consider, first, horizontalnetworks and
collaborations that link organizations side-by-side. In the commercial space, this includes
mergers, strategic alliances, and joint ventures of firms in the same industry, and intramarket
networks of interests involved in, say, buying groups, selling groups or as users of a class of
products or services. An intermarket networkrepresents a horizontal alliance among
organizations in different sectors and markets. This is best exemplified by Japanese keiretsu,
Korean chaebols, and Mexican grupos where businesses and governments collaborate to
coordinate economic relations and policy and by the Rhine models of capitalism practiced in
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
27/46
27
northern Europe. By their composition and comparatively equal power relations, intermarket
networks are more disposed to spread the wealth among participants and pursue ends of
sustainable effectiveness and shared value.
There are examples, too, of industry groups formed to produce private benefits for
their members and public goods. For instance, the Extractive Industries Transparency
Initiative (EITI) is a collaborative effort that includes BP, Chevron Texaco, Exxon Mobil,
Shell, Rio Tinto, Total, and other major oil and gas providers. EITI specifically aims to
reduce the embezzlement of oil and natural resource revenues and allow others to monitor
and influence governmental spending priorities by promoting the transparent reporting of
payments.
Several of the cases in this volume cover private-public collaborations contained
within a single industry (e.g., healthcare, education). Here, too, conditions are prime for
joint-optimization although very much contingent on the success of the parties in working
together (Gray & Hay, 1986; Huxham & Vangen, 2004; 2005). On this point, Savage et al.
(2010) write, collaborative advantage can be offset by collaborative inertia, the lack of
progress among partners. Collaborative inertia presumably is generated by numerous
obstacles to collaboration that range from the lack of trust to multiple and divergent aims to
different organizational cultures among the partners, to the inability to effectively handle the
conflicts associated with these issues, power differences, and other factors. (p. 24).
A vertical networkis composed of multiple organizations--both within and across
sectors--that coordinate or cooperate to move resources from raw materials to end consumer.
Vertical market networks, too, can address both business and sustainability issues. Nike, for
example, has its shoes manufactured in different supplier plants around the world and then
organizes their distribution through retail outlets. But Nike also collaborates with footwear,
apparel, and fabric companies to inspect and ensure the safety and health of workers in their
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
28/46
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
29/46
29
activated by companies in the form of policies that support volunteering and corporate-
community partnerships that identify important initiatives.
Second, in this era where companies focus on their core competencies and outsource
whole functions, few firms choose to dedicate extensive resources and staff to community
relations and the fieldwork. On this count, studies find NGOs to be far more knowledgeable
about social needs and more effective at planning social action than businesses (Austin,
Leonard, Reficco, & Wei-Skillern, 2005).
Third, there is evidence that partnering with NGOs is itself a source of legitimacy for
companies in society. GlobeScan (2001-2012) surveys find that 85 percent of the public says
that a key indication that a company is socially responsible is that it works directly with a
charity group or NGO. Furthermore, a growing segment of the public reports that a key
indication that a company is socially responsible is that it works directly with a charity group
or NGO. Here are some notable business/NGO partnerships:
Community ServiceHome Depot and KaBOOM! have partnered in the creation of
play spaces for low-income and disaster-affected neighborhoods.
EducationWith its Catalyst Initiative, Hewlett Packard established a network of
leading educators, education institutions, and key stakeholders in selected countries to
develop explore innovative approaches to STEM education.
Social JusticeState Farm has teamed up with the Neighborhood Housing Service to
increase the availability of insurance services for low income communities.
Digital DivideNokia has partnered with the Grameen Foundation to bring affordable
telecommunication services to poor villages in developing countries.
Sustainable DevelopmentChiquita and the Rainforest Alliance have partnered to
certify that Chiquitas plantations promote environmental and social sustainability.
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
30/46
30
Finally, an issue oropportunity networkis a temporary constellation of organizations,
often across sectors and markets, brought together to pursue a single purpose. If the purpose
is accomplished, the network can disband. Firms, NGOs, and governments have, for
example, worked together to combat trade in blood diamonds and to address corrupt business
practices in developing countries; multibusiness efforts build national health and legal
systems in African states, and facilitate post-conflict reconciliation among peoples in
Northern Ireland, South Africa, the Balkans, and Afghanistan; and business and civil society
partners promote peace through simple-but-difficult measures like creating jobs for youth
growing up in lands ripe for conflict and terrorism.
Other examples of issue-driven networks include Chinas Low Carbon City Initiative
which brought together business, labor, government, education, finance, community
organizations, and economic development agencies to identify exemplary efforts related to
energy efficiency, public awareness, and low carbon development; UPS sharing its carbon
calculator with the Dave Matthews Band to help reduce the carbon footprint of their tours;
and Starbucks hosting its competitors at a Cup Summit to explore ways to reduce waste
and promote recycling of coffee cups. Subsequently, initiatives were launched among these
companies with the Foodservice Packaging Association to increase the recyclability of
cups and with waste management firms to increase volume and thereby make recycling more
economically viable.
Making Collaboration Work. There are many rosters of best practices in
managing multi-organizational networks and partnershipsdrawn from practical experience
(Googins & Rochlin, 2000; Waddell, 2003; World Economic Forum, 2005; GEMI, 2008;
Werbach, 2009) and from comparative research (Gray, 1989; Zhang and Huxham, 2009;
Austin & Seitanidi, 2012b). Key findings from the literature on effective multi-party
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
31/46
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
32/46
32
CONCLUSION
The most often used phrases in the many meetings I attended [were] the need to
create coalitions of the willing and a recognition that all issues are inter-
connected and cannot be viewed in silos- Jo Confino, Chair of Guardian SustainableBusiness writing at the close of the Rio +20 Conference in June 2012
6
This introductory chapter has described three themes that frame the issues to be addressed in
this volume. First, globalization and threatening political, economic, social, and
environmental conditions in the world have created significantly more complexity for leaders
in business, government, and the private, nongovernmental (NGO) sector. Second, this
complexity requires a different objective function in the production of goods and services.
Instead of the pursuit of unsustainable growth and maximization of singular goals, such as a
profits or shareholder wealth, attention is turning to shared goals and responsibilities to the
requisite interdependency of the sectors to achieve sustainable effectiveness. Finally, multi-
stakeholder and cross-sector partnerships are emerging in response to this new world order.
New forms of collaboration mark the extended enterprise--from supply chain to customers
and clientsas well as multi-business and multi-sector ventures. Understanding these
changing conditions and their impact on organizing and leadership requires a closer look at
how networks and partnerships form and evolve, and careful consideration of new leadership
responsibilities, roles, and practices. This volume on Organizing for sustainability: Building
Networks & Partnerships illustrates some of the needed models and methods.
A 2012 survey of nearly 800 sustainability professionals in business, government,
NGOs, academe, and the media in over seventy countries concluded: Post-Rio +20, experts
overwhelmingly believe companies should collaborate with multiple actors, including
governments, to advance sustainability most effectively Globescan/Sustainability (2012).
Yet the survey found a huge gap between the importanceof partnering for sustainability for
6Confinohttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/blog/how-to-progress-collaboration-sustainability
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/blog/how-to-progress-collaboration-sustainabilityhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/blog/how-to-progress-collaboration-sustainability8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
33/46
33
companies versus its likely adoption in practice(58% versus 30%). Key perceived barriers
to collaboration included the absence of shared goals, a lack of executive leadership, and
simply not having had much experience to draw upon when entering this arena.
The organizations studied in this volume are not grains in a pile of sand (Ramo,
2009) -- they have strategic intent and purpose in joining forces with others to address
economic, social, and environmental challenges. As early adopters of a new collaborative
form of organization and management, they teach us about how to work together and set an
example for other organizations in their industry, sector, nation, and worldwide. Not every
case herein is a success story and even the goods ones have to be seen as works-in-progress.
We salute these organizations and the contributors to this volume for in the American
baseball adage stepping up to the plate.
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
34/46
34
REFERENCES
Albert, M. (1993). Capitalism vs. Capitalism. London: Whurr.
Alter, C., & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations Working Together.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Austin, J., Leonard, H., Reficco, E., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2005). Social Entrepreneurship: It's
For Corporations, Too. In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social Entrepreneurship: New Paradigms
of Sustainable Social Change. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Austin, J.E., & Seitanidi, M.M. (2012a). Collaborative Value Creation: A Review of
Partnering Between Nonprofits and Businesses: Part I. Value Creation Spectrum and
Collaboration Stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,41(5), 726-758.
Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M.M. (2012b). Collaborative Value Creation: A Review of
Partnering Between Nonprofits and Businesses. Part 2: Partnership Processes and
Outcomes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,41(6), 929-968.
Beddoe, R., Costanza, R., Farley, J., Garza, E., Kent, J., Kubiszewski, I., Martinez, L.,
Mccowen, T., Murphy, K., Myers, N., Ogden, Z., Stapleton, K., & Woodward, J.
(2009). Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: The evolutionary redesign of
worldviews, institutions, and technologies. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America,106(8), 24839.
Berger, I., Cunningham, P., & Drumwright, M.E. (2004). Social Alliances:
Company/Nonprofit Collaboration. California Management Review, 47(1), 58-90.
Bhagwati, J. (2004).In Defense of Globalization.New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Boje, D. & Hillon, M. (2008). Transorganizational Development. In T. Cummings (Ed.),
Handbook of Organization Development(pp. 651-63).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Bonini, S., Koller, T.M., and Mirvis, P.H. (2009). Valuing social responsibility. McKinsey on
Finance, 32, 11-18.
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
35/46
35
Borgatti, S.P., & Foster, P.C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A
review and typology.Journal of Management, 29(6), 991-1013.
Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H.R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and
organizations: A multilevel perspective.Academy of Management Journal, 47, 795-817.
Brown, L.D. (2007). Multiparty social action and mutual accountability, in A. Ebrahim and
E. Weisband (Eds), Global accountability and moral community. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brown, S., & Eisenhardt, K. (1998). Competing on the edge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Carson, S. J., Madho, A., & Wu, T. (2006). Uncertainty, opportunism, and governance: The
effects of volatility and ambiguity on formal and relational contracting.Academy of
Management Journal, 49(5), 1058.
Chan, S. (2011). Financial Crisis was Avoidable, Inquiry Finds.New York Times. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/business/economy/26inquiry.html?_r=0
Chua, A. (2003) World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic
Hatred and Global Instability.New York: Random House.
Cohen, M.D., & March, J.G. (1986).Leadership and Ambiguity. Boston, MA: Harvard
Business School Press.
Cone, Inc., (2012).2012 Cone Communications Corporate Social Return Trend Tracker.
Conecomm.com. Retrieved from
http://www.conecomm.com/2012corporatesocialreturntrendtracker
Cooperrider, D., & Dutton, J. (Eds.) (1999). Organizational Dimensions of Global Change:
No Limits to Cooperation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cowen, T. (2002). Creative Destruction.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/business/economy/26inquiry.html?_r=0http://www.conecomm.com/corporatesocialreturntrendtrackerhttp://www.conecomm.com/2012corporatesocialreturntrendtrackerhttp://www.conecomm.com/2012corporatesocialreturntrendtrackerhttp://www.conecomm.com/corporatesocialreturntrendtrackerhttp://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/business/economy/26inquiry.html?_r=08/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
36/46
36
Cummings, T. (1984). Transorganizational development. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.),
Research in Organization Behavior (vol. 6, pp. 367-422). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Dees, J.G., & Anderson, B.B. (2003). Sector-bending: Blurring lines between nonprofit and
for-profit. Society, 40(4), 16-27.
Economist Intelligence Unit. (2008). Sustainability Across Borders. London: The Economist.
Ehrenfeld, J. R. (2008). Sustainability by Design: A Subversive Strategy for Transforming
Our Consumer Culture.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple-Bottom Line of 21st Century Business.
London: Capstone/John Wiley.
Elkington, J. (2013).Breakthrough: Business Leaders, Market Revolutions. London: Volans.
Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman.
Freeman, R.E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: some future directions.Business
Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409-422.
Freeman, R.E., Wicks, A.C., Harrison, J., Parmar, B., & DeColle, S. (2010). Stakeholder
Theory: The State of the Art. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, M. (1974). Free Markets for Free Men; Selected Papers No. 45. Chicago, IL:
Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago.
Friedman, T. (2000).Lexus and the Olive Tree.New York: Anchor Books.
Friedman, T. (2006). The World is Flat.New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Galbraith, J.R. (2001). Designing organizations: An executive guide to strategy, structure,
and process. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Galbraith, J.R. (2005).Designing the customer-centric organization: A guide to strategy,
structure, and process. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gauthier, A. (2008). Developing Generative Change Leaders Across Sectors: An Exploration
of Integral Approaches.Integral Leadership Review. Retrieved from
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
37/46
37
http://integralleadershipreview.com/5061-feature-article-developing-generative-change-
leaders-across-sectors-an-exploration-of-integral-approaches
Gefei, Y., Weiyang, L., & Fushun, W. (2009). Stages of CSR development in China.
Corporate Social Responsibility in China (1sted, pp. 142).Beijing: Enterprise
Management Publishing House.
GEMI (2008). Guide to Successful Corporate-NGO Partnerships. Washington, DC: Global
Environmental Management Initiative (GEMI) and Environmental Defense Fund.
GlobeScan. (2001-2012) Corporate Social Responsibility Monitor. www.globescan.com
Globescan/Sustainability. (2012). Collaborating for a Sustainable Future: A
GlobeScan/SustainAbility Survey. Retrieved from
http://www.globescan.com/component/edocman/?view=document&id=47&Itemid=591
Googins, B.K., & Rochlin, S.A. (2000). Creating the partnership society: Understanding the
rhetoric and reality of cross-sectoral partnerships.Business and Society Review, 105(1),
127-144.
Googins, B., Mirvis, P., & Rochlin, S. (2007). Beyond good company: Next generation
corporate citizenship. New York, NY: Palgrave.
Gray, B. (1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human Relations,
38, 91136.
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Gray, B., & Hay, T. (1986). Political limits to interorganizational consensus and change.
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 22(2), 95-112.
Grossman, R., Lobnig, H., & Scala, K. (2012). Facilitating Collaboration in Public
Management. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
http://integralleadershipreview.com/5061-feature-article-developing-generative-change-leaders-across-sectors-an-exploration-of-integral-approacheshttp://integralleadershipreview.com/5061-feature-article-developing-generative-change-leaders-across-sectors-an-exploration-of-integral-approacheshttp://www.globescan.com/component/edocman/?view=document&id=47&Itemid=591http://www.globescan.com/component/edocman/?view=document&id=47&Itemid=591http://integralleadershipreview.com/5061-feature-article-developing-generative-change-leaders-across-sectors-an-exploration-of-integral-approacheshttp://integralleadershipreview.com/5061-feature-article-developing-generative-change-leaders-across-sectors-an-exploration-of-integral-approaches8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
38/46
38
Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from?
American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439-1493.
Gulati, R., Puranam, P., & Tushman, M. (2012). Meta-organization design: Rethinking
design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal,
33, 571-586.
Haeckel, S. (1999).Adaptive enterprise: Creating and leading sense-and-respond
organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Handy, C. (1989). The age of unreason. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Harvey, D. (2005).A Brief History of Neoliberalism.Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Hawken, P. (2007).Blessed Unrest:How the Largest Movement in the World Came into
Being and Why No One Saw It Coming. New York: Viking Penguin.
Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins, L. (2008).Natural capitalism: Creating the next
industrial revolution. Boston, MA: Back Bay Books.
Healy, A. (2013). Food watchdog uncovers contamination.Irish Times. Retrieved from
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2013/0116/1224328905117.html
Hess, D.J. (2009). Localist Movements in a Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hillebrand, B., & Biemans, W.G. (2003). The relationship between internal and external
cooperation: Literature review and propositions.Journal of Business Research, 56, 735-
743.
Huxham, C. (Ed.) (1996). Creating Collaborative Advantage. London: Sage.
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2000). Ambiguity, complexity and dynamics in the membership
of collaboration.Human Relations, 53(6), 771-806.
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2004). Doing things collaboratively: Realizing the advantage or
succumbing to inertia? Organizational Dynamics, 33(2), 190.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2013/0116/1224328905117.htmlhttp://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2013/0116/1224328905117.html8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
39/46
39
Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005).Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of
Collaborative Advantage.London: Routledge.
IBM. (2010). Capitalizing on Complexity: Insights from the IBM 2010 Global CEO Study.
IBM: Institute for Business Value.
International Forum on Globalization. (2002).Alternatives to Economic Globalization. San
Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Korten, D. (1995). When Corporations Rule the World.Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.
Korten, D. (2006). The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community.Bloomfield, CT:
Kumarian Press.
Koschmann, M.A., Kuhn, T.R., & Pfarrer, M.D. (2012). A Communicative Framework of
Value in Cross-Sector Partnerships.Academy Of Management Review, 37,332-354.
Lawler, E.E., & Worley, C. (2006).Built to change: How to achieve sustained
organizational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lawler, E.E., & Worley, C. (2011).Management reset: Organizing for sustainable
effectiveness.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mackey, J., & Sisodia, R. (2013). Conscious Capitalism. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
Review Press.
Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). What is stakeholder democracy? Perspectives and issues.
Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(1), 6-13.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Implicit and explicit CSR: a conceptual framework for a
comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. The Academy of
Management Review, 33(2), 404-424.
Mirvis, P. H., & Googins, B. (2006). Stages of Corporate Citizenship: A Developmental
Framework. California Management Review 48(2), 104126.
8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
40/46
40
Mirvis, P. H., Googins, B., DeJongh, D., Quinn, L., & van Velsor, E. (2010). Responsible
leadership emerging: Individual, organizational and collective frontiers.University of
Pretoria, South Africa, Centre for Responsible Leadership.
Mirvis, P. H. & Googins, B. (2012). Share Value or Shared Values? [Blog], Global Network
for Corporate Citizenship.Retrieved fromhttp://www.gn-cc.org/blog/share-value-or-
shared-values
Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2001). Emergence of communication networks. In F.M.
Jablin & L.L. Putnam (Eds.),New handbook of organizational communication(pp. 440-
502).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Nattrass, B.F., & Altomare, M. (1999). The Natural Step for Business: Wealth, Ecology, and
the Evolutionary Corporation. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society Publishers.
Nelson, J. (2002).Building Partnerships: Cooperation between the United Nations system
and the private sector. (Monograph). New York: United Nations Publications.
Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of Interorganizational Relationship: Integration and Future
Directions.Academy of Management Review, 15, 241-65.
Parmar, B., Freeman, R., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Purnell, L., & de Colle, S. (2013).
Stakeholder theory: State of the art. The Academy of Management Annals,4(1), 403-
445.
Parmigiani, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2011). Clearing a Path Through the Forest: A Meta-
Review of Interorganizational Relationships.Journal of Management, 37(4), 1108-
1136.
Peloza, J., & Falkenberg, L. (2009). The role of collaboration in achieving corporate social
responsibility objectives. California Management Review, 51(3), 95-113.
Perkins, J. (2004). Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler
Publishers.
http://www.gn-cc.org/blog/share-value-or-shared-valueshttp://www.gn-cc.org/blog/share-value-or-shared-valueshttp://www.gn-cc.org/blog/share-value-or-shared-valueshttp://www.gn-cc.org/blog/share-value-or-shared-valueshttp://www.gn-cc.org/blog/share-value-or-shared-values8/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
41/46
41
Poire, M., & Sabel, C. (1984). The second industrial divide.New York: Basic Books.
Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy.New York: The Free Press.
Porter, M., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value.Harvard Business Review,
89(1/2), 62-77.
Powell, W.W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In B.M.
Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.),Research in organizational behavior(vol. 12, pp. 295-
336).Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Prescott, J. (2013). Horse meat scandal: Supermarkets have become the Del Boys of retailers
and weve all been fooled by horses!.Mirror. Retrieved from
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/john-prescott-horse-meat-scandal-1713979
Prins, S. (2010). From competition to collaboration: Critical challenges and dynamics in
multiparty collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46(3), 281-312.
Provan, K., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. (2007). Interorganizational networks at the network level:
A review of the empirical literature on whole networks.Journal of Management, 33(3),
479-516.
Quinn, J., Lewis, J., & Sawer, P. (2013). Horse meat scandal: Shoppers who buy 'cheapest
food' at risk. The Telegraph. Retrieved from
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/food/9875300/Horse-meat-scandal-
Shoppers-who-buy-cheapest-food-at-risk.html
Ramo, J. (2009). The Age of the Unthinkable. New York: Little Brown.
Rayner, J. (2013). As the horsemeat scandal shows, thuggish supermarkets are endangering
our food supply. The Guardian. Retrievedfrom
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/17/horsemeat-scandal-
supermarkets-food-supply
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/john-prescott-horse-meat-scandal-1713979http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/food/9875300/Horse-meat-scandal-Shoppers-who-buy-cheapest-food-at-risk.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/food/9875300/Horse-meat-scandal-Shoppers-who-buy-cheapest-food-at-risk.htmlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/17/horsemeat-scandal-supermarkets-food-supplyhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/17/horsemeat-scandal-supermarkets-food-supplyhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/17/horsemeat-scandal-supermarkets-food-supplyhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/feb/17/horsemeat-scandal-supermarkets-food-supplyhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/food/9875300/Horse-meat-scandal-Shoppers-who-buy-cheapest-food-at-risk.htmlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/food/9875300/Horse-meat-scandal-Shoppers-who-buy-cheapest-food-at-risk.htmlhttp://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/john-prescott-horse-meat-scandal-17139798/13/2019 Chapter 1-Organizing for Sustainability (Mirvis and Worley) 9-24-13
42/46
42
Saltz, J.L., & Mirvis, P.H. (2002). Organizational adaptability: Rethinking the resizing
process. In K. DeMeuse and M.L. Marks (Eds.),Resizing the organization: Managing
layoffs, divestitures, and closings--Maximizing gain while minimizing pain.San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pages 347-368.
Savage, G.T., Bunn, M.D., Gray, B., Xiao, Q., Wang, S., Wilson, E.J., & Williams, E.S.
(2010). Stakeholder Collaboration: Implications for Stakeholder Theory and Practice.
Journal of Business Ethics, 96(1),21-26
Scherer, F. M. (1980).Industrial market structure and economic performance.Chicago, IL:
Rand McNally.
Stiglitz, J. (2011). Of the 1%, By the 1%, for the 1%. Vanity Fair. Retrieved from
http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105
Stiglitz, J. (2012). The Price of Inequality. New York: W.W. Norton.
Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management,
Strategic Management Journal,18(7), 509-534.
Trist, E. (1983). Referent organizations and the development of inter-organizational domains.
Human Relations, 36(3), 269-285.
Tushman, M.L., & OReilly, C.A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing
evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-29.
Van Alstyne, M. (1997). The state of networ