Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study …pure.au.dk/portal/files/47742314/samlet_opgave.docx · Web view“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation:

Afhandling/Master Thesis

Indlevering af afhandling på Cand.merc., Cand.IT, Cand.ling.merc. og HD-studier / Delivery of the Master Thesis for the Master programmesDer afleveres til Studieadministrationen / To be handed in at the Registrar’s Office:- en kopi af indberetningskvitteringen fra Theses@asb / a copy of the receipt from Theses@asb- 2 trykte eksemplarer af afhandlingen / 2 printed copies of your thesis- 2 udfyldte eksemplarer af denne formular / 2 filled in copies of this formHD-afhandlinger afleveres på samme måde til instituttet / Likewise, Graduate Diploma theses are to be delivered to the Department.

Titel (brug venligst blokbogstaver) / Thesis Title (capital letters) HUSK - også titel på fremmedsprog - kun for CLM / REMEMBER – Title in the foreign language – only for CLMRelationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study

Evt. undertitel / Subtitle

Emneord / Subjects (min. 3 words)

Relationship marketing Relationship management Knowledge management

Opgaveløser(e) / Author(s)NAVN / NAME Esben Nørris Christensen E-MAIL [email protected] / STUDENT NO

401153 STUDIE / COURSE

MACC

NAVN / NAME E-MAILSTUDIENUMMER / STUDENT NO

STUDIE / COURSE

NAVN / NAME E-MAILSTUDIENUMMER / STUDENT NO

STUDIE / COURSE

VEJLEDER / INSTRUCTOR BIVEJLEDER / CO-INSTRUCTOR INSTITUT / DEPARTMENT

Chiara Valentini Faculty of Business and Social Sciences

VIL DU TILLADE ONLINE ADGANG VIA BIBLIOTEKETS DATABASE / WOULD YOU PERMIT ONLINE ACCESS FROM THE LIBRARY DATABASE

JA / YES NEJ / NO

DATO OG UNDERSKRIFT / DATE AND SIGNATURE

Udfyldes af instituttet / To be filled in by the departmentLOKALE / PLACE DATO / DATE KL. / HOUR

CENSOR / EXAMINER

Handelshøjskolen

Aarhus UniversitetFuglesangs Alle 4DK – 8210 Århus V

Tel. 89 48 66 88Fax 89 48 61 26

Web www.asb.dk

http://www.asb.dk/

http://www.asb.dk/

Esben Nørris ChristensenStudy no.: 401153

August 1st 2012 Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University

Supervisor: Chiara Valentini

“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study” August 1st

Esben Nørris Christensen Exam no.: 401153

Foreword

I would like to thank the employees of SustainAgri who were kind enough to let me use their

company as a case study and provided me with sufficient information regarding the daily workings

of a foundation.

Without them, this thesis would have been impossible to write.

Additionally, I also want to thank the contact persons who completed the sent out questionnaires

and thereby provided me with vital information about their view on relationships between

companies.

The abstract contains 3,226 characters equivalent to approximately 1.5 page (excluding spacing)

This thesis contains 172,229 characters equivalent to approximately 78 pages (excluding spacing).



Abstract

The objective of this thesis is to explore the area of relationship management within a non-profit

foundation functioning on a B2B (business to business) market.

Relationship management has become increasingly important for companies to partake in, in order

for them to be able to stay competitive on an ever-increasing global market. This has recently been

relevant for larger companies and organisations to participate in since it can have the effect of

reducing costs. Relationship management has also become more relevant for SME’s (small and

medium-sized enterprises) and the opportunity to create relationships has also increased with

companies now being able to create shared research and development projects. This way SME’s are

able to create products and services that they would otherwise not have been capable of.

The first part of the thesis consists of a literature review which looks into the development of

relationship management and its similarities with relationship marketing. This is relevant because I

investigate relationship management in a real-life context consisting of a foundation and its partner

companies. However, whereas the focus of relationship marketing is to reduce costs for a company,

the focus of relationship management is to develop and maintain relationships, which also focus on

the cooperation between companies in order to reach a shared goal.

This section has also been used to explain knowledge management and how this is used to share

and gather knowledge both interdepartmentally as well as among organisations.

From the literature review, it becomes clear that a combination of relationship management and

knowledge management in the scholarly world has not been looked into. Moreover, there also

seems to be a need for more research into the aspect of non-profit foundations working on a B2B

market.

The second section of the thesis involves the case study of SustainAgri. SustainAgri is a non-profit

umbrella foundation, receiving EU grants, functioning within a B2B market.

The current relationship between SustainAgri and its partner companies lacks a common goal to

work towards. Furthermore, a lack of commitment and trust appears to be present which seems to

prevent the relationship from developing. In addition to this, there seems to be a consensus among

the partner companies that they entered into the relationship in order to also share knowledge across



the cluster of companies. However, currently knowledge does not seem to be shared between the

partner companies and, in some cases, not even with the foundation.

The third section focuses on which improvements can be made in the relationship between

SustainAgri and the partner companies in order for the relationship to develop and thereby become

stronger.

Three suggestions have been created based on the discussion about the current relationship.

All suggestions focus on the need for the relationship to have common goals and objectives, giving

the relationship a purpose which it presently seem to lack.

Additionally, the increase in commitment, trust, two-way communication and the exchange of

knowledge across companies can be achieved by creating smaller segments within the cluster of

companies. These will encourage a greater level of commitment and a sharing and gathering of

knowledge, which presently does not exist.

On the basis of these suggestions, two models have been created in which relationship and

knowledge management aspects are used. These models are indented to increase the level of

cooperation, communication and dependency among all involved parties.

The thesis also shows that by combining relationship and knowledge management factors a greater

organisation-public relationship can be created than if the management functions were used

separately.



Table of contentsPart I: Theoretical background.........................................................................................................................1

1.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................1

1.1.1 Personal motivation.............................................................................................................................2

1.2 Problem formulation..............................................................................................................................2

1.2.1 Research questions..............................................................................................................................3

1.2.2 Delimitations.......................................................................................................................................3

1.3 Limitations..............................................................................................................................................4

1.3.1 Other data collection processes..........................................................................................................4

1.4 Thesis structure......................................................................................................................................5

1.5 Critical realism........................................................................................................................................6

1.6 Case study approach...............................................................................................................................9

1.7 Case study: SustainAgri.........................................................................................................................11

1.8 Qualitative research.............................................................................................................................13

1.9 Quantitative research...........................................................................................................................14

1.10 Mixed methods...................................................................................................................................15

1.11 Data collection....................................................................................................................................17

1.12 Processes and methods......................................................................................................................18

1.12.1 Primary data....................................................................................................................................18

1.12.2 Secondary data................................................................................................................................19

1.13 Time period........................................................................................................................................19

1.14 Interviews as data collection..............................................................................................................19

1.15 Semi-structured interviews................................................................................................................20

1.16 Questionnaires as data collection.......................................................................................................21

1.17 Questionnaires...................................................................................................................................22

1.18 Ethical considerations.........................................................................................................................23

Part II: Literature review.................................................................................................................................24

2. The importance of relationship management between organisations.......................................................24

2.1 Relationships........................................................................................................................................24

2.2 Relationship marketing.........................................................................................................................26

2.3 Relationship management....................................................................................................................34



2.4 Knowledge management......................................................................................................................40

Knowledge sharing and gathering..............................................................................................................43

2.5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................45

2.6 Results of the literature review............................................................................................................47

Part III: Discussion..........................................................................................................................................49

3. Case study: SustainAgri’s current relationship with its partner companies................................................49

3.1 Relationship factors..............................................................................................................................50

3.2 Cooperation..........................................................................................................................................53

3.3 Satisfaction...........................................................................................................................................57

3.4 Findings................................................................................................................................................61

Part IV: Improvements...................................................................................................................................63

4. Creating better relationships for SustainAgri and the partner companies.................................................63

4.1 Setting objectives..................................................................................................................................63

4.2 The management of knowledge...........................................................................................................64

4.2.1 Knowledge+Relationship Management Model..................................................................................68

4.3 Creating an intranet..............................................................................................................................69

4.4 Theory based on the case study of SustainAgri....................................................................................73

4.4.1 Relationship+Knowledge Management Model..................................................................................76

4.3 Reliability..............................................................................................................................................77

4.4 Generalisation......................................................................................................................................78

4.5 Validity..................................................................................................................................................78

4.6 Findings................................................................................................................................................79

Part V: Final conclusion..................................................................................................................................81

5. Conclusion..................................................................................................................................................81

5.1 Further research...................................................................................................................................84

Bibliography...................................................................................................................................................85

Appendix 1: SustainAgri’s overall purpose (2002)..........................................................................................93

Appendix 2: SustainAgri’s current EU goals....................................................................................................95

Appendix 3: Organisational structure of SustainAgri.....................................................................................97



Appendix 4: Interview transcription – Carsten Møller....................................................................................98

Appendix 5: Interview transcription – Christian Sønderup...........................................................................115

Appendix 6: Interview transcription – Lasse Bork Schmidt...........................................................................126

Appendix 7: List of partner companies.........................................................................................................136

Appendix 8: Interview agreement forms......................................................................................................140

Appendix 9: Questions for interview............................................................................................................145

Appendix 10: Interview guide.......................................................................................................................149

Appendix 11: Mail introducing questionnaire to partner companies...........................................................154

Appendix 12: Questionnaire.........................................................................................................................155

Appendix 13: Completed questionnaires.....................................................................................................165

Kongskilde A/S..........................................................................................................................................165

JMS Management ApS..............................................................................................................................169

EnergiMidt................................................................................................................................................174

Ingvald Christensen A/S............................................................................................................................179

Influx.........................................................................................................................................................184

Industri-Montage Vest A/S.......................................................................................................................188

Danish Farm Design..................................................................................................................................192

Little Dane ApS.........................................................................................................................................196

Nordic Environment ApS..........................................................................................................................201

S.A. Christensen & CO...............................................................................................................................206

Appendix 14: Mail thanking contact persons for participating.....................................................................211

Appendix 15: Questionnaire guide...............................................................................................................212

Appendix 16: Partnership agreement contract............................................................................................218



Part I: Theoretical background

1.1 IntroductionThe creation of relationships has always been important in people’s lives. Each person gains

intangible value from these interpersonal relationships, helping form and develop the people

involved.

Many of the same relationship aspects have been recognised as important when developing

relationships between companies. Companies also develop relationships based on the intangible

values which can be gained from the cooperation between two or more companies. The most

important dimensions were developed by Hon and Grunig in 1999 and are very similar to those of

personal relationships: Trust, commitment, satisfaction and control mutuality (The dimensions will

be further explained on page 30).

During the last two decades, relationships have played an increasing role in larger organisations.

However, in recent years it has also become important within SME’s (small and medium-sized

enterprises) due to the increasing globalisation of the markets and the need to stay competitive.

Reasons can be found in the need for organisations to cooperate in order to reach objectives that

would otherwise not be possible to reach. Examples of cooperation could be when organisations

create common research and development projects where they all share the relevant knowledge

needed and create more competitive companies. Another advantage is the fact that relationships can

lower costs and generates more wealth to each organisation involved in the relationship.

Although the above-mentioned dimensions are of great importance to the development of

organisation-public relationships, other factors such as knowledge creation and knowledge sharing

have had an increasing relevance for the development and maintenance of relationships.

During this thesis, I will look into the research made by scholars within the areas of relationship

marketing, relationship management and knowledge management. By doing this, I will seek to find

areas which have not received much attention.

In addition, I will include a case study focusing on a non-profit foundation, called SustainAgri,

which operates on the B2B (business to business) market. There does not seem to be any relevant

Page 1 of 234



research focusing on non-profit organisations on a B2B market but rather on non-profit

organisations which operate on a charitable basis. Furthermore, I will look into how knowledge

management and relationship management might help develop better relationships between

companies.

As a result of the research in SustainAgri, I will provide suggestions of how to improve relationship

management, knowledge management and level of communication between SustainAgri and its

partner companies.

1.1.1 Personal motivation

My motivation for choosing SustainAgri as a case study is due to having been an intern there during

my previous semester. This has also provided me with knowledge I would otherwise not posses

about the internal workings of the foundation and some of its problems regarding relationship

management.

Since I am researching the concept of relationship management between an organisation and

companies within a specific sector, I decided to include SustainAgri as a case study. This is also

done in the hope of being able to shed light on certain areas which the foundation has not previously

been aware of.

1.2 Problem formulationThe globalisation of national markets together with the demolition of national trade barriers have

made it more important than before for organisations to work together and to learn from each other.

This has been especially true for SME’s who have learned to share technology and knowledge with

each other while at the same time creating new products or services together. By doing so the

companies stand stronger and can by doing so create wealth and cut costs, making them more

competitive.

The main objective with this master thesis is to investigate the importance of the role of relationship

communication between a non-profit, EU-granted foundation and its partner companies. With this, I

hope to discover how the foundation’s communication affects the relational activities with the

partner companies. To investigate this in-depth, as previously mentioned, I have included a case

study of a non-profit, umbrella foundation, SustainAgri. This is done in order to explore how it

Page 2 of 234



manages its relationships with the partner companies based on theories from the areas of

relationship marketing, relationship management and knowledge management.

I will investigate the importance of relationship communication within SustainAgri, which is also

an SME, and how relationship communication and relationship management between the

foundation and its partner companies are conducted and if improvements can be made.

This will be done on the basis of existing theories and models created within relationship marketing,

relationship management and knowledge management.

1.2.1 Research questions

On the basis of the above, I have chosen to investigate the following research questions:

1.Why is relationship management important for B2B organisations?

2. How is the relationship between SustainAgri and its partner companies currently?

3. How can SustainAgri create better relationships with the partner companies?

1.2.2 Delimitations

Even though organisation-public theories, scholarly articles and research have been consulted in

order to collect as much information about relationship management as possible, the majority of

these seem to focus on how to develop and maintain relationships within B2C (business to

consumer) markets. Those theories have been used for this thesis, which might result in a focus on

the relationship between a company and its publics and not so much on what is required when two,

or more, companies seek to develop relationships. The reason for this is the fact that while the

partner companies, as the title would suggest, are companies in their own right, they are also

customers of SustainAgri. They are customers in the sense that the foundation needs partner

companies in order to survive and the relationship would as a result not be as equal as between two

companies.

After having looked through a vast amount of theories about organisation-public relationships, a

clear-cut definition of the word relationship, and what this entails, has not been possible to find.

Page 3 of 234



This has resulted in the use of an Oxford English Dictionary in which a short and concise

explanation was offered. This definition can be found on page 25.

Due to my time as intern at SustainAgri, I have sensed a lack of commitment and willingness to

cooperate from the partner companies’ side. Also it took Lasse Bork Schmidt, the Managing

Director of SustainAgri, four months to set up individual meetings with the contact persons from

the partner companies and he did not manage to have meetings with all. Because of this, I chose to

only send questionnaires out in order to get as many of the partner companies’ points of view on the

relationship with SustainAgri as possible. I believe this would be a better way of collecting data

than only interviewing two or three partner companies. Even though the level of information would

then have been higher and more data could be collected, these contact persons would have to

answer for all partner companies. Since this was not the objective of the thesis, I did not do so.

Moreover, due to having been an intern at SustainAgri, my opinion might have been affected by the

views of the employees. Therefore, I saw questionnaires for the partner companies as the best data

collection method since I could not affect the answers of the contact persons and because they could

then answer more freely and honestly.

1.3 LimitationsSome of the self-reflections regarding theories used and the chosen methods have been mentioned

throughout the thesis but will be elaborated on during this section.

For the thesis, I chose to use both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. However, if I

had had the opportunity to interview both the key employees from SustainAgri as well as the

contact persons from the partner companies it would have made the collected information richer in

details. This way it would also have been easier to analyse and discuss the collected data because

the answers to the semi-structured interviews would have made for a better analysis and the answers

given by the partner companies could be explored further.

1.3.1 Other data collection processes

I ended up interviewing three key employees of SustainAgri and then sending questionnaires based

on the answers to the contact persons of the partner companies. However, data collection processes

such as focus groups and observation have been considered also.

Page 4 of 234



The reason for not using focus groups for the thesis is due to the fact that it would have taken longer

than the time allocated for the data collection processes. Additionally, contact persons would have

to be willing and able to participate. This would mean finding a date and time which would suit all

participants. In addition, the focus group participants would have to be able to represent the entirety

of the partner companies and not just their own company and its views. This realisation led me to

believe that even if I had the time for using focus groups, there was a chance of the data collected

becoming distorted. Not all the partner companies would have the opportunity to state their opinion

of their relationship with SustainAgri, and this could change the final result.

Observation as a primary data collection method was also an aspect which was considered but

rejected again. Its contribution to the thesis might have been too limited compared to the data

collection methods which were used. The main concern behind this was the fact that it might focus

too much on areas within the daily workings of SustainAgri which are not relevant to the topic of

relationship management.

1.4 Thesis structureThe thesis is divided into five parts:

The first part of the thesis includes the introduction (personal motivation, problem statement and

research questions) as well as the section regarding the scientific approach and the method chosen.

The overall scientific approaches are explained during this part and, moreover, the data collection

methods are explained and discussed. During this, there is also an explanation of the definitions of

primary and secondary data collection as well as qualitative and quantitative research methods. This

is done in order to establish a theoretical basis for the outline of the thesis.

The second part of the thesis focuses on a literature review which explains the relevant definitions

and theories within the areas of relationship marketing, relationship management and knowledge

management. This will function as the theoretical background and will be referenced to during the

remainder of the thesis. This part will also answer the first research question concerning the

importance of relationship management on a B2B market. Finally, this also explains why a case

study is relevant and which aspects are looked into.

The third part of the thesis introduces the current relationship between the non-profit foundation of

SustainAgri and its partner companies. Here the interviews of the three key employees of the

Page 5 of 234



foundation and the questionnaires received from the partner companies are analysed and discussed.

Differences in opinion between the partner companies and SustainAgri are looked into and a deeper

level of understanding of the current relationship is provided.

The fourth part of the thesis then looks at the results of the discussion and offers suggestions for

improvements for the relationship. During this, both relationship management and knowledge

management are used in order to show a connection between the two areas. This is done with the

intent of proving this connection as well as using knowledge management within the area of

relationship management.

The fifth and final part discusses the generalisablility of the results of the previous part. The aspects

of reliability and validity connected to the thesis and the research are discussed.

Finally, during this part of the thesis a final conclusion of all the findings connected to the thesis is

presented and a section regarding further research highlights the interesting aspects to be looked

further into on the basis of this thesis.

1.5 Critical realismCritical realism was first used as a scientific approach during the 1970’s by Roy Bhaskar (Bhaskar,

1998) who had created it to counter the points of view of interpretists/constructionists and

positivists. Bhaskar thought of the existing paradigms as being superficial (Alvesson & Sköldberg,

2009) since they did not focus enough on understanding the researched problems in-depth, as well

as the mechanisms which affected the problems.

The definition of what is real within the realm of (McEvoy & Richards, 200 6) critical realism is

very simple. Anything that has a causal effect on the behaviour of people can be deemed to be real.

This means that actions (Pratschke, 2003) are real due to the effect they have on one or more

persons, however, ideas are also deemed real since they can also affect people. This can for

example be the case with the ideas and aspirations of Karl Marx’s philosophies about distributing

the wealth amongst people1 (Pratschke, 2003).

1 Karl Marx is mentioned because many scholars, among others Pratschke (2003), Losch (2009) and Alvesson and Sköldberg (2009), seem to agree with the fact that some inspiration behind critical realism has come from his writings.

Page 6 of 234



The goal within critical realism is not to create generalisable theories or models but to create a

deeper understanding of the world and how different actors, for example people, technology and

culture, affect each other. However, if the researcher finds that the above mentioned mechanisms

have a great effect on the research topic, the theory or models derived from the research will

become easier to generalise. This only becomes relevant when the result of research is new theory,

or models, that include more factors than already existing ones. Is this the case the new theory will

be preferable to the existing theory (Pratschke, 2003).

By creating, for example, a new theory it will also become possible to explain how mechanisms

from one subject area are connected with other areas and how it affects them. This knowledge will

then make it possible to change these mechanisms and improve the area of research (McEvoy &

Richards, 2006).

Critical realism is at one end of the spectrum, with idealism being at the other end of the spectrum

(Pratschke, 2003). This is due to the critical nature of critical realism and that facts are not accepted

in blind faith whereas facts are not reflected on within idealism. This is also the reason for idealism

being called “Naive idealism” (Losch, 2009).

Critical realism shares many similarities with positivism, for example the need for understanding

patterns within society and what causes these patterns. At the same time positivism is regarded as

being too superficial since it does not find unobservable mechanisms of importance (Alvesson &

Sköldberg, 2009).

At the epistemological level, the job of the researcher is to look into, and understand, the real

domain and how the mechanisms within this affect other domains (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009).

This is important since it helps explain the interconnectivity of phenomena and how they function

in addition to why they do what they do (Jeppesen, 2005).

Within critical realism ontology is prioritised over epistemology and methodology because

knowledge does not only reside in one person but is something which is influenced by external

factors outside the control of one person (Reed, 2001). The reason for dividing ontology into three

domains is that critical realists, this way, will be able to isolate the specific problem related to a

research problem. This way it will also become apparent which mechanisms have an effect on the

specific problem and how this can be changed in order to improve the problem (Alvesson &

Sköldberg, 2009).

Page 7 of 234



Within critical realism there exist three ontological domains:

The empirical domain – what is possible to experience directly or indirectly as part of reality

(McEvoy & Richards, 2006).

The actual domain – aspects of reality occurring independently of research (Alvesson &

Sköldberg, 2009)

The real domain – focuses on the mechanisms causing certain events to occur outside the main

field of research and how this creates phenomena connected to the relevant research topics

(Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009).

On the methodological level it is important to understand and explain the world; and with this

knowledge be able to change the mechanisms which may affect the relevant areas of research

(Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009). This is done by unifying and using the best aspects from each

existing paradigm to reach the best research results (Fox, 2009). This also means that using both

qualitative and quantitative research methods is a possibility within critical realism (McEvoy &

Richards, 2006).

This is the reason for critical realism having included these aspects from the

interpretivist/contructionist worldview. There is a need to see every aspect within its context to fully

understand the mechanisms affecting it, just as interpretivism does, but critical realists however find

the focus on social constructions to be insufficient. The reason for this is the fact that many, if not

most, of the things happening in the real world does not only include the mechanisms which operate

within the mind of people and the actions made by the same people. It also includes the actions

made separately from their specific context (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2009).

Critical realism also perfectly relates to my thesis and to the case study because it focuses on

gaining a deeper level of understanding of SustainAgri and its relationships. Finally, due to the use

of critical realism it should also become clear how mechanisms, both the observable and the

unobservable, affect the relationship between SustainAgri and the partner companies.

Page 8 of 234



1.6 Case study approachPrimarily, case studies are used within research with the objective to investigate and explore

situations, such as the relationship between specific types of companies and their context (Ghauri &

Grønhaug, 2010). Therefore, most case studies are exploratory or inductive; meaning that they aim

to discover new theory, new models or create hypotheses for future tests (Ghauri & Grønhaug,

2010; Daymon & Holloway, 2010).

This makes the case study of SustainAgri relevant since it focuses on a small foundation and how it

deals with relationship and knowledge management (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).

The advantages of case studies are many, and one of the main ones is that a higher level of

information can be included during the research process. Simultaneously, it is looking into a real-

life context and tries to apply theoretical knowledge to the degree it is possible.

Another aspect which is also used, is the possibility of including more participants in the research,

thereby, getting multiple points’ of views (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).

An aspect which can be both a benefit and a disadvantage is that case studies are situated within a

specific context at a specific point in time. This can be a benefit if it creates knowledge which can

be used by other companies in a similar context (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).

However, it can also be a disadvantage if for example theory cannot be produced through case

studies. If this is the case, the study can be seen to be a wasted chance of contributing to the

scholarly discussions within the specific field (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).

Another disadvantage of case studies is their need to be descriptive. If research connected to case

studies become too descriptive, the aspect of generalising the findings becomes more difficult,

simply because new research has to find similar cases in order to test new theory and concepts

(Daymon & Holloway, 2010).

Another disadvantage is the difficulty of researchers to create theory which can be generalisable and

thereby be used by other companies or researchers (Daymon & Holloway, 2010). Again this

disadvantage is not relevant in connection with my thesis since the aim of critical realism is to gain

a deeper understanding of the mechanisms within specific settings. By doing so, critical realists

acknowledge that the mechanisms discovered through the use of case studies might be too specific

for creating a general theory or model (McEvoy & Richards, 2006).

Page 9 of 234



Case studies can be difficult to carry out if participants do not wish to be part of the research. One

reason can be that the information may be used by competitors. Internally, employees might then

receive knowledge which they were not meant to have (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).

In order to investigate the relevance of relationship marketing, relationship management and

knowledge management within a B2B market, the non-profit foundation SustainAgri has been

chosen as a case study. This also makes it possible to look into existing theory and see if the

combination of more management areas affects their relationships (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).

The case study of SustainAgri has been used in order gain more information and knowledge

regarding the foundation and to explore whether new knowledge can be derived from this. The case

study will help me answer the second and third research question since it will provide me with a

greater understanding of the mechanisms influencing a foundation. It will also make the discussion

(Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010) more accurate since the data has been collected in the natural settings

of the studied company.

The case study is chosen in order to get a deeper look into the different mechanisms affecting the

management of relationships and knowledge and how these aspects influence the overall

relationship (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).

In addition, the case study will be used to investigate whether relationship management and

knowledge management can be combined when it comes to improving relationships between

companies. It will make it possible to determine if new theory can be created (Daymon &

Holloway, 2010).

The limitations of time for writing this thesis has restricted the data collection period to

approximately one and a half month in which it has been possible to collect all the data necessary

for the completion of the discussion/analysis section (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).

Even though it can be difficult to gain access to the company used for the case study as well as

getting access to the internal documents required for the research this has not been the case

(Daymon & Holloway, 2010). Since I have been an intern at SustainAgri and therefore gotten to

know the employees. Moreover, I believe it has helped break down the barriers which could

otherwise have created problems when collecting the relevant data for the thesis.

Page 10 of 234



The nature of the data collection itself and the interview and questionnaire participants will be

presented in the following sections.

1.7 Case study: SustainAgriSustainAgri is a non-profit umbrella foundation functioning on the B2B market.

It is non-profit because it is part of an EU project where specific goals are to be reached. These

goals last for a four year period. Afterwards, new EU goals lasting for another four years can be set

and a new grant will be received.

The money from the grant is divided into eight parts and paid out every six months in accordance

with the costs. This means that the money from the grant is not divided into equal parts when being

paid out. In addition to this, approximately half of the funding is based on the hours accumulated by

the contact persons from each partner company. When working together with SustainAgri on

projects, the contact persons send in their payslips and SustainAgri is then compensated for these

hours.

This means that it is very important for SustainAgri to maintain a good relationship with all partner

companies since the contact persons have the possibility of refusing to send in the payslips. If this is

the case, the foundation will otherwise lack the money from the partner companies and it may then

result in the foundation having to close down.

The goals set by SustainAgri must be reached during the four year period. These EU goals thus

determine the framework of the relationship between SustainAgri and its partner companies.

SustainAgri was formed in 2002 and the employees at that time created the overall purpose of the

foundation. This purpose is what SustainAgri, in addition with its EU goals, tries to live up to

(appendix 1):

Developing environmentally friendly solutions within farming

To market the Danish products on international markets

To support Danish farming companies in international markets by making international

visits and create projects benefiting these companies

To ensure Danish companies an easier entry into foreign markets

Page 11 of 234



In this connection, SustainAgri has listed some of the advantages Danish companies will receive

when becoming part of the cluster of partner companies. Some of these advantages are (appendix

1):

Danish companies become part of an umbrella organisation

The possibility for the partner companies for increased visibility in foreign markets

Greater access to market information

An increased innovation within the partner companies

The possibility to get projects financed by SustainAgri

SustainAgri started its second EU project in 2011 and it became necessary for the foundation to

create new goals lasting for another period. Listed below are the goals which are relevant to the

current EU period, from 2011-2013 (the entire list of the current EU goals can be found in appendix

2):

Joint and dynamic market process (becoming better at unifying information and knowledge

from the partner companies in brochures and general information for the end-users of the

products)

Anchoring of new organisation models (SustainAgri and the partner companies have to be

better at collaborating with each other and in by this gain the most possible from the

relationship)

Knowledge sharing and practical learning (creating a better knowledge sharing and

knowledge gathering system that allows SustainAgri, as well as the partner companies, to

have the relevant information from all companies when developing new projects)

Maturation of the cluster (the partner companies and SustainAgri have to become more

equal within the relationship in order to develop the relationship)

In order for SustainAgri to live up to the overall purpose, as well as the current EU goals, it has to

be good at managing its relationships as well as the partner companies’ expectations.

SustainAgri works together with two other foundations who are also receiving EU grants. These

foundations are: Danish Energy Solutions and Danish Water Services. These foundations have the

same purposes as the ones SustainAgri made in 2002, for each of their respective sectors: energy

and water (appendix 3 shows the organisational structure of SustainAgri).

Page 12 of 234



1.8 Qualitative researchDuring this thesis, I have chosen to make use of semi-structured interviews and have therefore

included this section explaining the advantages and disadvantages of qualitative research as well as

which research tools are included within this concept.

In the words of Van Maanen (1979): It [qualitative research methods] is [...] an umbrella term

covering an array of interpretive techniques which seek to describe, decode, translate, and

otherwise come to terms with the meaning, not the frequency, of a certain more or less naturally

occurring phenomena in the social world.” (Van Maanen, 1979: 520).

In other words, qualitative research methods include the use of unstructured, semi-structured and

structured interviews, the setting up of focus groups to answer relevant questions, analysing the

participants’ use of semantics and providing knowledge which would otherwise have not been

obvious to the researcher (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).

With the use of qualitative methods, it becomes easier to gather the correct information and gain

knowledge on a deeper level. There will be a greater focus on understanding the interview

participants and the different mechanisms influencing the participants’ views and decisions within

the context of a professional life (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). It provides a greater knowledge when

analysing and understanding the data from which the thesis will be based.

By interviewing three of the key employees at SustainAgri, it will also become easier to compare

their answers with each other to find out whether they all have the same view on the same topics

(Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). On the basis of this, qualitative research is primarily focused on the

meanings, concepts, understanding and descriptions of specific people or situations (Ghauri &

Grønhaug, 2010).

The main disadvantage of using qualitative research methods is the quality of the research is

dependent on the skills and knowledge of the researcher. This applies both to the theoretical

knowledge acquired before carrying out the research but also the knowledge of the interview

participants and the organisation in which they function. Moreover, the quality of qualitative

research is often influenced by the level of experience of the researcher in other words whether the

researcher is an expert or novice of data collection (Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002).

Page 13 of 234



Furthermore, since the conclusions and generalisations will be based on the information received

from qualitative research, which tends to be a smaller sample than quantitative research methods, it

can become difficult to reach a final conclusion due to the data being based on the participants’

views, beliefs and experience within certain areas. This can also influence the researcher as it can

become difficult to make actual correlations between the cause and effect mechanisms from a broad

perspective (Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002).

Finally, the education and values of the researcher may influence the questions within an interview

and this could cause the interview participants’ to answer in ways which they would otherwise not

have (Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002).

1.9 Quantitative researchIn order to get the opinions of most of the contact persons within the partner companies, I have

chosen to send out questionnaires as well as gather internal documents and make a literature review.

Due to this, I have included this section explaining more about quantitative research methods and its

pros and cons.

According to Daymon and Holloway (2010):”[...] quantitative [research] techniques seek to

distance the researcher from the data, both in the methods of collecting the data (say, by sending

out a survey rather than listening to the voices of informants) and also in analysis where numbers

and statistics are favoured over words and the organization of language.” (Daymon & Holloway,

2010: 8).

Compared to qualitative researchers, quantitative researchers collect statistical or mathematical data

which is then used to analyse situations, practises and opinions of a large number of participants

(Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002).

A strength of the quantitative research method is its ability to focus on the main research facts

which means that the participant only has to answer the most relevant questions of the researcher.

Also there is not the same concern, as with qualitative research, that the interview may influence the

answers of participants (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). This ensures that the data becomes more

objective than with qualitative research methods. Usually, the information gained from quantitative

research is more result-oriented than with qualitative research methods because there will not be the

same amount of data from one participant as with e.g. interviews (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).

Page 14 of 234



The main reason for using quantitative research methods is the ability to test or validate information

or hypotheses because the collected data is easier to use in statistical analyses which can quickly

point the researcher in one specific direction (Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002). Additionally, the

researcher does not need the same level of experience as when using qualitative research methods


Some of the disadvantages of using quantitative research are that the data collection within

quantitative research normally takes a long time, since e.g. questionnaires are not all sent out at

once. This is due to large number of participants needed. However, the context may have changed

from the when the data was first sent out (Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002). Furthermore, the data has to

be analysed by using already existing models which might not fully correspond to the needs of the

researcher (Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002).

Lastly, due to the choices of participants being limited within this research type, there is a risk of

participants being forced to answer in a way that might not fully correspond to their responses and

views in general (Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002).

1.10 Mixed methodsThis thesis is created using a mixed methods approach since both qualitative and quantitative

research methods are present. As a result of this, I have included this section explaining mixed

methods.

Hon and Grunig (1999) argue that it is important to gather information from all involved companies

within an organisation-public relationship, the organisation being SustainAgri and the publics being

its partner companies. Therefore, I have interviewed key employees within SustainAgri and sent out

questionnaires to the contact persons from the partner companies. The reason for doing so has been

numerous and the most pressing ones have been the limitations of time, since it would take up an

inordinate amount of time to set up interviews, conduct interviews and transcribe interviews with

the 14 contact persons. In addition to this, it would also be time intensive to analyse all interviews

in-depth.

Another factor has been a geographical one, since most of the partner companies are scattered on

Funen and in Jutland this would result in much of my time being spent on travelling back and forth

between them to conduct the interviews.

Page 15 of 234



Since the qualitative and quantitative data collection methods do not mutually exclude each other

(Niglas, 2009) and since the research objective should decide the research design, mixed methods

has been chosen for the approach of this thesis.

Although this thesis has been created by using mixed methods, meaning the use of both qualitative

and quantitative methods, the results will be qualitative (Niglas, 2009).

Since the data collection is carried out in the manner described above, it becomes easier to find any

conflicting views between SustainAgri and the partner companies – views which could otherwise

not have been presented in the data (Niglas, 2009).

The reason for using qualitative research methods (semi-structured interviews) is because of the

open-ended questions used making it possible for the interview participant to give many different

answers which cannot be planned by the researcher beforehand. However, even though this is

possible, the researcher has decided the main questions and research areas in advance. The great

advantage of for example interviews is the possibility for different themes and connections, which

had otherwise not been noticed, to become clear for the researcher (McEvoy & Richards, 2002).

This has only been done in connection with SustainAgri’s employees since they are the ones

managing the overall relationship with the partner companies.

By using quantitative methods and qualitative research methods in my thesis, there is a greater

chance of finding new, unexpected correlations between mechanisms both within the relevant areas

of relationship marketing and relationship and knowledge management. This becomes possible

because the contact persons have been sent a questionnaire in which there are very limited

possibilities of answering which will make the correlation between the mechanisms clearer than if

only qualitative research methods had been used (McEvoy & Richards, 2006). The reason for this is

that qualitative research methods are based on the views, thoughts and experiences of the

participants whereas quantitative research methods are more objective. When the methods are used

within the same research the disadvantages of either method are lessened by their strengths


This will also contribute to the field of knowledge in connection with how these mechanisms

operate when used by a non-profit foundation within a B2B market (McEvoy & Richards, 2006).

Also, as it has previously been pointed out, there is a greater chance that the information received

becomes more objective because the participant will then have more time to decide on an answer

Page 16 of 234



without any influence from the researcher. Inadvertently, this might be a factor within interviews

but by also using questionnaires the possibility of, unconsciously, influencing all participants in the

research has thereby been eliminated (Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002).

Additionally, my inexperience of conducting interviews will not affect all participants since only

the employees of SustainAgri, and not the contact persons, participated in semi-structured

interviews (Libarkin & Kurdziel, 2002).

1.11 Data collectionFor the qualitative research methods, semi-structured interviews were conducted. I chose to

interview three key employees of SustainAgri who have a vast amount of knowledge concerning

SustainAgri’s relationships. The following three key employees are the interview participants:

Carsten Møller, Vice Director of SustainAgri (interviewed on May 10th , lasting 49 minutes)

(appendix 4):

Mr. Møller has a great amount of knowledge about creating relationships among companies. He is

primarily used as a consultant assisting with the decision-making process within SustainAgri, and is

Managing Director of Danish Water Services and Danish Energy Solutions (the two other

foundations sharing an office, and some of the employees, with SustainAgri).

Christian Sønderup, Head of The Development Group (interviewed on May 10th, lasting 45

minutes) (appendix 5):

The Development Group was created so the three foundations can learn from each other and

exchange knowledge within the more administrative aspects, e.g. when dealing with EU related

applications. Mr. Sønderup has worked in both SustainAgri and Danish Water Services since 2008

and has a lot of knowledge with communicating with stakeholders.

Lasse Bork Schmidt, Managing Director of SustainAgri (interviewed on May 30th, lasting 24

minutes) (appendix 6):

Mr. Schmidt is concerned with the overall communication with the partner companies of

SustainAgri as well as finding relevant projects for them. He was employed as Managing Director

Page 17 of 234



in 2006 and has a great deal of knowledge concerning the different partner companies and their

contact persons.

Having conducted the semi-structured interviews and created the literature review, the

questionnaires were created and sent out to the partner companies.

I wanted to send questionnaires out to all 14 partner companies of SustainAgri, however, since one

company did not wish to participate, only 13 were sent out.

In appendix 7 is a complete list of SustainAgri’s partner companies, information of the companies

and contact persons, their job title.

1.12 Processes and methodsBefore describing and explaining the data collection process used during this thesis, I have chosen

to include two short sections explaining the difference between primary and secondary data

collection methods. This is done to clarify the differences between the two data collection processes

since they are both used during this thesis.

1.12.1 Primary dataPrimary data is when the researcher collects all the data needed in order to gain insights into a

specific topic where data is sparse or where context specific knowledge is needed. During this

thesis, I have conducted semi-structured interviews as well as sent out questionnaires which are

both ways of collecting primary data. The interviews were conducted with the key employees of

SustainAgri. The information received from this, was used to create questionnaires which were sent

out to the partner companies of SustainAgri. The questionnaires were used in order to gain

information from the partner companies who would be able to provide an outside view of the

relationship and state their opinions regarding the relationship.

Additionally, I have used primary sources, which mainly consists of articles and books discussing

relationship marketing, relationship management and knowledge management, to make a literature

review. The literature review will then be used as the theoretical basis for the subsequent discussion

of the current relationship between SustainAgri and the partner companies as well as for the

suggested improvements.

Page 18 of 234



Disadvantages connected to primary data collection are the time-consuming nature of data

collection and the dependency on other people to participate for the research to be completed

(Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).

1.12.2 Secondary dataThe secondary data collection methods used for this thesis are articles and books produced by

scholars within the fields of marketing, communication and management as well as relevant

websites such as the website for the Institute of Public Relations. Mainly, secondary data has been

used to describe SustainAgri and the context in which it operates. This means that among other

things a partnership contract and the current EU goals of SustainAgri have been added. This should

help paint a picture of the foundation, its requirements for the partner companies and the EU goals it

is meant to fulfil (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).

Moreover, since I have worked for SustainAgri during my period as an intern, the knowledge

acquired will be used in order to explain about the foundation during the section about SustainAgri

as well as the discussion section.

1.13 Time periodThe data has been gathered through two different data collection processes. This process contained

an interview stage followed by the sending out of questionnaires to the contact persons. The semi-

structured interviews were conducted between the 10th and the 30th of May 2012 and the

questionnaires were sent out the 29th of May 2012 with a deadline of return the 5th of June 2012.

1.14 Interviews as data collectionAs with all methods within data collection, there are benefits and disadvantages connected to

conducting semi-structured interviews. The advantages of using interviews for data collection are

that they are flexible and it is possible to ask follow-up questions and in this way gain more

information. Additionally, the researcher can ask the participant to provide examples which is not

possible with other data collection methods (Daymon & Holloway, 2010). This creates a clearer

picture of the person being interviewed which can help the interviewer gain a deeper level of

understanding of the relationships (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). There is a high response rate

(Daymon & Holloway, 2010) for interviews which is not possible to reach by using other data

Page 19 of 234



collection methods. When using interviews, it becomes possible to create a relationship with the

participants making the participant answer questions more in-depth (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).

Finally, a benefit of conducting interviews is that it allows the interviewer to decide which topics

are most important and develop the main questions before conducting the interview (Daymon &

Holloway, 2010).

However, there are also disadvantages connected to semi-structured interviews which are important

to know about beforehand. This makes it easier for the researcher to avoid elementary mistakes

when conducting interviews – this is especially important for novice researchers (Daymon &

Holloway, 2010).

When conducting interviews, one disadvantage a novice researcher should be aware is its time-

consuming nature. This is due to the many stages of an interview: the development of questions and

subject areas, pre-testing and possible revising, the interview itself and finally a transcription


Also because of the time-consuming nature of interviews, it is not possible to conduct many of them

– thereby making the variety of people involved in the research smaller than many other data

collection methods (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).

One of the most important disadvantages is that the interviewer might lead the participant to answer

questions in a specific way because the participant thinks the interviewer wants certain answers


1.15 Semi-structured interviewsThe first stage in the data collection process included three semi-structured interviews, lasting

between approximately 24 to 49 minutes, with three key employees from SustainAgri. They all

have knowledge regarding the daily routines of the foundation combined with insights into their

relationships with the partner companies.

The areas of relationship marketing, relationship management and knowledge management together

with the relationship dimensions created by Hon and Grunig (1999): Trust, commitment,

satisfaction and control mutuality, have laid the foundation for the interview questions (The

definitions can be found on page 30). In addition, another article written by Grunig (2002), further

Page 20 of 234



explaining the four dimensions mentioned above, has also been used for inspiration for the

questions concerning the dimension of trust.

Beforehand, the employees participating in the interviews were asked to read through and sign an

agreement form, explaining the objectives of the thesis as well as the procedure of the interview

(appendix 8).

All three interviews have been conducted in Danish as all participants are native Danish speakers

and the interviews, due to this, should flow more freely and without the same amount of

grammatical mistakes, hesitations and constrictions which might have occurred had the interviews

been conducted in English (questions for interviews in both English and Danish can be found in

appendix 9).

More information about the relevance of the questions for the semi-structured interviews can be

found in the interview guide, which is appendix 10.

1.16 Questionnaires as data collectionSince questionnaires have been included as a data collection method for this thesis, the following

section explains the pros and cons of this particular method.

A main benefit of questionnaires is that they can be answered quickly since no transcription of

audio files are needed and as a result are less time-consuming than qualitative data collection

methods. This, of course, is depending on the desired number of participants (Ghauri & Grønhaug,

2010). This way it becomes easier for more people to be included in the research population,

meaning the total number of participants of the interviews and questionnaires. Additionally, they

are also an easy way to gain needed information from people with specific knowledge (Ghauri &

Grønhaug, 2010).

The researcher constructs the research design beforehand and thereby decides which questions are

most important (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). In this case, the research design was based on the

information and answers given during the semi-structured interviews with the employees. However,

the questionnaires are primarily quantitative because it provides an easy way of measuring all the

results provided (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).

Page 21 of 234



The disadvantages of using questionnaires are important to know before embarking on the creation

of them because it, as a result, becomes easier to avoid making the most obvious mistakes.

If the language of questionnaires is not clear and concise, participants may misunderstand the

questions (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). A disadvantage which can be difficult to completely prevent

is that questionnaires can be subject to bias. It can be the case, both when seen from the researcher’s

point of view, who creates the questionnaires, and from the participant’s point of view when

interpreting the questions (Daymon &Holloway, 2010).

Compared to the when conducting interviews, the level of participation is lower and it is not

possible to include the same level of in-depth information in the quantitative research (Daymon &

Holloway, 2010).

1.17 QuestionnairesBased on the answers from the interviews, the questionnaires have been created and sent out to all

partner companies of SustainAgri.

It should be noted that there are 14 partner companies of SustainAgri, however, one partner

company did not wish to participate because they did not participate in projects with SustainAgri

and have not participated in any meetings or planned events. However, the company is still a

partner company since it has paid its membership fee.

Questionnaires were sent out, with an introduction, via mail, to the remaining 13 partner companies.

Resulting in 10 being completed and sent back, giving a response rate of 77% (the introductory mail

can be seen in appendix 11). The questionnaires were sent out on 29th of May and the deadline was

the 5th of June (Both the English and the Danish version of the questionnaire can be seen in

appendix 12).

The questionnaire has been divided into four sections: 1. General information in which a few

questions regarding the partner companies are asked. 2. Communication where the type of

communication used by SustainAgri, the regularity of the communication between SustainAgri and

the partner companies and the importance of personal contact with the contact persons are looked

into. 3. Membership information concerning how long the partner companies have been members,

the advantages and disadvantages as well as the number of projects together with SustainAgri are

Page 22 of 234



explored. 4. Satisfaction, this is the section which concerns itself with the level of satisfaction, the

information and knowledge sharing and gathering and the overall satisfaction with the membership.

In the process of creating the best possible questionnaire, both in terms of it being easy to

understand and quick to fill out, two SustainAgri employees agreed read it through and eliminate

any difficulties in terms of understanding. The Managing Director of SustainAgri, Lasse Bork

Schmidt, also looked through the questionnaire in order to provide insights into the formulation of

the questions as well as how to best approach the contact people (all completed questionnaires can

be seen in appendix 13).

Since there was a chance of the questionnaire becoming too long, I decided to write the introduction

of the questionnaire, the subject of my thesis and the possible benefits for the partner companies in

an email accompanying the questionnaire. Furthermore, although there is a small section at the end

of the questionnaire thanking the participants for their time and effort, every contact person also

received an email thanking them for participating (appendix 14).

Questionnaires are typically thought of as being connected with quantitative data collection since

many of the questions will be measurable due to the possibility of answering will be restricted to a

five-point scale (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).

This is also done in the questionnaires constructed for the partner companies; however, I have tried

to also include qualitative questions – which are open-ended. This was done to gain an insight into

specific areas of the overall themes of the questionnaire (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010).

More information regarding the questionnaire can be found in the enclosed questionnaire guide

(appendix 15).

The questionnaire has been distributed in Danish since this is easier for the participants to quickly

answer and understand.

1.18 Ethical considerationsAll the participants for the semi-structured interview, as well as the questionnaires, participated

without any influence regarding what to answer or any type of coercion.

Page 23 of 234



Part II: Literature review

2. The importance of relationship management between organisationsI have chosen to centre my literature review on three fields within communication, marketing and

management: relationship marketing, relationship management and knowledge management. These

are closely interrelated with many overlapping point of views, especially when it comes to

relationship dimensions, the importance of internal culture, an organisation’s interorganisational

structure and the positive contributions of relationship management in organisation-public

relationships. These areas are of importance to B2B organisations as they all, in their separate ways,

provide openness, transparency and an increased knowledge of the public, plus a more efficient way

of sharing knowledge across an organisation, which can help all organisations trying to increase

their reputations and image as well as their general standing with the different publics.

2.1 RelationshipsEven though there are many opinions regarding the word relationship, the word itself (Bruning &

Ledingham, 1999) is such a widely used word describing many different aspects, both within the

corporate world but also in the day-to-day life of people in general, that experts within the field of

public relations and marketing had difficulty for a long time creating a clear-cut definition of this.

Also, since the area of relationship management shifted the area of public relations from, roughly

speaking, concentrating on manipulation of publics into creating and maintaining relationships with

the public, this had to be taken into consideration when a definition was created (Bruning &

Ledingham, 1999).

One reason for developing a relationship on the B2B (Phillips, 2006b) market is that one

organisation may want to be associated with another due to, for example, its superior service,

specific well-known and accomplished employees or companies that are well-known for a specific

product. Phillips (2006b) describes this as using the relationships as tokens, which is a way for a

smaller organisation to garner reputation through the relational connection with a commonly known

organisation.

Effective communication in an organisation-public relationship creates stable and productive

relationships where conflicts, as well as the costs are reduced. Another aspect of this is increased

Page 24 of 234



interest in shared activities, e.g. meetings, seminars and workshops, which also serve to increase the

corporation between the parties and reduce the possibilities of conflicts occurring (Huang, 2001).

The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1995) gave the following explanations of relationships:

1. the fact or state of being related.

2a. a connection or association (enjoyed a good working relationship)

b. an emotional (esp. sexual) association between two people.

3. a condition or character due to being related.

4. kinship (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1995: 1160)

The word relationship (O’Malley & Tynan, 1999) is a very emotionally-laden word, which makes it

difficult to define it with any precision. It is important to remember however, that relationship

marketing as it is, is a not a tool to be used by organisations who then expect instant relationships

with all its publics. It has to be seen as a framework explaining the human natures of relationships

and, according to Barnes and Howlett (1998), two aspects have to be fulfilled for a relationship to

be present. A relationship has to be perceived as a relationship by both the organisation and its

public, and the relationship will have to achieve a special status in which more than just products or

services are exchanged – but among other things also knowledge (Egan, 2005). If only one of the

involved parties sees itself as in a relationship, reciprocity will not exist, and as a result of this no

actual relationship is present (Tadajewski, 2009). According to Hung (2005), when organisations

accept that that they are interdependent with their publics, they can either choose to compete or

collaborate with the public in order to get the resources needed for the survival of the company.

Hung (2005) describes this as companies going into either a win-win situation, where all parties

involved gain from the relationship, or a win-lose situation, where the organisation exploits its

publics to acquire the relevant resources.

During this thesis, I will be using definition 2a as the appropriate definition for a relationship in

general, since it emphasises the fact that a relationship occurs when there can be found:” a

connection or association” (The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1995: 1160) between two or more

parties when these parties share a common ground.

Page 25 of 234



2.2 Relationship marketingTo begin this section concerning relationship marketing, I will start by defining it. This was done by

Grönroos (1994), who wrote a definition of relationship marketing in which he stated that the

objectives of relationship marketing are to: “[...] identify and establish, maintain and enhance and,

when necessary, terminate relationships with customers and other stakeholders, at a profit so that

the objectives of all parties involved are met; and this is done by mutual exchange and fulfilment of

promises.” (Grönroos, 1994: 9)

Relationship marketing became a continuously researched and debated area within marketing

because marketing is mainly viewed as a profession in which profitability is the main factor

together with the possibility of terminating marketing relationships, if they are not profitable

enough (Egan, 2005).

The psychologist scholar Rogers (1959) wrote about the three basic universal needs within inter-

personal relationships, and these universal needs became the aspects which were used as the

cornerstone of relationship marketing in the beginning of the 1990’s and later in the cornerstone of

relationship management. The three basic universal needs are:

Maintenance: consisting of among other things accountability and commitment shared by all

parties involved

Enhancement: the ability of the involved parties to learn from each other as well as the

ability to further educate employees either through work or through formal education

Positive regard: meaning the expressions of acceptance and general friendliness towards the

involved people

In the early 1990’s the first scholars of marketing began to see a connection between what had been

written by Rogers (1959) and its usefulness within the area of marketing. One of the first scholars to

make this connection was Kotler (1994) who found a correlation between the retention of customers

and cost-effectiveness, since it could save an organisation up to five times more to keep the current

customers instead of constantly seeking to gain new customers when old ones did not stay loyal.

With this statement relationship marketing became relevant for organisations to invest in and

Rogers’ (1959) writings concerning the three basic universal needs became relevant within the field

of marketing. When the concept of relationship marketing (Egan, 2005) became popular it was

difficult to determine the precise function of this area within marketing, since many different

Page 26 of 234



definitions and explanations of relationship marketing were present in various scholarly articles and

books.

Ledingham (2000) agrees with Rogers (1959) by stating that an organisation-public relationship is

equal to an interpersonal relationship between people, since both relationship types consists of

almost the same aspects and the same development within relationships. This is also the reason for

the similarity in the two following definitions.

The original definition of interpersonal relationships was made by Schutz in 1958 (Mahoney &

Stasson, 2005) and focused on a three-dimensional behaviour which is present in people within an

interpersonal relationship. The first was control (the ability to be the one in charge of a

relationship), inclusion (focuses on the negative or positive aspects contributed by one person in a

relationship) and affection (which focus on the importance of the emotions and emotional impact of

one party within a relationship) (Mahoney & Stasson, 2005).

Ledingham and Bruning (1998) define an organisation-public relationship as: “the state which

exists between an organization and its key publics in which the actions of either entity impact the

economic, social, political, and / or cultural well-being of the other entity” (Ledingham & Bruning,

1998: 62). The similarity in connection in which organisations can affect its publics, and people

within interpersonal relationships can affect other people, is the main reason for Ledingham’s

(2000) previously mentioned argument.

With the above mentioned organisation-public relationship definition, Ledingham and Bruning

(1998) established a clear connection between the actions made by an organisation and how these

actions affect its public – and how an action made by one party could affect the other in either a

negative or positive regard. Moreover, the statement indicates that the communication within

organisation-public relationships should seek to become two-way communication and symmetrical

between all involved parties (Bruning & Ledingham, 1999).

McCort (1994) saw relationship marketing as a customer-driven process which at the same time

made use of direct marketing in order to create long-term relationships. The motivation behind this

statement is the fact that all main benefits related to non-profit organisations are intangible and as a

result of this are difficult to properly market. It is discussed by Varey and Ballantyne (Bejou &

Palmer, 2005) that relationship marketing between a company and its customers should not make

use of the word ‘relationship’ since the organisations are not interested in the customers but only

Page 27 of 234



want to profit from them. However, the same authors make clear that while this is possible within a

business to customer setting it will not be possible on the B2B market since all organisations were

only interested in making profits and these organisations are not interested in exchanging

technology and knowledge with other organisations because these could be, or might become,

possible competitors. They also found that mutual openness were one of the main objectives

(Johannesen, 1971; McCort, 1994) within the B2B environment where the focal points are on the

shared responsibility between both parties, where it is possible to share honest conversations and to

do all this without any use of manipulation within the communication channels used. These focal

points (McCort, 1994) should help organisations develop relational strategies which are then used to

create a closer connection between the organisation and its publics.

By doing this (Bejou & Palmer, 2005), the original way of viewing marketing relationship is

expanded to the dialogical level – which, according to Varey and Ballantyne, is an integral aspect of

B2B marketing as this makes the relationship marketing co-created, meaning the creation of a

product or service on the basis of knowledge sharing, communication, shared values and objectives

between the involved parties in the relationship. Also, the more often communication occurs

(McCort, 1994), the greater commitment and accountability between all parties within a B2B

relationship. McCort suggests that this can be achieved by making communication towards the

involved parties more personal.

However, Varey and Ballantyne (Bejou & Palmer, 2005) argue that the marketing communication

is not equal to regular communication due to the preset definitions within the field of marketing.

The statement refers to the common understanding among scholars that marketing relationship is to

a large extent based on exchange relationships, where one party provides e.g. a service and then

expects something in return at a later stage, and this is not seen as being enough to build an

organisation-public relationship around.

Three years after Kotler (1994) published his book of marketing management, Broom, Casey and

Ritchey, in 1997, stated that there was no, or at least very few, definitions of relationships as well as

a lack of explanations of how it was connected with the other areas of communication, public

relations, management and marketing. They continued by stating that the definitions for

relationships within the academic literature was not defined since most, if not all, scholars

apparently assumed that their readers would not need this outlined. However, measures for

organisation-public relationships had been used for some years at that point, although it seems like

Page 28 of 234



an impossible task to measure something when there does not exist any clear definition of

relationships (Broom, Casey & Ritchey, 1997).

After a decade, different definitions had been produced through research and Bruning (2000) had

provided a framework – explaining the different aspects involved in marketing relationships.

Bruning (2000) stated that in order to gain the best relationship possible, it is important for the

organisation to know its publics on an individual level so that it becomes easier for the organisation

to know what is expected by the different publics as well as which expectations they have and how

they can be fulfilled (Bruning, 2000). In this connection Bruning (2000) also states that lasting

relationships cannot be expected to be build by using the same concept for every public but that

different approaches are needed for each public.

In 1997, Brennan conducted research on British automotive and telecommunications industries and

wrote that there exists either a high degree partnership or a no degree partnership amongst the

different organisations. In this article the aspect of partnership and organisation-public relationship

are seen as the same – however, with the reasoning that when the organisation-public relationship

becomes closer the degree of partnership also becomes higher.

The high degree of partnership “[...] with both parties accepting responsibility for efficiency

improvements [...]” (Brennan, 1997: 763) explained that this meant that the automotive company

would send out engineers to help its suppliers overcoming difficulties in the production and

planning stages, something which all involved companies would benefit from and as a consequence

the companies would develop through collaboration. It could for example take place with the

creation of interorganisational problem solvers and quality checking. Additionally, knowledge and

know-how would be shared across organisations and all companies involved would together find

the best solutions for current problems. Having a high degree partnership also entailed that the

involved parties would want constant information and updates going far beyond what was otherwise

expected by a partner company (Brennan, 1997).

According to Brennan (1997), the companies communicating based on the aspects of interpersonal

relationship communication are the most successful. Here the parties involved held many meetings

involving the top management from the different partnering companies. The result of this was a

more trusting atmosphere among the companies, the ability to share all relevant information across

organisations and to agree to common objectives. By doing so, a shared trust was created, which is

Page 29 of 234



defined as: “a cyclical process of bargaining, interaction, commitment and execution” (Kale &

Singh, 2009: 50), which made the managers become more involved and willing to share information

and experiences in the meetings (Brennan, 1997). To have a relationship, it is important to build up

trust and develop a common set of norms which may lie as the foundation for the relationship. The

closer an organisation-public relationship becomes the more aligned the values and beliefs of the

involved parties become (Phillips, 2006b). Furthermore, common aspects within communication

such as creating two-way communication and listening to and answering questions are of course the

most important aspects when creating a relationship (Andersen, 2001). When relationships evolve

and trust is established the dependence of the members involved in the relationship increase (Ford,

1980).

Grunig together with Hon (1999) later explained the relationship factors within an organisational-

public setting as: Control mutuality (when there is not one controlling party but all involved have

the same control over the relationship), trust (the trust amongst the involved parties), satisfaction

(when the outcome of the relationship outweighs the costs included in building and sustaining a

functional relationship) and commitment (when all parties involved feel that the relationship is

worth spending time and resources on), all of which should be measured to get an idea of the status

of the relationship. Hon & Grunig (1999) stresses that it is important to interview both the public

and the organisation in order to get a valid result when measuring the status of a relationship. If

only one party is interviewed only the perceived status of the relationship will be measured.

Before most scholars, Grunig, in 1993, wrote that the most important aspects to measure within

relationships between organisations were: “[...] reciprocity, trust, credibility, mutual legitimacy,

openness, mutual satisfaction, and mutual understanding [...]” (Grunig, 1993: 135). The

understanding of these areas within relationship management would create a clear idea of how the

relationship between the organisations has developed over time (Grunig, 1993). Within the field of

communication, especially the public relations area (Andersen, 2001), a concern with the measuring

of intangible elements of an organisation has arisen because as elements are creating value to the

organisation and looks at service benefits and social benefits concerned with relationships among

other things (Phillips, 2006b). Phillips (2006a) argues that without the establishment of

relationships many, if not all, intangible aspects of an organisation are worth very little or may even

have a negative effect on the tangible aspects of an organisation such as, for example, its economic

status (Phillips, 2006a).

Page 30 of 234



Brennan (1997) also described the characteristics for a partnership with no shared commitment

where aspects such as joint problem solving and information sharing are only present on a small

scale. In this kind of partnership the different partners involved are expected to meet the

expectations in the partnership contract – but no efforts other than these are made for improving the

relationship between the parties (Brennan, 1997).

Brennan (1997) mentions that there may be barriers within a partnership since this, normally, will

consist of smaller and larger companies and this aspect could hinder any true development between

the companies and they would not have the same needs for their companies to develop. In fact,

(Brennan, 1997) if there is a large difference in organisational size the smaller companies, in most

cases, end up being subordinate to the larger companies because the small companies depend on the

larger companies in order to sell their products whereas there is not the same dependence the other

way around (Brennan, 1997). As with everything, an advantage to having a partnership consisting

of smaller and larger companies is that the larger companies can take on a paternal role towards the

smaller companies and offer them assistance with tasks relevant to the partnership. Having mid-

level managers from both companies meet up to work each day and solve problems together could

for example, do this. Brennan (1997) also emphasises that actions such as these can give the

companies, as well as the midlevel managers, a common purpose, something which will then reflect

on the relationship between the two companies. This especially is a good idea, as it is the midlevel

managers who normally fear losing their jobs when partnerships and relationships with other

companies start to evolve (Brennan, 1997). Within an asymmetrical relationship (Hung, 2005) it is

always the larger organisations who decides what is relevant and should therefore be focused on in

the relationship. As a result of this the smaller organisations do not have a say in what is important

for them to gain from the relationship.

An important aspect to bear in mind (Egan, 2005), is the fact that the power structure within

partnerships are always asymmetrical – meaning one, or a few, organisations wield more power

than the rest, typically this will be the larger organisations. Due to this, Palmer (2000) stated that

partnerships work best between SME’s, as the quality of the partnership will then reach its full

potential because of the avoidance of larger organisations and, thereby, limit the potential for power

asymmetry within the partnership. Moreover, within organisation-public relationships (Blois, 2010)

an asymmetric power structure can also occur if all parties involved agree that one party is, for

example, better at research and development or one organisation simply is much larger than the

Page 31 of 234



other. If this is the case, the aforementioned organisation will then be the dominant partner within

the relationship. This, however, can change over time as the other parties within the relationship

develop their competencies and this way could overtake the powerful partner and have acquired the

powerful position within the relationship.

To reach a level of organisation-public relationship communication (Brennan, 1997) which is the

most profitable for all parties involved, it is important to focus on the long-term goals set forth by

the companies because on a short-term basis the companies will most likely experience a negative

impact. The second aspect mentioned by Brennan (1997), is a fact which is often overlooked,

namely that if one company within a partnership makes a successful transaction from one company

culture and organisational structure to another it will not have any important effect if it is not also

done by the other involved companies within the partnership (Brennan, 1997).

Some of the aspects of organisation-public relationships discovered by Brennan (1997) were further

discussed by Smyth and Fitch (2009) who stated that through the use of strategic decisions (Smyth

& Fitch, 2009), systems (e.g. organisational structure within the organisation) and behaviours,

relationship marketing developed from only being implemented by B2C organisations to also being

widely used by B2B organisations.

If organisation-public relationships are created with certain objectives to reach, it becomes easier to

measure the impact of a relationship on an organisational basis and as a result also find out if the

organisation-public relationship is beneficial for all parties involved (Bruning & Hatfield, 2002)

With this in mind a list containing 17 relational dimensions was created by Ledingham and Bruning

(1998) all of which are relevant to organisation-public relationships. These dimensions are as

follows: “investment, commitment, trust, comfort with relational dialects, cooperation, mutual

goals, interdependence/power imbalance, performance satisfaction, comparison level of the

alternatives, adaption, non-retrievable investment, shared technology, summate constructs,

structural bonds, social bonds, intimacy, and passion” (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998: 58).

Out of the abovementioned 17 dimensions by Ledingham and Bruning (1998), found on the basis of

their research, the parties involved in an organisation-public relationship were mainly concerned

with the aspects of trust, involvement, investment, commitment, an open and honest dialogue and

discussing (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998; Ledingham, Bruning, Thomlinson & Lesko, 1997). At the

same time these dimensions were the important factors when it came to companies staying as part

Page 32 of 234



of the relationship or leaving to be part of another organisation-public relationship (Ledingham &

Bruning, 1998). Another aspect which could change the public’s decision to either stay or leave was

whether or not the public was aware of what was being done by the organisation to maintain and

develop the relationship. If the publics were aware of this the level of satisfaction was higher as not

only the organisation but also the publics perceived themselves as being part of an organisation-

public relationship (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998).

Later, Huang (2001) used the following five dimensions to evaluate the effects of organisation-

public relationships: symmetrical-ethical communication, two-way communication, interpersonal

communication, mediated communication and social activities. She found that there was a

significant connection between the dimensions and the effect they had on an effective organisation-

public relationship – however, Huang (2001) concentrated on behaviours of public relations

practitioners in East Asia and due to this had included more interpersonal and social factors in her

analysis than would be done for a Western market. She had done this, not because they are not of

importance on Western markets too, but because factors such as a person’s honour and the aspects

of saving face are more important in East Asia, and therefore had to be included in her analysis

(Huang, 2001).

Huang (2001) found through her research that as an organisation-public relationship grew closer

and trust was developed, fewer confrontations occurred. However, if confrontations did occur,

attempts to create a win-win situation, where all parties would gain from the situation, within the

organisation-public relationship took place.

Based on their research of the dimensions within organisation-public relationships, Ledingham and

Bruning (1998) saw it as important for organisations to: “(1) focus on the relationships with their

key publics, and (2) communicate involvement of those activities/programs that build the

organization-public relationship to members of their key publics” (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998:

63).

In 1984, Ferguson presented a paper where on the basis of a set of criteria it became possible to

measure relationships between organisations and its key publics by looking into the following

aspects of relationships: dynamic versus static, open versus closed, mutual satisfaction, distribution

of power and mutual understanding, and agreement and consensus (Ledingham, Bruning & Wilson,

1999). Furthermore, Grunig in a different research project within the field of organisation-public

Page 33 of 234



relationships has found that “[...] trust, satisfaction, commitment and control mutuality [...]”(Yang

& Grunig, 2005: 306) are the main factors when creating a relationship. Grunig (Hon & Grunig,

1999; Grunig & Huang, 2000), in multiple research projects, has developed criteria for measuring

organisational-public relationships. His main contribution to Rogers (1959) theory is the factor of

control mutuality, which states that both the organisation and its publics should be able to control

each other to do things that would otherwise not be done. However, the mutuality control should be

based on persuasion through communication channels on the basis of the facts presented and should

not consist of manipulation.

2.3 Relationship managementAs more and more aspects from different fields, such as relationship marketing and psychology as

well as process and knowledge management appeared, many scholars thought that the aspects of

relationships should be moved away from relationship marketing and have its own field –

relationship management. This resulted in a shift in focus from a sales-oriented approach within

relationship marketing, to becoming more people-oriented. Further, this resulted in horisontal

management, meaning the use of a more informal and non-hierarchical organisational structure

being used more frequently than previously (Smyth, 2000) by, for example, introducing Key

Account Managers to constantly be in touch with the involved businesses. Hon and Grunig (1999)

contributed to this discussion by stating that the ability to build and maintain communal

relationships is what differentiates relationship management from relationship marketing.

Relationship marketing, to a larger extent, concentrate on the exchange relationships, since

marketing in general will not do anything on a more short-term basis without expecting something

in return, be it money or increased sales (Hon & Grunig, 1999).

Hung (2005) further developed the different organisation-public relationship view with the creation

of the figure below:

(Hung, 2005: 416)

Page 34 of 234



Within an exploitive relationship one of the organisations gains from the relationship whereas the

others do not. In a manipulative relationship one organisation manipulates the other in order to get

out of the relationship what is wanted – however, there is still only one organisation gaining from

this type of relationship. Hung (2005) mentions that contractual relationships can be a self-serving

act made by one organisation towards another. At the same time this type of relationship can also be

a good point to start since all the goals and objectives of the relationship are written down and

accepted by all organisations involved and there is a possibility that this and the following types of

relationships can involve into a communal relationship (Hung, 2005).

Within a symbiotic relationship, no real desire to be in a relationship with one another exist,

however, both organisations are in some way dependant on each other, for example one

organisation produces a bolt which is not produced anywhere else and the other organisation is the

largest buyer of these. This is a symbiotic relationship since the organisations did not set out to be

in a relationship but they ended up being dependant on each other (Hung, 2005).

Within covenantal relationships the organisations involved agree to work together and exchange

knowledge but, in contrast to communal relationships, they do not protect each other from possible

critical periods (Hung, 2005).

In addition to exchange and communal relationship which are explained above by Hon and Grunig

(1999), there exists mutual communal relationships where all organisations involved in the

relationship gain from the relationship and help each other with possible problems by for example

setting up joint task forces to solve specific problems within one or more of the organisations

(Hung, 2005).

Lastly, Hung (2005) has discovered the existence of one-sided communal relationships in which

one organisation takes on a paternal role and help the other organisation with all problems or

difficulties that should occur – also those that do not affect the objectives of the organisation-public

relationship (Hung, 2005). This is also possible to have a one-sided communal relationship with the

public as one party can give away resources, such as knowledge, without wanting anything in return

(Hung, 2005). This is, of course, a possibility with communal relationships when one side has more

resources available than the other, and as a result of this only one party within the relationship really

gains from this experience. This also makes the relationship more paternal than an equal

relationship between an organisation and its publics. As a result, a pure communal relationship can

Page 35 of 234



then become rather inconvenient, since the organisation will then not only have to concentrate on its

own activities but also on what is done and needed by the publics with whom the organisation is

involved in a communal relationship (Hung, 2005). This being said, Hung (2005) discovered a

correlation between the organisations with the most communal relationships – they are also the ones

with the greatest amount of public support. This is extremely useful in case anything should go

wrong.

According to Hung (2005), exchange, covenantal, mutual communal and one-sided communal

relationships are all within the win-win zone in which all organisations involved gain from the

relationship. More often than not relationships develop into these types within time.

The main reasons for this division of relationship management and relationship marketing (Doyle,

2002) were that relationship management is more concerned with nurturing, developing and

measuring the organisation-public relationships and that relationship management is more closely

connected to public relations than marketing which is also the basis of the figure created by Hung

(2005). This is supported by scholars such as Ledingham and Bruning (1998), Bruning and Hon

(1999) and Huang (2001) and many others. Phillips (2006b) further supports Doyle’s (2002)

statement by explaining that relationship management should not be part of relationship marketing

because relationship management also includes: “a cultural approach to value creation” (Phillips,

2006b: 222), which he does not regard relationship marketing as able to offer (Phillips, 2006b).

Phillips (2006a) further explains that relationship management in its basic form is concerned with

the ability to create value for an organisation through relationships with the key publics as well as

being able to create more wealth in an organisation than it would be able to without any

relationships (Phillips, 2006a). Moreover, relationship management can also be about the need for

organisational survival, by developing new products or services together with the partners of the

relationship, or change, by observing other ways of setting up organisational culture and structure

within an organisation and change on the basis of this acquired knowledge (Phillips, 2006b).

Moreover, relationship management sets objectives for organisation-public relationships which

results in the communication being used in a strategic way. This happens since communication is

the tool by which the objectives set by the organisation are to be reached (Ledingham & Bruning,

1998).

Page 36 of 234



Hon and Grunig (1999) recognised two types of organisation-public relationships: exchange

relationships, which have previously been explained, and communal relationships (concentrating on

the long-term goals of the organisation, the benefits received from the relationship e.g. greater

knowledge and the creation of organisational reputation).

Hung (2005) recognised the possibility for more than one relationship type to be present at the same

time during the course of an organisation-public relationship. This could, for example, be due to a

relationship both being communal but also due to it being an exchange relationship. This is

primarily the case because exchange relationships develop into communal relationships over time;

however, they never start at this level. The closer an organisation-public relationship gets to a pure

communal relationship, the stronger the relationship becomes, while at the same time the parties

involved become more mutually dependent on each other as well as more trusting towards one

another (Hung, 2005). First the people from the organisation and the different key publics have to

become acquainted with each other, then the expectations of both parties are discussed and

afterwards a common ground is found where the parties agree on main points concerning social and

economic aspects. From this a trusting and mutually dependent relationship may be created

(Ledingham, 2000). Gruen et al. (2000) further described how an organisational-public relationship

could be positively affected when a satisfying execution of the core services provided by the

organisation took place. The publics should also participate in a positive manner in the actions

planned by the organisation, e.g. provide feedback or constructive criticism which could then be

taken into account, as this created a more rewarding co-production between the organisation and its

publics and could result in a more honest and frank atmosphere between these parties.

Bruning and Hatfield’s (2002) research into relationship management showed that key publics who

felt they had a relationship with an organisation felt more satisfied than publics who did not feel a

relational connection between themselves and the organisation (Brunning & Hatfield, 2002).

Furthermore, if the organisation-public relationship provides value-creation, which is recognised by

all parties involved and has satisfied both the organisation and the publics, both organisation and

publics have a greater tendency to become mutually dependent in order to create an even stronger

relationship in the future (Bruning & Hatfield, 2002). One of the ways to achieve this is suggested

by Gao (2007) who argues that it is important for a relationship within a B2B market to have all

companies involved agree on shared objectives. Gao (2007) also suggests that companies, when

working together on shared goals and objectives, create a white book where all decisions made in

Page 37 of 234



order to reach these objectives are written down. By doing this, Gao (2007) concludes, it will then

become possible for the parties involved to have a closer look at this white book when new goals

and objectives are set, in order to determine which actions were good and which were bad when

needing to reach the agreed upon goals.

With a point of departure in Rogers’ theory of human interrelationship (1959), Grunig and Yang

(2005), on the basis of researching 300 organisations in the US, Canada and the UK, suggested a

theory explaining the value creation made possible by public relations within an organisation-public

relationship. The first step should be to indentify the strategic public from an organisation’s point of

view, followed by creating and maintaining a symmetrical relationship with each of the publics

identified on the basis of the first step. With this connection in mind, Elizabeth Toth set up four

criteria for a thriving interpersonal relationship: “(1) there exists a balance in the relationship, (2)

both parties in the relationship feel that the other is investing of time and themselves, (3) both

parties are willing to make a commitment to the relationship, and (4) both parties can be trusted to

act in a manner that supports the relationship” (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998: 58).

An important factor for relationship management is the ability to measure the impact of a

relationship and the fulfilment of objectives and goals and thereby also evaluate the state of a

specific relationship between an organisation and its publics. This is important to an organisation,

since reaching goals and objectives is the most efficient way of finding out whether an organisation-

public relationship is reaching its potential and whether or not more time and effort should be put

into a relationship (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998).

When measuring for results and effectiveness within public relations (Hon, 1998), it is important to

create relationships with their own goals and objectives which are linked to the overall goals and

objectives of the organisations because this makes the effects of the relationships easier to measure.

This should be done while still preserving symmetrical communication between the organisation

and its publics. A previous problem mentioned in the literature concerns how public relations

employees have always found it difficult to measure the effect of relationships, since this effect is

more often than not intangible. However, if specific goals and objectives for an organisation-public

relationship have been agreed upon before entering into to it – it becomes easier to measure the

effect of public relations on the organisation-public relationships as well as how this effects the

entire organisation (Hon, 1998; Ledingham, Bruning & Wilson, 1999; Brunning & Ledingham,

1999). When setting goals, objectives and evaluation criteria, as described above, the strategic

Page 38 of 234



relevance of public relations then also becomes more obvious to all within the organisation, not

only the public relations employees themselves, because the goals of the relationships, and of the

public relations department, helps reach the overall goals of the organisation (Hon, 1998). Partner

companies, in a B2B relationship, can then be segmented in accordance with the goals and

objectives of each company. Kale and Singh (2009) suggest that companies are segmented

according to the goals and objectives set by each of them. By doing this it will then become easier

to serve each individual company (Gao, 2007) according to its expectations. It will also make it

easier for companies with different products or services to cooperate on projects as well as research

and development if these companies then fulfil their goals and objectives as a result.

The time spent in a relationship has an effect on an organisation’s key publics regarding whether or

not the publics would still want a relationship with the organisation. Ledingham, Bruning and

Wilson (1999) described the first length of time within an organisational-public relationship as a

honeymoon phase where the parties involved were pleased with the relationship. However, after the

initial phase ends organisations will have to work hard in order to keep the public content with what

is offered through the relationship. This will change again later in the relationship-process as trust

between the organisation and its public has been developed, and the above-mentioned five

dimensions by Ledingham together with other scholars (Ledingham, Bruning, Thomlinson &

Lesko, 1997) who have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the all parties involved and thereby:”[...]

provide publics with positive experiences [...]” (Ki & Hon, 2007:430). A suggestion to reach this

goal is to segment the different publics with whom the organisation are involved in a relationship

(Ledingham, Bruning & Wilson, 1999).

Grunig and Yang (2005) then stated that if their research result were applied correctly, an increase

in loyalty from the public together with a huge increase in the organisation’s profit would be

achieved. This claim is corroborated by e.g. Duncan and Caywood (1996), who have also studied

the field of organisation-publics with a focus on the impact of creating an effective organisation-

public relationship on the basis of the organisational structure and how this, when done effectively,

might increase the profitability of the organisation on a long-term basis.

Bruning and Ledingham (1999) introduced the notion that an organisation-public relationship is

multidimensional because it consists of three equally important parts that are hugely important

aspects within relationships. 1. The professional relationship, which involves the services provided

and the ability to meet the needs of the parties involved. 2. The personal relationship, involving the

Page 39 of 234



knowledge of and willingness to invest time and resources to the key members of the involved

organisations on a more personal level. 3. The community relationship, consisting of supporting and

organising events with the goal to support the local community thereby getting a chance to target

relevant key publics and as result. By introducing these three aspects within relationships Bruning

and Ledingham (1999) sought to “provide a more focused approach to organisation-public

relationship initiation, development, maintenance, and / or recovery” (Bruning & Ledingham,

1999: 166).

2.4 Knowledge managementKnowledge management (Kale & Singh, 2009) focuses on the transfer of knowledge across

organisations in order to increase the level of information within the organisations as well as

contributing to a greater level of know-how and knowledge creation. Knowledge is both explicit (all

material written down and gathered) and tacit (personal judgement, experience and know-how)

(Dimitriades, 2005).

Hume and Hume (2008) define knowledge management as:” [...] the process that ‘manages’

(collection, categorisation, analysis and distribution) information across the organisation’s value

chain to support operational and strategic decision-making. More specifically, KM [knowledge

management] is the process of developing and managing both the explicit and tacit elements of data

and information to provide operational and strategic insights for the organisation to develop

competitive advantage” (Hume & Hume, 2008: 129). The external knowledge sharing and gathering

are also ways of developing a competitive advantage and the managing of knowledge which can

help all companies involved. This means that even though Hume and Hume (2008) use this

definition in connection with knowledge sharing and gathering internally in a company, the same

aspects are of importance when sharing and gathering knowledge between for example a foundation

and its partner companies. One aspect of this is the importance of the organisations knowing what

their publics expect and want and in order to keep the publics, both on B2C but also on B2B

markets, satisfied (Hume & Hume, 2008). Strategies for gathering and sharing knowledge across an

organisation is an important practise since knowledge is of high value, especially within

organisations that are not-for-profit companies, and the knowledge is to be given strategic value

within such organisations (Hume & Hume, 2008).

Page 40 of 234



The transfer of knowledge can be achieved by focusing (Kale & Singh, 2009) on three different

aspects of knowledge management all of which contribute positively to the performance within a

relationship, namely: complementarity, commitment and compatibility.

Complementarity (Kale & Singh, 2009) amongst the partner organisations focuses on whether or

not the partner organisations produce goods or services which are not in direct competition with

each other, but could complement one another by providing services or goods which the other

company could not. A result of this would be companies working together to either develop new

products or services or collaborate on reaching objectives and goals for each company. This way the

organisations could benefit from a synergy process between the parties which should help to reach a

common goal or objective (Kale & Singh, 2009). According to Kale and Singh (2009), the greater

complementarity existing between an organisation and its partner organisations, as well as the

complementarity between the partner organisations themselves, the greater likelihood there is for a

successful relationship.

Commitment (Kale & Singh, 2009) focuses on the importance of the partner organisations’

willingness to work together to reach long-term benefits of a relationship and not simply focus on

short-term goals. However, the long-term benefits may take between 5 to 10 years to achieve, which

can make it difficult to persuade managers in possible partner organisations to join if they are not

truly committed from the beginning.

Compatibility (Kale & Singh, 2009) between an organisation and its partner organisations is very

important as this makes for the best possible cooperation between the parties involved in the

relationship. It refers to the compatibility between the work conducted in the organisations as part

of the relationship as well as the organisational structure within each partner organisation, as well as

the compatibility of values between all organisations involved. During this phase within a

relationship, it is important that organisations involved coordinate their actions in order to reach

common goals and objectives. This will require similar cultures and organisational thinking within

all organisations involved in the partnership, which will then result in the best outcome (Egan,

2005). However, this can be a difficult process (Kale & Singh, 2009) since this means that each

organisation involved in the relationship has to know what the other organisations are doing in

order to avoid overlapping when trying to reach the common objectives set beforehand.

Page 41 of 234



A small amount of overlapping (Kale & Singh, 2009) is however, advisable, to gain information

from different specialist areas, working within the different organisations involved. The result of

this should be to end up with information, knowledge and know-how which are applicable when

developing goods and services for future use.

SME’s have better chances at creating a knowledge organisation, which are organisations focusing

on the generation, use and transfer of knowledge created within an organisation while at the same

time learning from knowledge gathered in earlier processes and by previous mistakes made,

because there are fewer communication channels to go through and because employees have jobs

containing a broader range of responsibilities. This in turn makes it a necessity for them to

exchange knowledge. For example one SME could learn from the actions of another SME within a

similar situational context which could help resolve specific issues quicker than if the SME had to

start from scratch. Within larger organisations the employees can easily be very restricted, since all

employees have clearly defined roles which can make it more difficult for employees to exchange

knowledge on an individual, departmental and organisational level (Hume & Hume, 2008).

However, smaller organisations are often unaware of how to handle knowledge and how this is

exchanged to reach a synergy effect. Furthermore, employees often have an unstructured knowledge

sharing process and one of the reasons for this is the storing of knowledge on computer hard drives

and within personal filing cabinets of each employee (Hume & Hume, 2008).

Through neuroscience it has been proven that people holding the same knowledge might interpret

this knowledge in different ways due to culturally and environmentally based perceptions within

each person. This also means that the importance of the knowledge changes depending on the

perceptions of the people holding it (Phillips, 2006b). This may be one of the reasons why SME’s

are more successful when it comes to knowledge sharing across an organisation since, as it has been

mentioned earlier during this literature review, more communication leads to an increase in

knowledge sharing, which then leads to a shared sense of understanding of the organisational

culture and increases the knowledge of each individual employee. This all results in organisations,

in this case SME’s, gaining a greater social understanding of other organisations as well as an

increased level of understanding the information needs of both employees and organisations.

However, another scenario concerning knowledge sharing is the increase in silos, meaning an

increase in people, or companies, who do not wish to share relevant knowledge and as such create

silos where knowledge and information does not reach any other party within the relationship. This

Page 42 of 234



is usually done when people, or companies, think that they themselves can gain more from

withholding the information than they feel would be possible when sharing the information and

knowledge with others (Klein, 2009).

An organisation can become a learning organisation (Dimitriades, 2005) by developing an

organisational structure with as little organisational hierarchy as possible, thereby making the

structure flat (Claver-Cortès et al, 2007), and an organisational culture, which encourages values

and acknowledges information exchange across departments and hierarchical statuses (Claver-

Cortès et al, 2007). In order to get the most out of the knowledge and information within the

organisation and thus make knowledge sharing and knowledge creation easier for all employees –

this process is called organisational learning (Dimitriades, 2005).

Dimitriades (2005) states that it is important for organisations specialising within the field of

knowledge management to be: “ [...] continuously challenging their mission, vision, strategies and

culture and constant questioning existing products, processes, structures and systems in view of the

future market place” (Dimitriades, 2005: 320-321).

Knowledge is seen as being context-specific as it derives from specific experiences at a certain

point in time and therefore it is one of the main factors for companies seeking to increase and create

a continuing growth. These aspects make the need for strategic knowledge management important

because knowledge is almost impossible for competitors to recreate or copy and organisations

should therefore take advantage of this to the best of their abilities (Claver-Cortès et al, 2007).

Knowledge proactivity is the organisation’s ability to make use of and transfer knowledge on the

basis of information and knowledge gathering. When knowledge management becomes part of the

organisational strategy, the organisation will be able to respond in more emergent ways when

problems concerning the organisation, both internally and externally, arise (Claver-Cortès et al,

2007).

Knowledge sharing and gatheringIf individual knowledge is achieved, the members of the organisation-public relationship, both on

B2C and B2B markets, have the opportunity (Egan, 2005) of co-creation. According to Egan

(2005), this also makes it more important to have a close relationship to the partner organisations as

it is of the utmost importance to know what they want in order to create fitting products or services.

Page 43 of 234



As an organisation during its lifetime will need to develop partnerships with other organisations, the

chance of a shared distribution chain arises, which can lower the costs of delivering and producing

products and services on their own – as well as provide greater knowledge and better technologies

than organisations could on their own (Egan, 2005).

Egan (2005) further stated that the downside to partnerships could be the chance of the

organisations involved not working as much on research and development as previously, thereby,

creating a stale partnership in which none of the organisations get a required outcome – the

organisations would, as a result, have been better off not having entered into the relationship. Egan

(2005) mentions that one of the best ways to not have a partnership become stale, on a B2B market,

is to have organisations with new and creative ideas enter into the already existing relationship.

Knowledge amongst employees is often seen as power, and this makes employees afraid to share

their knowledge because they are afraid to be perceived as worthless for the organisation (Lee &

Ahn, 2005).

However, in order for organisations to improve knowledge sharing (Yang & Maxwell, 2011), both

interorganisationally and intraorganisationally, different initiatives can be initiated so all parties

involved can gain from the tangible and intangible knowledge within each organisation. Different

ways of sharing knowledge exist but based on the literature within the field it seems that the most

used methods involve using a shared computer database where all knowledge can be stored and

afterwards automatically shared between the organisations (Zhang et al., 2010). This way it also

becomes easier for each employee to see how the knowledge is used by the organisation and to gain

greater access to knowledge from other employees as well. Another method is by using knowledge

stewards, who are experts when it comes to knowledge management (Smith, 2005). These stewards

then gather knowledge from all employees and create an organisational knowledge bank or database

for the most useful knowledge, for example the knowledge that can be used to solve current

problems in the organisation itself or other organisations within the relationship (Oye et al., 2011).

Yang and Maxwell (2011) suggest that the knowledge steward should then grade the knowledge

provided by the employees, which will then create a clear picture of who contributes most to the

knowledge bank.

A third option described within the knowledge sharing literature, is for managers to find the opinion

leaders and use them to collect knowledge from within their respective departments and then use

Page 44 of 234



them when solving shared problems faced by all organisations within the organisation-public

relationship. These opinion leaders are other employees who are usually asked for advice by fellow

employees and who thereby have a greater knowledge of the goings-on within a department as well

as a greater overview than most other employees (Smith, 2005).

The knowledge collected internally will then help the organisation become better equipped for the

competition on the market as well as more valuable in a relationship with other organisations

(Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, 2011). The shared knowledge helps all involved as every organisation’s

knowledge is valuable and unique and as a result becomes more difficult to copy for competitors.

Additionally, by sharing knowledge all organisations involved should then become more creative

and innovative, thereby making them a stronger competitor on the market (Ngah & Jusoff, 2009).

2.5 ConclusionTo conclude the literature review and sum up why relationship management is important for B2B

organisations, I have summed up all the advantages mentioned during this section of the thesis and

explained them in a shorter fashion to create a short overview.

Rogers (1959) described the main aspects of relationships by stating that they:

increase accountability as well as commitment between the parties involved.

increase the possibility of achieving greater knowledge.

increase the possibility of a friendly relationship between organisations.

Moreover, relationship management makes it easier for organisations to retain their current

customers without it being too costly (Kotler, 1994). Additionally, relationship management creates

value for an organisation through the relationships in which it is invested and this results in more

wealth for the organisation, not only through more profit but also through more knowledge and co-

creation and collaboration (Phillips, 2006a). As well as creating wealth, relationship management

also reduces costs (Huang, 2001) since there is a possibility of sharing the distribution chain and

delivering costs with the other parties involved in the relationship which will then also increase the

level of knowledge and technology when this is made possible (Egan, 2005).

When an organisation-public relationship is initiated (McCort, 1994), an organisation becomes far

more customer-driven than before, which increases the chances for creating long-term relationships.

These relationships will then lead to organisational benefits such as increased openness towards the

Page 45 of 234



publics (Johannesen, 1971) and an increased level of shared responsibility within the relationship,

meaning that none of the organisations in the relationship will have to battle problems on their own

but rather share the burden – thereby collaborating to find a shared solution (McCort, 1994;

Brennan, 1997) and, as a consequence, also share the advantages of co-creation (Bejou & Palmer,

2005). Co-creation can be achieved through a synergy-effect where the parties involved in the

relationship improve goods or services in a way which they could not have done alone (Egan,

2005).

Through collaboration organisations develop, increase the information sharing across organisations

and create an increased level of trust towards one another (Brennan, 1997). As this is achieved the

publics will show an increased level of loyalty towards the organisation (Grunig & Yang, 2005).

Furthermore, by being in an organisation-public relationship it also becomes easier for the

organisation to know what the publics expect from it (Brennan, 1997).

A result of relationships can also be a change in the inter-organisational structure and the

behavioural culture of an organisation – a change which may have been needed for a while but not

detected before the creation of the relationship (Smyth & Fitch, 2009). This can also lead to an

increased horizontal management style which, from the outside, makes the organisation seem

stronger than a hierarchical organisational structure since information, knowledge, creativity and

ideas are thought to flow more freely in an organisational environment such as this (Smyth, 2000).

Ledingham and Bruning (1998) described the most important attributes of relationship management

as being: trust, involvement, commitment, an open and honest dialogue and the possibility to find

the right solution through constructive discussions. These are all benefits achieved through the use

of relationship management. (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998).

If relationship goals and objectives are set for each organisation-public relationship which at the

same time is connected to the overall goals and objectives of the organisation, the result is

especially beneficial. Relationship management becomes more tangible than previously while also

becoming easier to measure – thereby making the effort of an organisation’s public relations efforts

easier to measure; this has previously been very difficult to achieve (Hon, 1998; Ledingham &

Bruning, 1998). This is all made possible by relationship management being used as a strategic tool

to achieve the above mentioned goals and objectives (Ledingham, Bruning & Wilson, 1999).

Page 46 of 234



All above mentioned aspects can, however, only be achieved if organisations make use of

knowledge and information sharing both across the departmental and hierarchical barriers within

the organisation but also between the parties involved in the relationship (Phillips, 2006b;

Dimitrades, 2005).

Through research it has become acknowledged that organisations must allow their employees to

talk to one another across hierarchical barriers since organisations this way will gain as much as

possible from the organisation’s assets e.g. a variety of knowledge from different employees

(Phillips, 2006b).

2.6 Results of the literature reviewThe literature review has not only pointed out the important aspects of relationship management for

a B2B organisation but also made clear the focus of research within this area.

When writing my literature review it has become obvious that there is a very small number, if any,

articles concerning non-profit organisations operating on a B2B market. All articles regarding non-

profit organisations are concerned with charitable organisations as it has been the case with both

McCort (1994), Dart (2004), Hume and Hume (2008) and Andreasen, Goodstein and Wilson

(2005). The main difference between these two aspects is that non-profit organisations on a B2B

market have the same considerations and objectives as all other organisations except the fact that

their existence is based on grants from public organs such as EU grants, for example. In the case of

these non-profit organisations the organisational objectives normally have to be clarified before

gaining a grant for one year or more.

During my case study, I will look into SustainAgri to find out how a non-profit B2B organisation

operates since one of the main strengths in this connection is the ability to create a knowledge

organisation, thereby making the organisation more innovative and competitive on its respective

market. Another important aspect is that of being able to share knowledge with other organisations,

resulting in SustainAgri being just as much a consultancy as a foundation. However, for this to be

possible it is important that a working relationship is created between SustainAgri and the partner

companies and that each party involved has an idea of what is being done by the other

organisations. For this successful dimensions, such as trust, commitment, satisfaction and control

mutuality (Hon & Grunig, 1999), must be present and this is not the case for charitable non-profit

organisations since they rely on donations from people and that most work is done by volunteers.

Page 47 of 234



Charitable organisations also have a relationship with the publics which are based far more on

emotions and feelings than that of non-profit organisation on a B2B market as e.g. SustainAgri.

However, charitable organisations have an entirely different agenda since they normally have an

agenda of working to collect money and awareness for one specific cause.

Since there do not seem to be any scholarly articles with the focus on relationship management

within non-profit organisations operating on a B2B market, I have chosen to investigate this further

by the use of a case study.

By doing this, I plan to investigate if the aforementioned theories are relevant when taken from the

original context and used as basis for the case study.

Almost no research has been done on the relationship expectations of paying partner companies of

non-profit organisations and how these expectations can be met in a satisfactory manner for all

parties involved. This has mainly only been relevant for the previously mentioned scholars who

have investigated this in connection with charitable organisations, however, since B2B

organisations are not equal to charitable ones, this could be relevant to investigate as well.

Furthermore, organisation-public relationship literature has a very limited focus on the aspect of

knowledge management even though I find the success of these two aspects as very dependant on

each other. As a result of this, I will also try to integrate organisation-public relationship literature

with knowledge management literature in order to make this interdependence as clear as possible –

and in this way contribute to the existing literature of both fields as well as the scholarly discussion

within both fields.

In connection with this, it will also be relevant to investigate whether Hon and Grunig’s (1999)

dimensions regarding organisation-public relationships can be used within a B2B non-profit setting

since this does not seem to have been looked into previously.

Lastly, the focus of knowledge management has primarily been on how to create knowledge

organisations, such as the foundation SustainAgri which bases its existence on being a knowledge

organisation, and which I will use as case study during this thesis (Smyth & Fitch, 2009; Smyth,

2000; Dimitrades, 2005; Phillips, 2006b; Egan, 2005; Kale & Singh, 2009 and Claver-Cortès et al.,

2007). Another important area to research as part of this case study is the aspect of how a

knowledge culture can be created by companies that are all members of a non-profit organisation.

Page 48 of 234



My research will seek to gain further information regarding the above mentioned aspects within

relationship management and thereby shed some light on the area of non-profit organisations

operating on a B2B market and investigate how an organisation-public relationship can be

improved by using the theories mentioned during this section of the thesis.

Part III: Discussion

3. Case study: SustainAgri’s current relationship with its partner

companiesIn order to investigate the areas of: Relationship marketing, Relationship management and

Knowledge management and their effect a non-profit foundation on a B2B market, SustainAgri has

been chosen as a case study.

To illustrate the interconnectivity between relationship management and knowledge management, I

have chosen not to divide the analysis on the basis of theoretical areas but on different relational

factors. In literature, these factors determine the overall state of the relationship. Instead I have

focused on the three main areas within relationship management which SustainAgri seems to have

the most difficulty with in terms of its relationship with the partner companies.

This has been done because the relationship marketing, relationship management and knowledge

management are so closely connected and because it is my belief that the analysis will have a

greater holistic perspective than would have been possible by dividing the analysis into the three

areas of communication and management, which have been described above.

In this connection, it should also be mentioned that since I have been an intern at SustainAgri, as

well having a computer and desk provided by the foundation – which has resulted in the majority of

the thesis being written there – the interviews may not have been as formal as if I had met the

employees of the foundation for the first time at that point (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).

Additionally, during the execution of the semi-structured interviews, the three interview participants

were not asked any leading questions since the interview guide was used as a point of departure and

further questions, connected to the explanations given during the interview, were asked. The

questions were all based on the literature collected and discussed during the literature review and

Page 49 of 234



therefore were not based on my opinion of SustainAgri, its relationship management skills or its

way of communicating with the partner companies. I chose the areas of the interview guide based

on what I perceived to be the most relevant to investigate (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).

3.1 Relationship factorsThe Head of the Development Group, Christian Sønderup, stated that the partner companies pay a

sum of 15,000 Dkr. a year to be become a partner company of SustainAgri. Because of this the

companies may have higher expectations to what is offered than if they did not pay a membership

fee. In half of questionnaires (50%) it is mentioned that the partner companies had an expectation of

receiving new projects from SustainAgri, however many of the partner companies have not been, or

only been slightly, satisfied with the outcome of this (60%).

The fact that the partner companies have to pay a small fee to become a partner company of

SustainAgri, would seem to describe a contractual relationship between SustainAgri and the partner

companies. All partner companies have to sign a contract when joining the cluster agreeing to

certain terms and conditions (appendix 16), one of them being the amount of working hours they

contribute to SustainAgri’s projects (these aspects are all covered by the paragraph cited in

appendix 16). This seems to correspond to the lack of satisfaction, as mentioned above, from the

partner companies. This also means that they, according to Hung (2005) are in a win-lose

relationship where only one party, or in this case a few companies, gain from being in the

relationship.

Most of the partner companies (80%) have answered that they have personal contact with

SustainAgri between once a month and every three months. According to Brennan (1997) it is

important to meet on a regular basis to share information and to get to know each of the parties

involved in the relationship. This would help develop trust in the relationship and set up a

framework of norms, rules and values which could create the guidelines within the relationship.

Additionally, they could set up cross-organisational workgroups that could focus on different issues

or problems faced by their partner companies. It could create the development within an

organisation-public relationship (Hung, 2005; Hon & Grunig, 1999) which could move towards

becoming a communal relationship. This, however, does not seem to be practised by SustainAgri

since it primarily has personal contact (meaning face-to-face meetings) with the partner companies

once every month or less.

Page 50 of 234



Brenan (1997) categorises such a relationship as a relationship with no degree partnership since

information, knowledge sharing and general communication only takes place in small amounts.

This means that only the most necessary information is shared and that no shared problem solving

between companies occurs. According to the questionnaires, 60% of the partner companies state

that they rarely, or ever, share information and knowledge with the other partner companies, or with

SustainAgri (40%), and almost all of the contact persons answered that they do not think that

SustainAgri makes enough use of their companies’ competencies (60%). These answers all lead me

to think that the relationship indeed is a partnership where nothing, except the required minimum, is

shared (Brennan, 1997).

An aspect which SustainAgri seems to have problems with is the symmetrical communication

between all involved parties and where each member acknowledges that they have the ability to

affect the other involved parties (Bruning & Ledingham, 1999). This seems to be apparent based on

the questionnaires. Here 70% of the partner companies are satisfied with the level of information

received concerning the current affairs of SustainAgri, although they do not feel that they have any

influence in the decision-making.

Also, the questionnaires indicate that the sizes of the partner companies differ, they are between 1-5

and 201+ employees, and as a result of this there could be a problem of the larger partner

companies having too much power compared to the smaller ones (Blois, 2010). In other words, a

power asymmetry (Blois, 2010) could be a potential problem for SustainAgri, since larger

companies often have more resources and might also have more power within the relationship than

those companies who do not have the same number of employees or resources at their disposal.

Even though this could be the problem, it would seem that there is a more likely reason for the

apparent power asymmetry. It could seem that the power asymmetry does not exist in the form of

one partner company being more powerful than others but more that SustainAgri wants to be in

control. This has resulted in the foundation creating a distance between itself and the partner

companies.

This may have happened as a result of the partner companies joining SustainAgri with the

expectations of becoming part of a network focusing on working together to reach common goals

and objectives. However, from the reaction of the partner companies it could seem that they do not

feel they have any influence. This way SustainAgri could be seen to only concentrate on its own

goals and not what is wanted and expected by the partner companies. Additionally, the lack of any

Page 51 of 234



shared goals and objectives within the relationship, created on the basis of the overall purpose and

the current EU goals of SustainAgri, also makes it difficult for the partner companies to set their

expectations accordingly. SustainAgri itself has to reach the EU goals and, therefore, the foundation

does have goals and objectives. These goals and objectives do not seem to have been properly

explained to and understood by most of the partner companies. If these goals had been explained

then common goals and objectives which fit into SustainAgri’s EU goals, should have been possible

to reach for all the partner companies (Brennan, 1997). Christian Sønderup has explained that the

EU goals are something which is explained continuously on the general meetings taking place every

third month with all the contact people. Yet because of the period of time between each meeting this

might not be enough for the partner companies to fully understand the EU goals.

It could seem that the partner companies would like a more equal relationship since 80% of the

contact persons answered that they did not feel that they had any or very little, influence in the

decisions made by SustainAgri. The same contact people stated that they did not feel that they got

anything, or very little, out of the relationship (60%). On an overall basis they did not feel better

equipped for future competition.

Furthermore, this could indicate that the communication between SustainAgri and the partner

companies is not symmetrical but actually asymmetrical. This could also explain the overall lack of

commitment (Brennan, 1997) which seems to be present. The Managing Director of SustainAgri

has stated that most of the information and communication takes place via email and via the

telephone and the general meetings. All other personal information has to take place on request of a

contact person who is in need of further information. This approach not only creates a

communicational asymmetry but also the power asymmetry mentioned earlier.

The Managing Director of SustainAgri has also stated that after the initial objectives set during the

first EU period of four years had been reached there could not be found any common ground as to

what the next objectives should be. However, according to Hon (1998), results can only be reached

by achieving objectives since this is also an indicator of how the relationship is going and if it is

fulfilling its purpose.

By setting long-term objectives within the relationship, there is also the possibility (Duncan &

Caywood, 1996) of the relationship becoming more profitable and in this way the benefits become

more apparent than they would otherwise have been. All partner companies who stated that they

Page 52 of 234



joined in order to cooperate with a network of other companies have not had their expectations

fulfilled. This could be due to the lack of overall commitment which (Brennan, 1997) is connected

with the no degree of partnership which has previously been explained on pages 29 and 30. Another

reason for this could be that SustainAgri seemingly does not introduce the partner companies to

each other, which could hinder their opportunities of future cooperation and (Gao, 2007) shared

research and development.

An important aspect is that, which has also been stated by Lasse Bork Schmidt, as well as by Hung

(2005), the development of the relationships is also based on the amount of work, effort and

dedication from both SustainAgri’s but also from the partner companies’ side. Due to this it is also

important for the partner companies to be patient since relationships take time to develop (Kale &

Singh, 2009) and the benefits of them will not be clear at the beginning of the process. It has been

stated by two of the ten contact persons in the questionnaires that the meetings take too much time

compared to what is gained from them. This could indicate a lack of satisfaction with SustainAgri

as well as the results of the relationship (Brennan, 1997). Furthermore, it could also indicate a lack

of commitment since these partner companies are not willing to spend the required time in order to

reach the expected results of the relationship (Kale & Singh, 2009).

3.2 CooperationAccording to Huang (2001), effective communication is the cornerstone when creating a stable and

effective relationship. This means that even though all partner companies are satisfied, or very

satisfied, with the level of information provided from SustainAgri, it could seem there is not the

same level of two-way communication. This is an aspect which was also mentioned during the

previous part in connection with the communication asymmetry.

It is indicated by 80% of the contact persons that they did not feel that they had any, or very little,

influence on SustainAgri’s decisions. This lack of influence could stem from a lack of

communication between SustainAgri and the partner companies and result in making the partner

companies feel without any influence. However, as stated by the Managing Director of SustainAgri,

the partner companies are seen as customers and not equal partners in the relationship. This does

not seem to be a good basis for a relationship with other companies because it very likely could

create a power and communication asymmetry from the very beginning (Blois, 2010).

Page 53 of 234



If the foundation sees its partner companies as customers it will not be able to offer the services

which are crucial to creating a functioning relationship, with co-creation (Phillips, 2006b), a high

level of commitment (Brennan, 1997; Kale & Singh, 2009) and a high degree partnership (Brennan,

1997) being some of them.

One of the reasons for this may be due to the lack of shared activities between SustainAgri and the

partner companies. Even though Christian Sønderup stated that shared activities indeed occur, the

Managing Director of SustainAgri stated that it primarily takes place when general meetings are

planned. Again this seems to correspond with Brennan’s (1997) definition of a no degree

partnership where shared goals and objectives, as well as interorganisational teamwork are part of

the relationship.

Since this is the case, SustainAgri has not become a knowledge organisation in which knowledge

can be exchanged and gathered. The reason for this is the lack of trust among all the participating

companies (Hume & Hume, 2008). Trust is developed through the continual work between the

partner companies and SustainAgri (Brennan, 1997; Hung, 2005).

Additionally, without the aspect of trust it will not be possible to ensure the level of satisfaction

(Hon & Grunig, 1999) which is needed to create a functioning relationship. Furthermore, the

required level of commitment which is needed both within the four relationship dimensions (Hon &

Grunig, 1999) and within knowledge management (Kale & Singh, 2009) will not be present either.

Another aspect is the apparent need of the partner companies to get instant results when joining the

cluster. This could again have something to do with a lack of communication between SustainAgri

and the partner companies since it would seem that the partner companies have not been properly

informed before entering into the relationship. It could be relevant for them to know, from the start,

that the development of a relationship can take between five to ten years before all benefits will

become visible for the partner companies, e.g. a reduction in costs (Kale & Singh, 2009). In this

connection, it is also important for the partner companies to be committed (Brennan, 1997)

otherwise the relationship might not develop into the relationship it is expected to become.

SustainAgri has to live up to EU goals, however, 50% of the partner companies know nothing, or

very little, about these goals. This can either be due to a lack of commitment from the partner

companies or a lack of communication from SustainAgri (Bruning & Ledingham, 1999). Based on

the questionnaires, there seems to be a lack of commitment since the partner companies feel that

Page 54 of 234



SustainAgri is not living up to the expectations they have. This in turn affects the level of

satisfaction which for the majority of the partner companies is quite low. This could hinder the

necessary trust (Egan, 2005) that is paramount in a relationship and which is necessary in order to

reach shared goals and objectives.

However, as the relationship is now it could seem it is not developing from the contractual

relationship (Hung, 2005) which is the starting point of its relationships with the partner companies.

This also means that, as previously mentioned, the overall relationship is within the win-lose zone

according to Hung (2005). Even though it is most likely not planned, SustainAgri seems to be the

party gaining the most from the relationships because it will then be able to fulfil its EU goals in

time. The problem has arisen due to SustainAgri having to firstly fulfil its agreement with the EU

by reaching the EU goals and then secondly trying to fulfil the expectations of the partner

companies. The EU goals are clearly more important for SustainAgri to reach, since the foundation

would otherwise not have any money and would have to close down, which might have had a

negative effect on the relationship with the partner companies.

Many of the partner companies agreed to become members of SustainAgri in order to become

members of a network (50%) and this way become able to work with many other companies.

However, it seems that the partner companies wanted not only a network where the possibility of an

exchange or even a communal relationship could develop. They also wanted to become part of a

network in which knowledge management, in the forms of knowledge sharing and knowledge

gathering, could exist as part of the relationship. The definition by Lynch (2009) seems to agree

with their expectations since he states that relationships are developed between organisations in

order to generate value-adding aspects. These value-added aspects (Lynch, 2009), within a B2B

relationship, seem to be unlikely to exist if there is not some degree of knowledge sharing and

gathering between them because this is the primary way one company can help another reaching its

goals and objectives.

During the interview with Carsten Møller, it was mentioned that the partner companies within the

cluster are segmented according to the services and products which they can offer the end-

consumers. From the apparent lack of common objectives, it would not be possible to segment the

partner companies in any other ways. However, Kale and Singh (2009) argue that a better way of

segmenting will be to divide the partner companies in groups in which the companies with

Page 55 of 234



matching objectives and expectations can work together. This makes it easier for the partner

companies not producing the same agricultural products or services to work together (Gao, 2007).

This could also make it easier for the partner companies to achieve their expectations and moreover

this should also improve their level of satisfaction (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998).

Had the required amount of trust been present within the relationship there would, according to

Brunning and Hatfield (2002) and Phillips (2006b), be a greater amount of value-creation which

would enrich the relationship and help all companies create a unique product, or a unique service,

which could be used by all partner companies alike. This should also greatly improve the overall

satisfaction with SustainAgri and increase the commitment level amongst the partner companies.

When reaching the above mentioned factors in the relationship Gao (2007) mentions that shared

research and development projects are also a possibility.

However, the managing Director of SustainAgri, Lasse Bork Schmidt, claims that this is only

theoretically possible and does not work in reality. A reason for this can be found in a statement

made by the Managing Director who explains that it is difficult for busy professionals to take the

time to get to know everyone involved in the relationship with SustainAgri as well as knowing the

strengths and weaknesses of the partner companies (Egan, 2005).

In my mind, there is no doubt that what has been discovered through research and tested thoroughly

will also be possible to implement on a more practical level. However, since it primarily has been

tested through research on a B2C market, scholars have not taken into account the difference when

implementing the same theories within the context as e.g. SustainAgri. For example the theories do

not seem to take into consideration the current workload of the contact persons. This is likely to be

seen as more pressing to the contact person than maintaining and developing the relationship with

SustainAgri. Additionally, there may also be a differing level of commitment amongst the partner

companies which could be a result of the size of the partner company (Blois, 2010). Another factor

connected to the commitment of the partner companies could be the position of the contact person

within his respective company. All contact persons might not hold the same power, from a

hierarchical viewpoint, and this could influence the level of commitment from the partner company

if the specific contact person is not able to make any decisions related to the relationship himself. A

contact person may have more difficulties with persuading the right people within the partner

company to participate in projects with SustainAgri, if the contact person is not viewed as a key

Page 56 of 234



employee as opposed to a partner company where the contact person is also the Managing Director

(Brennan, 1997).

The last aspect in this section relates to SustainAgri and its role as a shared secretariat which is how

the employees view the role of the foundation. The important functions for SustainAgri would then

be the aspects connected to knowledge gathering and sharing as well as planning export drives and

producing relevant brochures and information material to be used. Of the participating contact

persons, 70% recognise this as being an important function for the foundation. However, 60%

stated that the expectations had not, or only to a slightly, been met. As a result of this, it could seem

that SustainAgri does not fulfil its role as a shared secretariat for the partner companies and is does

not live up to the role of a knowledge organisation which it also sees itself as (Claver-Cortès et al.,

2007).

A consequence could be the overall lack of satisfaction amongst partner companies and a feeling

that SustainAgri does not fulfil their expectations. Of the partner companies, 70% of seem to want a

tighter relationship with the other partner companies within the cluster.

Additionally, there seems to be a lack of communication, not only between SustainAgri and many

of the partner companies, but also across the cluster. This means that the partner companies and

SustainAgri are not contacting each other, except for the general meetings every third month, unless

the partner company has questions to be answered.

3.3 SatisfactionIn 60% of questionnaires the contact persons were not, or only slightly, satisfied with the

relationship in its current form. Also it could be connected to the partner companies stating that

SustainAgri only slightly, or not at all, made use of the competencies provided by them (60%) and

the knowledge they provided (40%).

Since this is the case there could seem to be a clear connection between knowledge management

and its effects on an organisation-public relationship. Even though much information within this

relationship is provided by SustainAgri, and all companies involved seem to be satisfied with the

current amount of information, many of the partner companies only share a slight amount of

knowledge (30%) with the other partner companies or none at all (30%). Furthermore, only 20% of

the partner companies state that they share knowledge and information with SustainAgri often.

Page 57 of 234



Even though the information provided by SustainAgri in most cases are viewed as sufficient, the

knowledge sharing and gathering between the companies and SustainAgri does not appear to be.

This seems to affect the overall evaluation when it comes to the level of satisfaction. In other words,

knowledge management is something which seems to have an effect on a relationship.

An area, which according to relationship management scholars (Smyth & Fitch, 2009; Brennan,

1997), is often forgotten is the creation of similar organisational structures and cultures within all

partner companies. This will make objectives and expectations easier to reach since the internal

processes will become more alike, e.g. the strategic decisions. Furthermore, if partner companies

assimilate, it will also improve the interorganisational knowledge sharing and knowledge generation

since the exchange of knowledge becomes easier, and to some degree more relevant, when the

internal communication and relationship management aspects are alike (Egan, 2005; Kale & Singh,

2009).

By segmenting the partner companies, as described earlier, (Kale & Singh, 2009) knowledge

sharing and gathering could transpire on a larger scale and this could make the specific partner

companies create relationships by working together on projects and by increasing the knowledge

being exchanged between them. This would also be a step in the direction of becoming a good

relationship (Brennan, 1997).

This could suggest that relationship management and knowledge management are connected when

it comes to creating relationships since an increase in knowledge sharing and knowledge gathering

can also improve relationships on a B2B market due to an increased alignment of company values

within each company involved. Furthermore, an increase in organisational structures and cultures

(Kale & Singh, 2009) will also create similarities within the organisational thinking.

However, as already discussed, the partner companies do not seem to think that SustainAgri, and

the appertaining network, works well enough to be an incentive for similar organisational thinking

and increased knowledge sharing.

This could create silos in which all involved have knowledge concerning relevant projects which

they do not wish to share. A reason for this could be that the partner company then does not control

how it will benefit from this and what it will gain from sharing the knowledge with others (Klein,

2009). This could also be the general thought among the partner companies, or individual contact

Page 58 of 234



persons, that as soon as knowledge is shared the perceived power which the company or individual

previously had will then have disappeared (Lee & Ahn, 2005).

It could seem that most of the partner companies are unwilling to share information and knowledge

with each other (30%), or only seldom do so (30%), because they do not want any unnecessary

competition and knowledge sharing might initiate this. This seems to clearly indicate that the

element of trust which is required to develop and maintain relationships does not exist, resulting in

the creation of many silos (Klein, 2009). Instead of a closer relationship, which is the biggest

advantage for relationships between companies (Hung, 2001), individual silos are then created

(Klein, 2009).

Had the relationship between SustainAgri and the partner companies been better, and had the

relevant information and knowledge been shared across the partner companies and SustainAgri, it

could have been more proactive and emergent regarding new export opportunities (Claver-Cortès et

al., 2007).

This could also increase the commitment of the different partner companies and increase their

willingness to work together, both on projects initiated by SustainAgri and on projects initiated by

the different partner companies (Kale & Singh, 2009). As a result of this, (Dimitriades, 2005)

SustainAgri could become a knowledge organisation and thereby better adapt to new situations and

future changes on its current markets. However, at the present time this does not seem to be the case

and instead SustainAgri, due to the lack of knowledge gathering and sharing within the cluster, is

almost unable to adapt to new market situations.

Based on the interviews, SustainAgri’s employees seem to think that the foundation collects the

information and knowledge from all the partner companies on a regular basis. This does not

correspond to the view of the partner companies, who state that they almost never, or only seldom,

share any information and knowledge with SustainAgri (40%). In other words, it could seem that it

has not been possible for SustainAgri to be a knowledge steward, and gather all information and

pass it onto the partner companies. This is simply due to the fact that there is no relevant

information for them to pass on (Smith, 2005).

Although knowledge gathering can exist as described above, it does not correspond to Huang’s

(2005) two-way communication which focuses on dialogue and exchange of knowledge between

the involved parties. And as such this does not happen within SustainAgri since the collected

Page 59 of 234



knowledge is only distributed to the partner companies if it is viewed as relevant to a current

project. As result of this, the communication could seem to be an asymmetrical because there seems

to be a greater focus on one-way communication because some partner companies share their

knowledge but does not receive anything in return. Instead the knowledge is stored with the

employees of SustainAgri who then only pass it on when they think it will benefit a new project.

Around 40% of the partner companies seem to think that they do not gain from providing

SustainAgri with new knowledge since it does not directly lead to new projects. This could also

indicate that the level of commitment amongst the partner companies is not particularly high. This

may have an effect on each partner company’s satisfaction level.

During his interview the Managing Director of SustainAgri stated that there are not any ways in

which the relationship is measured. He mentioned that common objectives are very important when

companies want to create relationships but again did not see them as being possible to create outside

the world of theoretical thinking. Due to this, the foundation’s only indicator of a partner

company’s level of satisfaction with the relationship was whether it stayed as a partner company of

left the relationship when the one-year contract expired.

According to Hon (1998), measuring the level of satisfaction within a relationship is in fact

possible. Satisfaction within relationships depends on the setting of objectives and the reaching of

those objectives within a set period of time. This could also be one of the reasons that almost all

contact persons are not satisfied with the current relationship. There does not seem to be any clear

objectives meaning that there is no clear direction for the relationship to follow.

The fact that SustainAgri does not measure its relationships, according to the Managing Director,

makes it impossible for the foundation (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998) to be certain of the level of

satisfaction amongst the partner companies. Furthermore, it also becomes difficult for the

foundation to know if it is providing the best service possible to its partner companies. The reaction

from the partner companies seems clear since most of them are not satisfied, or only slightly

satisfied, with the relationship in its current form (60%).

Additionally, it seems to be almost impossible for SustainAgri to change the way in which the

relationships are managed since the foundation does not encourage any feedback from the partner

companies. SustainAgri does not then have the possibility of changing anything before the

unsatisfied partner companies choose to dissolve the relationship.

Page 60 of 234



3.4 Findings As it has briefly been explained during the cooperation part of the analysis, the theories used during

the analysis of SustainAgri have all been created for B2C markets and therefore there may be a

slight difference in the results compared to if the theories had all been created for B2B markets. For

example the theories used during this section of the thesis, have not taken into consideration the

current workload of the contact persons within partner companies as well as the difference in

commitment depending on the size of a partner companies and the position of the contact person

within the partner companies itself.

Based on the analysis, the current relationship between SustainAgri and the partner companies can

be described as a contractual relationship since the partner companies do not seem to gain from it in

the form of new projects. Furthermore, 60% of the partner companies do not feel, or only slightly

feel, that their company has gained anything from the relationship and 80% of them feel that they

have no, or only slightly, decision-making power. All these aspects all contribute to the current

relationship as being described as contractual.

Another decisive factor, is that the relationship overall seems to be a no shared commitment

partnership and as such the involved parties only contribute with the bare minimum. This also fits

within the description of a contractual relationship.

However, there seems to be a mismatch between how the relationship should be when looking at

the answer of SustainAgri’s Managing Director and the answer from the partner companies. The

Managing Director sees the partner companies more as customers and in this way does not make

use of the relational strategies within relationship management as well as knowledge management.

Additionally, this makes the contrast between the partner companies all the more apparent since

70% the partner companies joined the cluster in order to be part of a network of companies where

knowledge and information flows freely and where all partner companies can work together.

Unfortunately, it seems that there is a general lack of commitment, satisfaction and trust across the

cluster of partner companies. This seems to stem from a lack of communication between

SustainAgri and the partner companies and also SustainAgri, and the cluster in general, does not

appear to be living up to the expectations of the partner companies. Also there seems to be a general

lack of satisfaction with the role of SustainAgri as a shared secretariat since it could seem that the

Page 61 of 234



partner companies do not believe it to properly fulfil its role and the requirements associated with

this.

Furthermore, since, according to the Managing Director of SustainAgri, there is no personal contact

between SustainAgri and the partner companies other than the general meetings which are held

approximately every third month, a trust between all the involved parties has not been established –

thereby hindering cooperation between the partner companies both on projects facilitated by

SustainAgri and projects which are not directly relevant to SustainAgri.

A reason for this might be found in the lack of shared goals and objectives. Since objectives and

goals have not been developed, it could seem difficult for the partner companies, and indeed

SustainAgri, to know exactly what the cluster is aiming to achieve. The only indicator of this is the

EU goals set by SustainAgri in order to receive the EU grant; however, since these goals are set for

a four year period, these might be a too long-term seen from the point of view from the partner

companies.

Lastly, during my analysis I found that there has been shown a clear connection between

relationship management and knowledge management since a lack of knowledge gathering and

knowledge exchange across the cluster could seem to have a negative effect on the overall

relationship. Furthermore, one of the most frequently used reasons for joining SustainAgri was in

order to join a network of companies and this way gain experience and knowledge from the other

companies already involved in the relationship, thereby citing knowledge gathering and knowledge

sharing as one of the main contributors to joining an organisation-public relationship on a B2B

market.

Page 62 of 234



Part IV: Improvements

4. Creating better relationships for SustainAgri and the partner

companiesDuring this part of the thesis, suggestions for improving the relationship between SustainAgri and

the partner companies will be put forward.

This part contains three suggestions which focus on the aspects found during the discussion which

seem to be a problem for SustainAgri within its current relationship.

Also relationship management and knowledge management theories have been used in the search

for finding the best possible improvement suggestions.

4.1 Setting objectivesIn his interview, Lasse Bork Schmidt stated that shared goals and objectives, set together with the

partner companies for the relationship, did not exist. He elaborated this statement by saying that it

had not been possible for the entire cluster of partner companies to agree on specific goals and

objectives within the relationship. However, according to many scholars (Ledingham & Bruning,

1998; Hung, 2005 & Hon, 1998) there is a basic need to set up goals and objectives for a

relationship which will help fulfil the overall objectives of each individual company. This will not

only make the relationship measureable, in the sense that it becomes possible to asses if the goals

and objectives have been reached, but also contribute to reaching a shared objective.

During the interviews with Carsten Møller and Christian Sønderup, it was mentioned that the

overall goals and objectives of the relationship are the EU goals which are set by SustainAgri.

These goals are, as previously explained, set in order for the foundation to get the funding from EU.

However, 50% of the partner companies did not know, or only slightly knew, what SustainAgri’s

EU goals were. This could affect those partner companies since they do not know how the EU goals

might affect the relationship and if it will then be possible to fulfil the expectations of this company.

This could seem to indicate that there is a need for more information regarding the EU goals to the

partner companies, combined with information from SustainAgri in connection with how these

goals will affect the overall relationship. In this connection, it could also be relevant for SustainAgri

Page 63 of 234



to emphasise what it can offer the partner companies and how the EU goals might affect the

expectations of the partner companies.

When this is made clear, there is a greater possibility of the partner companies being satisfied since

their expectations will then correspond to what SustainAgri is able to offer.

Currently, it is difficult to be sure whether the majority of the partner companies have set their

expectations in accordance with the EU goals, since 50% of the partner companies did not, or only

slightly, know about them and 60% felt that the expectations of SustainAgri had not, or only

slightly, been fulfilled.

To improve these numbers, and the apparent lack of overall commitment within the cluster,

suggestions for improvements of the relationship, and changes to SustainAgri’s way of managing

these, will be explained during the following sections.

4.2 The management of knowledgeIn order to avoid confusion, let me clarify that I will make use of the aspects of commitment during

the following two sections. Specifically, this aspect refers to Brennan’s (1997) definition of

commitment. I will also make use of the definition of commitment created by Kale and Singh

(2009) but have chosen to call it knowledge exchange, meaning the sharing and gathering of

knowledge among companies.

As mentioned previously, SustainAgri attempts to collect knowledge from all the partner

companies. When this is done, the foundation tries to distribute the relevant knowledge to the

relevant partner companies, for example in connection with new projects. By doing this,

SustainAgri has tried to fulfil the role of a knowledge steward (Smith, 2005) in which all

knowledge is gathered in order to provide the partner companies with as much information as

possible when it becomes relevant.

As mentioned during the discussion, 70% of the partner companies joined SustainAgri in order to

join a network of companies. Additionally, the majority of partner companies did not think that

SustainAgri made use of their competencies in a satisfying way (60%), and 50% of the partner

companies did not share their knowledge with the other members of the cluster or the foundation.

Page 64 of 234



The questionnaires did however show that the partner companies in general were satisfied with the

level of information provided by SustainAgri, which relates to what has been done by the

foundation. Of the contact people, 50% believed it to be average and 50% rated it above average.

However, this was purely based on information delivered by the foundation to its partner companies

and not the exchange of knowledge between them.

In order to create knowledge sharing and gathering between the partner companies, it is important

to break down the silos between these parties so knowledge can flow freely between partner

companies and SustainAgri (Klein, 2009).

The silos are created when a partner company, or the contact person, does not want to share

information and knowledge with the other companies. In this connection, it appears to happen since

many of the partner companies are not particularly committed to the relationship. They might not

feel comfortable with sharing their knowledge in case other partner companies might take

advantage of this knowledge. This could, for example, be by starting to export based on the

acquired knowledge. Furthermore, as the Managing Director of SustainAgri mentioned, some of the

partner companies might not wish to share their knowledge if this affects their own export

opportunities. The foundation and partner companies might then enter a market where one partner

company already is established, resulting in that company losing much of its income on that market

(Klein, 2009).

One method to increase the likelihood of the exchange of knowledge among the partner companies

is to segment the partner companies according to their objectives and goals. As explained earlier,

these goals and objectives should reflect the goals and objectives of the relationship.

The partner companies should then be divided into smaller groups, for example 3 groups in total,

where their expectations for the most part correspond to each other (Kale & Singh, 2009). When

these segments, or groups, are created, it will become easier for SustainAgri to service the

individual needs of each partner company, instead of making the decisions based on what it think

will be best for all parties. Additionally, since the partner companies within these segments share

common goals and have shared objectives, the incentive to exchange knowledge among the others

will become greater. This should happen when the partner companies acknowledge that the

exchange of knowledge will benefit themselves and contribute to the realisation of the

aforementioned goals and objectives as well as create better relationships. The creation of said

Page 65 of 234



relationships might then later in the process turn out to be a good investment for the partner

companies.

When this is accomplished, it will become possible for the different segmented partner companies

to set up meetings among themselves. These meetings will both be held together with an employee

from SustainAgri but also held on their own. The contact persons will then be able to discuss what

can be done in order to gain the most from the relationship and what they would like to achieve

from the relationship. By creating the initial framework for the relationship, the sharing of

knowledge will be initiated as a way in which the goals and objectives of each partner company can

be achieved. This may also encourage the contact persons to become better at gathering knowledge

from their respective companies and in this way share a greater amount of knowledge than

previously.

If these segments are created, there is also a greater possibility of the partner companies becoming

committed to the relationship. They might then see a potential outcome which will also create trust

among them. This will start within the different segments and then be able to spread to cover an

equal amount of trust between all partner companies.

The more trust exists between the partner companies within each segment; the less an employee

from SustainAgri is needed at the meeting. Naturally, an employee should be present some of the

time both to explain what can be done to reach the particular goals and objectives, and also to

uncover how the meetings are conducted and if more trust, knowledge exchange and commitment is

being displayed. This presence of the employee will also help create a more open dialogue between

SustainAgri and the partner companies, one in which two-way communication is more present than

currently (Hon & Grunig, 1999).

For the first meetings within the different segments without any employees from SustainAgri

present, an agenda for the contact persons should be created. This agenda should be pre-approved

by the contact persons in the specific segments and should serve to build up knowledge exchange,

by sharing and gathering knowledge connected to their specific goals and objectives. By doing so,

the partner companies should also develop trust in each other.

When the aspect of knowledge exchange has been achieved, and all involved have shared the

knowledge relevant for achieving their goals and objectives, trust will then develop in the form of

creating a shared framework of norms and values specific to each segment. This will have an

Page 66 of 234



impact on the cooperation between the contact persons from each segment. Both the partner

companies and SustainAgri should then be able to work more efficiently in order to reach the goals

and objectives of all involved.

With the increase in knowledge exchange, trust, commitment and two-way communication, the

different segments will then also move from (Brennan, 1997) being a no degree partnership towards

becoming a more committed relationship in which the parties work to reach shared goals and

objectives.

When the above aspects are met within each of the segments it becomes possible for one person

from each segment to act as a knowledge steward. This knowledge steward will then, together with

the knowledge stewards from the other segments, hold meetings with SustainAgri on a regular

basis. Here the gathered knowledge from each segment will be shared between the appointed

knowledge stewards. The employee from SustainAgri will act as a secretary, by writing notes in

accordance to the subjects discussed, as well as being able to contribute with the expertise with

which the foundation is able to assist.

After such meetings, the foundation will then be provided with a clearer picture of what is expected

as well as having gathered the knowledge from the segments. SustainAgri will then be able to send

out information to all partner companies explaining the topics discussed. Furthermore, this

information will also include which actions will be taken in order to reach the all goals and

objectives. This will also be based on the suggestions and ideas of the partner companies in

connection with how they perceive the expectations to be fulfilled.

This will create a more open dialogue in which two-way communication is seen as an important

tool to reach the expectations of the partner companies. It will also become a more important aspect

of the communication than it currently is.

When asked if there were any disadvantages with being a partner company of SustainAgri, 30%

answered that they used too much time on meetings. However, by setting up communication

channels in this way, meetings could become more worthwhile.

The reason for this is partly because there are not as many people present at the meetings and this

ensures that the partner companies can have more influence in the decision-making process.

Another way this will be more efficient is that only one contact person from each segment will meet

Page 67 of 234



with the foundation to discuss ideas and exchange knowledge. This appointed knowledge steward

could, if all within the segments are equally committed, share the responsibility of being a

knowledge steward with the other contact persons from the segment. This way they can take turns

representing their segments at the meetings with SustainAgri and a greater level of trust and

commitment will then also be created.

Even though this should improve the knowledge exchange, trust, commitment and create two-way

communication, it is not meant as a replacement for the general meetings held by SustainAgri

approximately every three months. However, creating the segments should be seen as a step in the

direction of creating a relationship where the partner companies are involved to a greater degree

than now. Also all partner companies are given a chance in participating in deciding the future

direction of the foundation.

Of course this approach will only work as long as the partner companies within each segment have

roughly the same goals and objectives. In situations where the differences between partner

companies’ goals and objectives within one segment are too significant, new segments should be

created. Within the new segments, partner companies, and contact persons, who have not previously

worked together, will need to develop a common level of knowledge exchange and trust before the

aspect of commitment can be reached.

A model based on the aspects explained above has been created:

4.2.1 Knowledge+Relationship Management Model

Page 68 of 234

Dependency

Knowledge

exchange

Trust

Commitment

Two-way

communication



The idea is based on Kale and Singh’s (2009) statement concerning a company’s need to segment

its publics, or in this case partner companies, in order of their expectations.

However, based on the case study of SustainAgri, there seems to be a need for the partner

companies to work together more. This will facilitate, to a larger extend than currently, in

exchanging knowledge thereby helping each company reach their goals and objectives for the

relationship. Since it seems that few partner companies work well together and the majority do not

work with any partner company, it could be more productive to create smaller groups, or segments.

This way the partner companies are able to contribute more than in the larger general meetings,

which are normally attended by a majority of them.

In this way SustainAgri will also be able to slowly raise the levels of the knowledge exchange and

trust amongst the partner companies. As more knowledge is gathered and shared, both within the

segments and with the foundation, it will help SustainAgri become a knowledge organisation.

During this process, SustainAgri will also participate in letting the relationships expand from being

contractual relationships (Hung, 2005), in which the parties only do what is required by the

contract, to become communal relationships (Hon & Grunig, 1999) where the partner companies

help each other in reaching the best results for the entire cluster.

4.3 Creating an intranetIt has been mentioned during all three interviews that SustainAgri functions as a shared secretariat

for all 14 partner companies. However, as it has also been mentioned previously, SustainAgri does

not seem to live up to the expectations of the partner companies. Approximately 70% of the partner

companies joined SustainAgri in the hopes of joining a network of companies, all working within

the same sector. The majority of the partner companies do not feel that their expectations have been

realised.

The Managing Director of SustainAgri said during his interview that:” […] I […] see our partner

companies as customers of SustainAgri” (appendix 6: Interview transcription – Lasse Bork

Schmidt: 132). It would seem that the relational aspects of the relationship with the partner

companies are not seen as important.

This could lead to a lack of commitment and satisfaction from the partner companies since

SustainAgri, with the above statement, does not take into consideration the expectations of the

Page 69 of 234



partner companies. It also makes it difficult for trust to be developed because this requires the

companies to become dependent, to some degree, on each other (Ford, 1980). Additionally, 30% of

the partner companies never share information or knowledge with the other partner companies, even

in situations where SustainAgri has coordinated a project with several companies.

These partner companies were the same ones who stated that they joined SustainAgri in order to

join a network of other companies. In other words, these companies had, before joining

SustainAgri, a clear picture of the importance of relationship and knowledge management aspects.

As mentioned during the discussion, there does not seem to exist two-way communication between

SustainAgri and the partner companies. The partner companies seem to share the sentiment that

even though SustainAgri is average or above average at informing them, they do not feel included

in the decision-making process. As a result, the partner companies might not be as committed to

making the relationship work as they could have been. This, in turn, could affect the level of

satisfaction of the partner companies.

A solution to these problems, which improve the situation, could be for SustainAgri to introduce an

intranet, which is possible for SustainAgri and the partner companies to access.

The intranet should be accessible for the contact persons of the different partner companies; with

SustainAgri having the main responsibility for sharing information and knowledge.

This would make it possible for SustainAgri to send out the information regarding for example new

projects, changes in project schedules or the sending out of newsletters. With the intranet it would

seem that SustainAgri could save a lot of time which is currently being spent on informing the

different partner companies, either via telephone, mail or, in some cases, in person. Of course, this

should not be used as a substitute to the general meetings; however, it could reduce the time spent.

This may then be used for information and knowledge gathering that could prove useful for future

projects.

Moreover, this could also make it possible to set up more personal meetings in which only

SustainAgri and a few of the partner companies are present. Since 30% of the partner companies

stated that they spent too much time on meetings which did not result in anything, the intranet could

be used to collect all information and knowledge. If the intranet is used in this way, the meetings

themselves do not have to take as long as they currently do – where general meetings take between

Page 70 of 234



three and four hours. However, with the setting up of segments, as discussed earlier, the meetings

can be seen to have a more immediate effect which could change the current perceptions of the

meetings.

The intranet will make it easier for the partner companies to know what is happening within

SustainAgri, if for example SustainAgri once every month sent out a short summary of the aspects

with which it had concerned itself and what the results of the month’s work. This could also

improve knowledge sharing across the cluster, since some of the partner companies might then be

able to share knowledge connected to the information provided by SustainAgri.

By creating an intranet, the possibilities of quick and effortless information and knowledge sharing

relating to current or future projects can be written down and shared with all partner companies and

the foundation.

This could also make SustainAgri seem more inclusive, since it will then not only be the employees

of the foundation and the specific contact persons who will know what is currently happening

within the relationship. This could also make it easier for other people within the partner

companies, who are either interested in the relationship as a whole or just aspects of it, to become

aware of activities within the cluster. Since this could be a natural outcome of the creation of an

intranet, the knowledge of SustainAgri will increase among the employees of the partner

companies. The result of this could lead to more committed employees of the partner companies

since the communication will now be able to flow freely. The result of this will be an open

dialogue, thereby changing the communication from one-way to two-way (Bruning & Ledingham,

1999).

This should also make it possible for the partner companies, together with the employees of

SustainAgri, to develop the relationship in the way they see fit. This could for example include a

network focusing on relational aspects as well as the exchange of knowledge.

By creating this, more partner companies will be able to share and gather knowledge which should

increase the levels of commitment and satisfaction since SustainAgri will then live up to, or even

exceed, the expectations set by the partner companies. If this happens, SustainAgri and its partner

companies (Brennan, 1997) would then be able to move from a no degree partnership to a high

degree partnership due to the increased level of commitment among all partner companies.

Page 71 of 234



When moving towards a high degree partnership, it will become easier for the partner companies to

work together with each other, both on projects initiated by SustainAgri but also on other projects.

An example of this could be a shared research and development phase (Gao, 2007) between some

of the partner companies where new products, services or company concepts are developed by

using the expertise of specialists within each of these partner companies.

If collaboration on this level could take place between the partner companies not only the contact

persons but people from the different companies, who are otherwise not working with SustainAgri,

will become more committed to the relationship (Brennan, 1997). The result of this possible

development will also improve the level of trust within the cluster. An increased level of trust could

also result in the partner companies becoming more outspoken regarding their expectations of the

relationship with the effect of the partner companies being more involved in the decision-making

process. This change will develop the relationship into a high degree partnership (Brennan, 1997).

Of course, the influences of the implementation of a shared intranet, as described above, are all

based on a best-case scenario. A scenario, where the intranet could create a domino effect, which

will help SustainAgri and the partner companies realise the potential of their relationship. By doing

this, they will create a more equal relationship without any power asymmetry and two-way

communication.

In case the introduction of an intranet does not have the effect described above, it should still be a

step closer two-way communication. This will mean that the partner companies will still receive

more information and knowledge than previously, which is mentioned earlier in this section.

The biggest difference (Brennan, 1997) will be that the move towards a fully committed

relationship will fail to happen and this, in turn, will mean that the shared research and development

(Gao, 2007) projects will not become a reality. This means that even though the levels of

commitment, satisfaction and trust will be improved, there will still need to be taken more action in

order to gain the most from the organisation-public relationship between SustainAgri and the

partner companies.

However, even if the intranet does not have the described effect on the relationship, there seems to

still be improvements in the relationship. This is due to the creation of two-way communication

between within the relationship, which would make it a sound investment to create. SustainAgri

Page 72 of 234



will then also have implemented the intranet, which could be used as the main channel for

communication between the foundation and its partner companies.

4.4 Theory based on the case study of SustainAgriAs already mentioned during the discussion of the current state of the relationship between

SustainAgri and its partner companies, the theories used are created for the B2C market and not for

B2B relationship management. Brennan (1997) is the main exception because he studied the

relationship between companies in the UK.

Due to the theories focusing on B2C markets, different factors such as the workload of a contact

person, the power of the contact person (in terms of power within his own company) and the overall

company commitment also could affect a B2B relationship. Vice Director of SustainAgri, Carsten

Møller, also mentioned that it was easier for a foundation to be accepted by a company if its contact

person was the Managing Director.

From the information gained from questionnaires and interviews, together with the results of the

discussion, it appears that knowledge management, in particular the exchange of knowledge, is a

larger factor in relationship management than previously assumed. Again it is important to mention,

that there does not exist much research within this particular area and specific models and theories

therefore have not been developed.

The reason for this assumption is the fact that 70% of the questionnaires stated that they entered the

relationship in order to be part of a network and almost just as many had not been satisfied with the

results of the relationship. A reason for this could be that SustainAgri does not make much use of

knowledge management aspects and as a result of this, the partner companies are not satisfied with

the relationship.

From the collected data, it could also seem that SustainAgri is not a knowledge organisation, even

though this is its primary objective. According to Christian Sønderup, it is one of the most

important aspects of the creation of a relationship between a foundation and its partner companies.

It could seem that knowledge management and relationship management are interconnected if a

foundation, such as SustainAgri, and its partner companies are to develop a relationship.

Therefore a greater amount of trust is needed between the partner companies. When this is

developed it will increase the level of commitment.

Page 73 of 234



This will happen by increasing the knowledge exchange among the partner companies (the aspect of

knowledge management and the willingness to share and gather knowledge), the aspect of trust (the

development of shared norms and values), commitment (the resources spent on reaching goals and

objectives) and two-way communication (an equal dialogue between all parties involved in the

relationship). This can be described as a cycle in which each of its components affects the other.

When all four aspects are affected, a greater level of dependency among the partner companies is

developed. And the cycle begins again (This further explains the Knowledge+Relationship

Management Model on page 69).

As a result of this, new knowledge will be exchanged in order to reach new objectives and goals

which results in an increased level of trust. Trust will be improved as the development of new

norms and values, based on the new goals and objectives, are created.

The aspect of trust amongst the partner companies will help them create a shared framework for the

relationship. This framework will also help the partner companies, and the foundation, reach goals

and objectives set by all involved. Each time the framework, consisting of shared values and norms,

is adjusted, the partner companies will become more aligned in their organisational way of thinking

(Brennan, 1997). This could also result in an alignment of company culture and horisontal

management between the partner companies. This will have a positive effect on the exchange of

knowledge (Kale & Singh, 2009).

Knowledge exchange and trust will then affect the commitment level – when the involved

companies see good reason for investing time and resources on reaching the goals and objectives

set. An increase in commitment will occur when the company can reach the goals and objectives at

a lower cost than if they were to do the same work alone (Hon & Grunig, 1999). The more of the

partner companies’ expectations the foundation meets, the more likely the foundation is to expand

its portfolio potentially attracting more partner companies.

The increased levels of knowledge exchange, trust and commitment will then affect the

communication, which will become more open and symmetrical. This should then ensure a constant

two-way communication in which the foundation and its partner companies discuss and plan ways

in which communication can be improved as well as how every partner company can contribute. By

including all partner companies, as well as the foundation, in the act of two-way communication, an

Page 74 of 234



increased level of knowledge exchange should take place. Lastly, the dependency of the partner

companies towards each other, and the foundation, should then again be increased.

This way the cycle is then starting again and all previous processes will thus be improved on

accordingly to reach new goals and objectives. The more the aspects of the

Knowledge+Relationship Management Model are improved, the closer an organisation-public

relationship moves away towards becoming (Brennan, 1997) a fully committed relationship.

This way, there is interconnectivity between knowledge management and relationship management

which makes it clear that one management function cannot fulfil its potential without the aspects of

the other management function as well.

The Knowledge+Relationship Management Model is based on the assumption that all partner

companies have set up goals and objectives in connection with entering into the relationship. This

way it becomes possible for the partner companies to better influence the choices made by

foundation. When the Knowledge+Relationship Management Model has been completed a number

of times, a greater possibility of shared problem solving, both related and unrelated to the shared

goals and objectives (Brennan, 1997), and a shared research and development stage arises (Gao,

2007).

During the shared research and development stage, the partner companies work together with

employees from all partner companies in order to develop new products and services. This could

strengthen the relationship as well as help the partner companies reach the goals and objectives set

at the beginning of this process (Gao, 2007).

This again will increase the dependency of the involved companies (Ford, 1980) and will, as part of

the process, improve all the aspects of the Knowledge+Relationship Management Model

(knowledge exchange, trust, commitment and two-way communication) as a result of the

cooperation within research and development.

Another consequence of the Knowledge+Relationship Management Model would seem to be its

ability to move from being part of a win-lose relationship (Hung, 2005), where only one party gains

from the relationship, to becoming a win-win relationship such as an exchange or a communal

relationship (Hon & Grunig, 1999). When reaching this stage within relationship management, the

Page 75 of 234



possibilities for further cooperation, such as those explained above, become more likely (Hung,

2005).

In order to further prove the connection between relationship and knowledge management

functions, the Relationship+Knowledge Management Model has also been created.

Compared to the first one, this cycle includes the element of knowledge exchange later in the

process. It consists of the same elements as the Knowledge+Relationship Management Model but

starts out by focusing on relationship management factors (Hon & Grunig, 1999) before focusing on

knowledge management factors (Kale & Singh, 2009).

The definitions of the elements used within the Relationship+Knowledge Management Model are

the same as the ones explained, and used, for the Knowledge+Relationship Management Model

mentioned previously.

The model can be seen underneath:

4.4.1 Relationship+Knowledge Management Model

As previously explained, this model starts with the implementation of relational factors: trust and

two-way communication.

Page 76 of 234

Dependency

Knowledge

exchange

Trust

CommitmentTwo-way

communication



Trust needs to be established in the beginning of every new relationship and this is done by setting

up the framework, consisting of values and norms, in order to gain as much as possible from the

B2B relationship.

The creation of trust within the relationship, and the need for all involved to reach their objectives

and goals, will improve the two-way communication between all companies within the relationship.

The two-way communication will be improved since the companies, in order to fulfil their goals

and objectives, will need to work together. This can only happen if an increase in the level of

communication occurs.

When the step of two-way communication has been reached a natural development of this, and of

the relationship as a whole, will be the increase of the exchange of knowledge. This will take place

in order for the companies to reach their goals and also in order for the relationship to be proven a

success because, at this stage, many resources have been used to develop it.

As the three first factors have been reached, the last factor, commitment (Brennan, 1997), will then

have to be dealt with. This will happen by all companies working together to reach their goals and

objectives which will increase the level of commitment.

When all four stages have been reached it will create a greater level of dependency between the

companies. This will help develop the relationship and reach new goals and objectives. These

aspects will instigate a move towards a high degree partnership (Brennan, 1997).

The consequences of the completion of the model should be the same as the ones explained for the

knowledge and relationship model.

4.3 ReliabilityIn order to ensure reliability of the research, I have, during my sections regarding the current

relationship between SustainAgri and the partner companies and how this can be improved, talked

to the employees of SustainAgri and asked them about how they see the current relationship status.

The employees have been able to recognise the main issues with the current relationship which I,

through the qualitative and quantitative data collections methods, have identified. This way the

reliability of the thesis has been secured (Daymon & Holloway, 2010).

Page 77 of 234



Furthermore, the employees have also, on a regular basis, agreed to look through the main points of

my discussion section to see if there were aspects which they though should be included.

4.4 GeneralisationMy models may be generalisable in specific instances where a relationship between two companies

on a B2B market does not live up to the expectations set by one or both parties involved. However,

at this stage, it is difficult to know since they have not been tested. However, what may make them

generalisable is the fact that the aspects, and the definition of those, are very broad. Therefore, they

are not constricted to only being used within a specific context. But further research and testing of

them, and the areas in which they function, is needed to be able to know anything with certainty.

However, even though it, at this point, is not clear whether or not the models themselves are

generalisable, they do seem to indicate that the combination of relationship management and

knowledge management will improve the success when developing relationships on a B2B market.

This is an area which has not previously been investigated but there seems to be a reason to

combine these two areas of research when looking into relationship management on B2B market in

the future. Furthermore, whether the models are generalisable or not, the combination of

relationship management and knowledge management shows a significant interrelation which has

been shown with this thesis but needs to be looked into further.

4.5 ValidityThe area of the thesis and the originality of the research results make the findings within this thesis

valid research which might assist other when doing future research. The validity of my thesis is due

to the relevance of the thesis. The areas within marketing, communication and management, which

have been discussed and explained during the thesis, are of relevance to scholars doing future

research in proving a connection between the two above mentioned management areas which is not

covered by existing literature and research. It will also help strengthen the argument of why

relationship management is relevant for companies within B2B markets (Daymon & Holloway,

2010).

Page 78 of 234



4.6 FindingsDuring this entire section of the thesis, I have put forward some suggestions to improve the

relationship between SustainAgri and the partner companies.

The first suggestion was for the partner companies to set up goals and objectives for the relationship

and that these goals and objectives be made clear to SustainAgri. This way it would be possible for

the foundation to divide the partner companies into smaller segments, groups, in which the

companies had similar goals and objectives. It would then be easier for them to work together in

reaching those and then use SustainAgri both as a shared secretariat as well as a consultant. This

would increase the commitment of the partner companies as well as the sharing and gathering of

knowledge both for the partner companies but also for SustainAgri. In this connection, it should

also increase the influence of the partner companies in the overall decisions made by the foundation

which should improve the overall commitment of all involved.

In addition, two models were created which highlight the most important aspects for SustainAgri to

focus on when improving the relationship. The first model focused on: knowledge exchange, trust,

commitment and two-way communication and how this created dependency between the partner

companies and SustainAgri. This could also help progress the relationships (Brennan, 1997) from

being no shared commitment partnerships to becoming high degree relationships. It could also

(Hung, 2005) develop the contractual relationship between the involved parties, which is located

within the win-lose zone of Hung’s (2005) model, into either exchange or communal relationships

which are both within the win-win zone, meaning that all parties gain from the relationship. Both

models seem to indicate that further improvements to relationships on B2B markets can be found by

combining the research from both relationship management and knowledge management.

The second model, which was explained during the previous section, also focused on combining

relationship management with knowledge management and how this could improve relationships on

B2B markets. The same aspects have been included for the creation of this model, as the previous

one; however, the aspect of knowledge management is placed later in the process. This is done to

further illustrate the improvements of relationships when combining relationship management with

knowledge management.

Page 79 of 234



These models may be generalisable, in the sense that they may be usable within a similar context

involving relationship management between a foundation and its partner companies. However,

testing of the models will be needed in order to fully know if they are generalisable.

The models do show, as explained above, that even if the models are not generalisable the

combination of relationship management and knowledge management, in order to further improve

organisation-public relationships, is relevant to researchers and scholars alike.

Furthermore, a suggestion concerning the creation of an intranet has been discussed. By doing so,

there could be an increase in commitment from the partner companies as well as an increased

interest in the projects of SustainAgri. Not only from the contact persons, as it is currently the case,

but from the entire companies as it becomes easier to follow the development of e.g. projects. This

could increase the relevance of SustainAgri inside the partner companies and result in the increase

of commitment and knowledge exchange – not only between the partner companies but also

internally. This would also provide the contact persons with more relevant information which they

might not posses currently. Additionally, this would increase the two-way communication between

all parties in the relationship as both SustainAgri and the contact persons should be able to post new

information or comments on the intranet. Further developments to the intranet could be made,

depending on the level of satisfaction and involvement from the partner companies. Finally, it

would make it easier for the contact persons to involve other employees from their own companies,

when all relevant information as well as the relevant discussions could take place via this

communication channel, and it this way can easily be shared with other employees. These

employees might then be able to contribute with information and knowledge which is not being

done currently.

Page 80 of 234



Part V: Final conclusion

5. ConclusionMy thesis focused on three research questions and due to this my thesis is be divided into three

sections answering the relevant research question.

The reason for the importance of relationship management within companies operating on the B2B

market is the additional benefits each company involved can gain from this.

By forming a relationship, there is a possibility for one company to collaborate with other

companies in order to reach a common goal which would otherwise not have been possible to do.

There is the possibility of having expert employees work together on shared projects and, if the

relationship develops into a communal relationship, there is also the chance of creating cross-

organisational task forces where specific problems which might not be related to the relational goals

are looked into and solved together. Within relationships between companies, there is also the

chance for the involved parties to share and gather knowledge which can help them all reach their

relationship goals and objectives. This can help companies become emergent because they hold

more knowledge than previously. This increase in exchange of knowledge across companies can

increase the possibility of the companies making research and development projects together. This

will make it possible for all expert employees with knowledge of the relevant areas to work together

and co-creation between the companies will take place.

Finally, relationships on B2B markets and an increase in collaboration will make it possible for the

companies to cut costs since the cost itself would be split between more companies and expert

employees.

Within the case study of SustainAgri and its partner companies, there seems to be a general lack of

commitment and cooperation among the partner companies.

By using the relationship management dimensions set up by Hon and Grunig in 1999 (trust,

commitment, satisfaction and control mutuality) SustainAgri’s current relationship with the partner

companies has been analysed.

From the analysis, it would seem that some aspects, such as the power of a contact person within his

own company and aspects such as the current workload might have an effect on relationships

Page 81 of 234



between companies on a B2B market. However, since the dimensions created by Hon & Grunig

(1999) are based on a B2C market there may some differences, for example connected to the

importance of the relationship from the contact persons’ point of view, which might be connected to

the above mentioned aspects of the contact persons.

The majority of the partner companies do not feel that they have any influence in the decisions

made by SustainAgri. This could be the reason for the current contractual relationship between the

parties in which the partner companies only do what is required of them in connection with the

partnership agreement which they sign before becoming a partner company.

Also, a majority of the partner companies went into the relationship because they thought that they

would become part of a network of companies in which they would be able to exchange knowledge

and help each other. However, since this is clearly not the case in the current state of the

relationship, there seems to be a distinct lack of commitment, satisfaction and trust between the

parties. These aspects hinder the development of the relationship and of the cluster of companies

becoming a network and SustainAgri as a knowledge organisation.

In general there also seems to be a lack of communication between SustainAgri and the partner

companies, which might be the reason the partner companies see themselves as not having a say in

the decisions.

Within this section there seems to be a clear connection between relationship management and

knowledge management since both were something which the partner companies expected when

they entered the relationship. Also the lack of knowledge exchange seems to have a negative effect

on the overall relationship.

In connection with the proposed improvements for the current relationship the creation of an

intranet and the segment of the partner companies were proposed.

The intranet should become a platform from where newsletters, updates and information, both from

SustainAgri but also from the partner companies, could be shared. This should increase the

commitment and satisfaction within the relationship and should help the companies work together.

The intranet should also make it easier for the contact persons to involve other people from their

companies; in order to make SustainAgri a more integrated part of the partner companies. Also this

Page 82 of 234



might encourage more knowledge exchange amongst the partner companies which would increase

the current level of cooperation in the cluster.

The second suggestion was for the partner companies to express their goals and objectives with the

relationship to SustainAgri. The foundation would then make segments in which partner companies

with the same, or similar, goals and objectives would be able to work together and have meetings

on their own and with an employee from SustainAgri. This should be created in order to increase

the level of knowledge sharing and knowledge gathering and be another way of the partner

companies to reach their expectations. One person from each segment should then have regular

meeting with each other, as well as an employee from SustainAgri, and by doing so knowledge

could be exchanged more efficiently.

As a result of this, two models containing aspects from relationship management theories and

knowledge management theories were created. The models focused on the creation of trust, two-

way communication, knowledge exchange, commitment and dependency.

Due to the findings of the discussion and the suggested improvements of the relationship between

SustainAgri and the partner companies, it seems that there is a connection between knowledge

management and relationship management. It seems that relationships on a B2B market functions

better when knowledge which can help one or more parties in a relationship is exchanged. This

could also have an impact on the development of relationships, shared research and development

projects and the dependency of the parties involved.

The models, Knowledge+Relationship Management Model and Relationship+Knowledge

Management Model, may be generalisable and possible to use within other contexts based on B2B

relationship management. This is possible since the aspects, and definitions, used for the models are

very broad and therefore do not constrict any future use. However, since they are developed based

on a case study, it will be important to further test them to find out their applicability for other

companies and within other contexts. If they are generalisable, they may help other B2B

relationships improve their exchange of knowledge and levels of trust, commitment and two-way

communication.

Page 83 of 234



5.1 Further researchA definitive explanation of the word relationship in connection with its use within communication

literature is needed. Almost no definitions exist within this area since the researchers only

investigate the meaning of relationship management. In this regard, the definition of relationship,

which Broom, Casey and Ritchey (1997) also could not find, seems to weaken the area of

relationship management as no scholarly definition really seem to be present within the literature.

Further research into the connection between relationship management and knowledge management

is needed in order to uncover if these two areas are equally important when developing and

maintaining relationships or if one area requires more focus than the other.

In this connection it will be relevant to investigate whether the models I have produced for

SustainAgri are generalisable when it comes to other B2B companies wanting to optimise their

relationship. If this is the case, it will be important to also uncover the precise benefits connected

with the use of the models. The benefits might change compared the predicted benefits they would

have on SustainAgri. Either way, a validation or rejection of the models is needed. Research is also

needed in connection with the models’ implications on the fields of relationship management and

knowledge management.

Finally, the development of theories and models for the use of relationship management solely

within B2B markets is needed. At the moment they primarily focus on the B2C market.

Furthermore, more investigation into non-profit foundations using relationship management and

knowledge management with its public (partner companies) is needed. This area does not seem

present in the minds of researchers, when they are considering which areas to investigate next in the

hope of generating new and theoretically useful results for future use by other researchers.

Page 84 of 234



BibliographyAlvesson, Mats; Skölberg, Kaj (2009): “Reflexive Methodology: New Vistas for Qualitative

Research”, SAGE Publications Ltd., London.

Andersen, Poul Houman (2001): ‘Relationship development and marketing communication: an

integrative model’, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 167-182

Andreasen, Alan R.; Goodstein, Ronald C.; Wilson, Joan W. (2005): ’Transferring”marketing

knowledge” to the nonprofit sector’, California Management Review, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp. 46-67

Barnes, J. G.; Howlett, D. M. (1998): ‘Predictors of equity in relationships between service

providers and retail customers’, International Journal of Bank Management, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 5-

23

Bhaskar, Roy E. A. (1998): “Critical Realism Essential Readings”, 1st edition, Routledge, London.

Blois, Keith (2010): ‘The legitimacy of power in business-to-business relationships’, Marketing

Theory, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 161-172

Brennan, Ross (1997): ‘Buyer/supplier partnering in the British industry: the automotive and

telecommunications sectors’, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 13, Issue 8, pp. 759-775

Broom, Glen M.; Casey, Shawna; Ritchey, James (1997): ‘Toward a concept and theory of

organization-public relationships’, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 83-98

Brown, Chris (2007):’ Situating Critical Realism’, Millennium – Journal of International Studies,

Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 409-416.

Bruning, Stephen D. (2000): ‘Examining the role that personal, professional, and community

relationships play in respondent relationship recognition and intended behavior’, Communication

Quaterly, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp. 437-448

Page 85 of 234



Bruning, Stephen D.; Hatfield, Marty (2002): ‘Linking Organization-Public Relationship Attitudes

and Satisfaction Outcomes’, Journal of Promotion Management, Vol. 8, Issue 2, pp. 3-19

Bruning, Stephen D.; Ledingham, John A. (1999): ‘Relationships between organizations and

publics: Development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship scale’, Public

Relations Review, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 157-170

Claver-Cortès, Enrique; Zaragoza-Sáez, Patrocinio; Pertusa-Ortega, Eva (2007): ‘Organizational

structure features supporting knowledge management processes’, Journal of Knowledge

Management, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 45-57

Dart, Raymond (2004): ‘Being “Business-Like” in a Nonprofit Organization: A Grounded and

Inductive Typology’, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 290, pp. 290-310

Daymon, Christine; Holloway, Immy (2010):”Qualitative Research Methods in Public Relations

and Marketing Communications”.Routledge. Chippenham, UK.

Dimitriades, Zoe S. (2005): ‘Creating strategic capabilities: organizational learning and knowledge

management in the new economy’, European Business Review, Vol. 17, Issue 4, pp. 314-324

Doyle, Peter (2000):”Value-Based Marketing: Marketing Strategies for Corporate Growth and

Shareholder Value”, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. West Sussex, England.

Duncan, T.; Caywood, C. (1996) have written the section: ‘The concept, process, and evolution of

integrated marketing communication’, in Thorson, E.; Moore, J.: “Integrated communication:

Synergy of persuasive voices”. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah. New Jersey.

Egan, John (2011):”Relationship Marketing: Exploring relational strategies in marketing”. 4th

edition. Financial Times/ Prentice Hall. Pearson Education. Essex, UK.

Page 86 of 234



Ford, D. (1980): ‘Buyer/seller relationships in international industrial markets’, European Journal

of Marketing, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 339-354

Fox, Stephen (2009):’ Applying critical realism to information and communication technologies: a

case study’, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27, Issue 5, pp. 465-472.

Gao, Ping (2007): Using Structuration Theory to Analyze Knowledge and Process Management in a

Consortium: A Case Study, Knowledge and Process Management, Vol. 14, No. 2 pp.-104-116.

Ghauri, Pervez; Grønhaug, Kjell (2010):” Research Methods in Business Studies”. Fourth edition.

Prentice Hall – Financial Times/Pearson Education Limited. Essex, England.

Grönroos, C (1994): ‘From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a paradigm shift in

marketing’, Management Decisions, Vol. 32, Issue 2, pp. 4-20

Gruen, Thomas W.; Summers, John O.; Acito, Frank (2000): ‘Relationship marketing activities,

commitment, and membership behaviors in professional associations’, Journal of Marketing, Vol.

64, No. 3, pp. 34-49

Grunig, James E. (1993): ’Image and substance: From symbolic to behavioral relationships’, Public

Relations Review, Vol. 19, Issue 2, pp. 121-139

Grunig, James E. (2002): “Qualitative Methods for Assessing Relationships Between Organizations

and Publics”. Institute for public relations. Can be found via this link:

http://www.instituteforpr.org/topics/organizations-publics-relationships/

Hon, Linda Childers (1998): ’Demonstrating effectiveness in public relations: goals, objectives, and

evaluation’, Public Relations Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 103-135

Hon, Linda Childers; Grunig, James E. (1999): Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public

Relations, Gold Standard Paper of the Commission on Public Relations Measurement & Evaluation.

Can be found via this link:

Page 87 of 234



http://www.aco.nato.int/resources/9/Conference%202011/Guidelines_Measuring_Relationships

%5B1%5D.pdf.

Hume, Craig; Hume, Margree (2008): ’The strategic role of knowledge management in nonprofit

organisations’, International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 13, Issue

2, pp. 129-140

Hung, Chun-ju Flora (2005): ’Exploring types of organization-public relationships and their

implications for relationship management in public relations’, Journal of Public Relations

Research, Vol. 17, Issue 4, pp. 393-426

Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia (2011):’Enabling collaborative innovation – knowledge protection for

knowledge sharing’, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 14, Issue 3, pp. 303-321.

Ipe, Minu (2003): ’Knowledge Sharing on Organizations: A Conceptual Framework’, Human

Ressource Development Review, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 337-359

Jeppesen, Søren (2005):’Critical Realism as an Approach to Unfolding Emperical Findings:

Thoughts on Fieldwork in South Africa on SMEs and Environment’, The Journal of

Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Vol. 4, no.1, pp. 1-9.

The article can be found via this link: http://research.cbs.dk/da/publications/critical-realism-as-an-

approach-to-unfolding-empirical-findings(658c42b0-8eb4-11db-a124-000ea68e967b).html

Johannesen, R. L. (1971): ‘The Emerging concept of communication as dialogue’, The Quarterly

Journal of Speech, Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 373-382

Kale, Prashant; Singh, Harbir (2009): ’Managing strategic alliances: what do we know now, and

where do we go from here’, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 23, Issue 3, pp. 45-62

Ki, Eyung-Jung; Hon, Linda Childers (2007):’Reliability and validity of organization-public

relationship measurement and linkages among relationship indicators in a membership

organization’, Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 84, Issue 3, pp. 419-438.

Klein, Daniel (2009): ‘Disintegrated Marketing’, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 81, Issue 3, pp.

19-20.

Page 88 of 234

http://www.aco.nato.int/resources/9/Conference%202011/Guidelines_Measuring_Relationships%5B1%5D.pdf

http://www.aco.nato.int/resources/9/Conference%202011/Guidelines_Measuring_Relationships%5B1%5D.pdf



Kotler, P. (1994): “Marketing Management”. 8th edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Prentice-

Hall.

Ledingham, J. A.; Bruning, S. D.; Thomlinson, T. D.; Lesko, C. (1997): ‘The applicability of

interpersonal relationship dimensions to an organizational context: Toward a theory of relational

loyalty; A qualitative approach’, The Academy of Managerial Communications Journal, Vol. 1,

No.1, pp. 23-43

Ledingham, John A. (2000): ‘Guidelines to Building and Maintaining Strong Organization-Public

Relationships’, Public Relations Quarterly, Vol. 45, Issue 3, pp. 44-46

Ledingham, John A.; Bruning, Stephen D (1998): ‘Relationship management in public relations:

dimensions of an organization-public relationship’, Public Relations Review, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 55-

65

Ledingham, John A; Bruning, Stephen D.; Wilson, Laurie J. (1999): ‘Time as an indicator of the

perception and behavior of members of a key public: Monitoring and predicting organization-public

relationships’, Journal of Public Relations Research, Vol. 11, Issue 2, pp. 167-183

Lee, Dong-Joo; Ahm, Jae-Hyeon (2005): ‘Rewarding Knowledge Sharing under Measurement

Inaccuracy’, Knowledge Managaement Research & Practice, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 229-243.

Losch, Andreas (2009):’ On the Origins of Critical Realism’, Theology and Science, Vol. 7, No. 1,

pp. 85-106.

Lynch, Richard (2009):"Strategic Management", 5th edition. Pearson Education Limited. Essex,

England.

Maanen, J. van (1979):’ Reclaiming qualitative methods for organizational research: a preface’,

Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 520-526.

Page 89 of 234



Mahoney, John M.; Stasson, Mark F. (2005): ‘Interpersonal and personality dimensions of

behavior: FIRO-B and the big five’, North American Journal of Psychology, June-July, Vol. 7,

Issue 2, pp. 205-216.

McCort, Daniel J. (1994): ‘A framework for evaluating the relational extent of a relationship

marketing strategy: The case of nonprofit organizations’, Journal of Direct Marketing, Vol. 8, No.

2, pp. 53-65

McEvoy, Phil; Richards, David (2006):’ A critical realist rationale for using a combination of

quantitative and qualitative methods’, Journal of Research in Nursing, Vol. 11, Issue1, pp. 66-78.

Ngah, Rohana; Jusoff, Kamaruzaman (2009):’ Tacit Knowledge Sharing and SMEs’ Organizational

Performance’, International Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 1, No.1, February, pp. 216-

220.

Niglas, Katrin (2009):’ How the novice researcher can make sense of mixed methods design’,

International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, Volume 3, Issue 1, April, pp. 34-46.

O’Malley, L.; Tynan, C. (1999):‘The utility of the relationship metaphor in consumer markets: a

critical evaluation’, Journal of Marketing Theory, Vol. 15, Issue 7, pp. 587-602

Oye, N. D.; Salleh, Mazleena; Noorminshah, A. (2011):’ Knowledge Sharing in the Workplace:

Motivators and Demotivators’, International Journal of Managing Information Technology, Vol. 3,

No. 4, November, pp. 71-84.

Palmer, A. J. (2000): ‘Co-operation and competition: a Darwinian synthesis of relationship

marketing’, European journal of Marketing, Vol. 34, Issue 5, pp. 687-704

Phillips, David (2006a): ‘Relationships are the core value for organizations: A practitioner

perspective’, Corporate Communications: An International Journal, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 34-42

Page 90 of 234



Phillips, David (2006b): ‘Towards relationship management: Public relations at the core of

organisational development’, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 211-226

Pratschke, Jonathan (2003):’Realistic Models? Critical Realism and Statistical Models in the Social

Sciences’, Philosophica, Vol. 71, Issue 1, pp. 13-38.

Reed, Michael I. (2001):’Organizations, Trust and Control: A Realist Analysis’, Organizations

Studies, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp. 201-228.

Rogers, C. R. (1959): ‘A theory of Therapy, Personality, and interpersonal relationships as

Developed in the Client-Centered Framework’ in Koch, S.: Psychology: A Study of Science , Vol. 3,

pp. 184-246, Boston. Houghton Mifflin.

Smith, Peter A. C. (2005):’Knowledge sharing and the strategic capital: The importance and

identification of opinion leaders’, The Learning Organization, Vol. 12, No. 6, pp. 563-573.

Smyth, Hedley (2000): Marketing and Selling Construction Services, 1st edition. Wiley-Blackwell,

Oxford.

Smyth, Hedley; Fitch, Tim (2009): ‘Application of relationship marketing and management: A large

contractor case study’, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27, Issue 4, pp. 399-410

Tadajewski, M. (2009): ‘The foundations of relationship marketing: reciprocity and trade relations’,

Marketing Theory, Vol. 9, Issue 1, pp. 9-38

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (1995), ninth edition. Clarendon Press. Oxford.

Varey, Richard J.; Ballantyne, David have written the chapter: ‘Relationship Marketing and the

Challenge of Dialogical Interaction’, pp. 11-28, in Bejou, David; Palmer, Adrian (2005): “The

Future of Relationship Marketing”. 2nd edition. The Haworth Press, Inc., Binghamton, NY.

Page 91 of 234



Wilson, Laurie J. (1994): ‘Excellent companies and coalition-building among the Fortune 500 A

value- and relationship-based theory’, Public Relations Review, Vol. 20, Issue 4, pp. 333-343

Yang, Tung-Mou; Maxwell, Terrence A. (2011): ‘Information-sharing in public organizations: A

literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors’,

Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 28, Issue 2, pp. 164-175.

Zhang, Xi; Chen, Zhenjiao; Vogel, Doug; Yuan, Minghui; Guo, Chuanjie (2010):’ Knowledge-

Sharing Reward Dynamics in Knowledge Management Systems: Game Theory-Based Empirical

Validation’, Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries, Vol. 20, No.

2, pp. 103-122.

Page 92 of 234



Appendix 1: SustainAgri’s overall purpose (2002)

Page 93 of 234



Page 94 of 234



Appendix 2: SustainAgri’s current EU goals

As of July 1, 2011, SustainAgri has initiated its second EU project, which will run until October 2013. The goals of the EU project include internal anchoring of the cluster as well as moving up the value chain. The EU project provides for SustainAgri to research and develop the potential of the cluster collaboration.

The EU project includes six sub-projects, and the overall goal is to create the foundation for collaboration between Danish companies for project export. Focus will be on both the cluster in total as well as the unique needs for development of the single company. The sub-projects are conducted jointly between SustainAgri and our partners.

1. Joint and dynamic market processes

Goal: Completed market initiatives, as well as the pilot and customer projects.

Result: They show great need for the development of a common work process for market and customer information. This project is to develop solutions for a dynamic knowledge flow to be of use for the sales process.

2. Anchoring of new organization models

Goal: This project is to anchor the cluster collaboration within the partner companies in order to obtain the full advantage of the collaboration and ensure coherence between the cluster and the corporate strategies as well as business models.

Result: Project evaluation shows that the cluster initiative has not been fully implemented in the partner companies, as no organizational changes within the companies have been performed.

3. Knowledge sharing and practical learning

Goal: This project aims to develop feedback loops to ensure learning and thereby improve knowledge sharing at both the cluster and company levels.

Result: Learning by doing is one of the cornerstones of project organization. Throughout SustainAgri’s three years of developing solutions and testing them in pilot projects, different problems have occurred, but the experience of the problem-solving activities has yet to be converted into practical learning tools.

Page 95 of 234



4. Standardizing and templates

Goal: To develop a common best practice for sales, tender and planning processes to ensure the necessary changes implemented within the companies.

Result: This sub-project focuses on determining the relationship between the partner companies in order to develop standards and templates, common processes and generic models adaptable for the given customer project.

5. Maturation of the cluster

Goal: SustainAgri is currently witnessing a need among customers as well as potential partner companies to involve companies with focus on the next step of the value chain: the processing of agricultural products.

Result: The 2007-2010 SustainAgri cluster initiative has formed the basis of the commercial breakthrough in turn-key solutions which the partner companies have experienced. With the inclusion of these companies, the communication and the visibility of the cluster as well as business models and arrangements will have to be revised to follow the cluster development.

6. Competency development: From Component Supplier to Cluster Participant

Goal: This sub-project is created to speed up the learning process and the process of the development of networks between old and new companies to ensure a smooth reconciliation of the cluster.

Result: This sub-project focuses on the development and testing of an effective method of implementing the cluster procedures in new partner companies and introducing new colleagues to the work process, tools etc. in a fast and efficient way.

Page 96 of 234



Appendix 3: Organisational structure of SustainAgri

Page 97 of 234



Appendix 4: Interview transcription – Carsten Møller

Interview between the participant Carsten Møller (CM), Vice Director of SustainAgri and Managing Director of Danish Water Services and Danish Energy Solutions, and the interviewer Esben Nørris Christensen (ENC).

The interview took place May 10th and lasted roughly 49 minutes.

ENC: Først inden vi går i gang, vil jeg høre om der er noget, som du gerne vil spørge om?

CM: Nej, jeg synes vi er klar til at begynde.

ENC: Jamen det er også bare helt i orden, så fortsætter vi bare. For at kunne få et indtryk af dig, vil jeg spørge hvad din stillingsbetegnelse i SustainAgri er?

Page 98 of 234



CM: Den er Vicedirektør. Det eneste jeg lige vil nævne i denne forbindelse, er at det mere er en rådgivende funktion jeg har, og jeg har kun 3 timer om ugen. Så det er jo et begrænset ansvarsområde.

ENC: Ja, men du har stadig noget viden om SustainAgri?

CM: Ja.

ENC: Ja, men så fik vi jo også det på plads. Jeg ville også spørge, hvad dit job indebærer, men det har du jo sådan set svaret på. Hvor lang tid har du så arbejdet for SustainAgri?

CM: Jeg startede SustainAgri i 2003, eller rettere sagt, der eksisterede noget der hed SustainAgri her på Fyn. I 2001 tror jeg det blev etableret. Og i 2003 blev jeg bedt om, af den daværende bestyrelsesformand, som i øvrigt stadig er bestyrelsesformand Thorbjørn Sørensen, om jeg ville hjælpe nogle unge mennesker, der sad med et projekt. Og få et indhold i det, som gjorde at det også, ville kunne være en bæredygtig forretning. De havde nogle ideer om, at det skulle være Fyn, om man kunne klare, om jeg så må sige, det hele på Fyn. Men hvis man vil lave eksport, må man jo nok meget hurtigt erkende, at det simpelthen ikke kan lade sig gøre. Fyn er altså for lille. Så jeg blev bedt om, som konsulent, om at udvikle virksomheden. Da det jeg kom med, var det de ønskede at lave, og den daværende direktør, åbenbart, havde fundet et andet arbejde, blev jeg spurgt om jeg ville overtage det. Så fra 2004 og frem til for halvandet år siden, var jeg direktør.

ENC: Der arbejdede du fuldtid for SustainAgri?

CM: Nej. Jeg har jo haft et par virksomheder ved siden af: Danish Water Services og Danish Energy Solutions.

ENC: Nå, ja selvfølgelig. Men vil det sige, at du har delt din 37 timers arbejdsuge op i 3?

CM: Nu findes der i en direktørkontrakt, ikke noget der hedder 37 timer.

ENC: Nå, okay.

CM: Der er man jo så heldig, at man kan arbejde alt det man har lyst til.

ENC: Ja?

CM: Der hedder det bare, at løse opgaven. Kan man gøre det på 3 timer om ugen, så er det jo fint. Kan man lave det på 200 timer om ugen, er der heller ingen der siger noget til det.

ENC: Nej, okay. Der kan man bare se. Først her i interviewet, vil jeg høre dig mht. forholdet mellem SustainAgri og deres partnervirksomheder. Så til at starte med, vil jeg så høre dig om, hvordan du vil definerer et godt arbejdsforhold mellem virksomheder.

CM: Mellem SustainAgri og virksomhederne? Det, det efter min mening, drejer sig om, er at vi tilfører noget værdi, som virksomhederne aktivt kommer til at bruge – på en sådan måde at de tager ansvar, på det vi fælles [SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne] laver. Og får en forståelse af, at

Page 99 of 234



hvis Danmark skal klare sig, eller hvis virksomhederne skal klare sig, internationalt skal de kunne komme med løsningsmodeller. Kunderne forespørger, i dag, løsninger, og ikke at få et enkelt element til en stald, fordi det er i sig selv lidt uinteressant. Styrken ligger i, at kan du få en samlet løsning, der gør at partnervirksomhedernes kunder i virkeligheden har en produktionsfremgang, fx får forbedret indeklimaet, får produceret flere grise eller hvad det end skulle være. Så når vi skal sige, hvad der er godt i et samarbejde, så er det hele den der værdibaserede del, som jeg har nævnt, men også at partnervirksomhederne forstår at indgå i konsortier. Indgå i alliancer. Indgå i samarbejdsprojekter, hvor de alle bidrager på en fornuftig måde, til et fælles projekt.

ENC: Altså bliver mere holdspillere, end de var før.

CM: Ja, og forstår hvad det vil sige, at være holdspiller. Stadig kunne levere helt skarpe priser, når man går ind til et projekt. For hvis man nu er fem virksomheder sammen, og der er bare en, der synes at, nu kan vi godt få lidt ekstra ud af det, så ødelægger han det jo totalt for de øvrige. Så der er utroligt meget arbejde, med at få sådan nogle konsortier til at forstå, hvordan man arbejder sammen, og hvordan man får, om jeg så må sige, givet et fælles tilbud der også holder.

ENC: Okay, ja. Du har jo så svaret på, hvilke aspekter du mener, er de vigtigste. Det er, som jeg har forstået de: Værdibaserede, at partnervirksomhederne kunne arbejde sammen og lave noget i fællesskab?

CM: Ja, og hvor jeg så synes, at SustainAgris rolle i den forbindelse er jo, at være med til at skabe rammerne. Være med til i virkeligheden at finde kunderne. Og så er det jo virksomhederne der skal tage over derfra. Og der er SustainAgris arbejde, at få virksomhederne, til at arbejde sammen. Altså få lavet de der konsortiedannelser, eller samarbejdsaftaler mellem virksomhederne. Og så kan vi jo hjælpe dem igen, når det kommer til finansiering. At vi i virkeligheden medbringer finansieringen, til at få projekterne, reelt kan blive gennemført. Og det er jo vigtigt, jo sværere markeder man beskæftiger sig med, og SustainAgri fokuserer jo mest på Ukraine, Rusland, Rumænien, Bulgarien og sådan nogle lande, hvor finansieringen jo i virkeligheden er meget central for at projekterne kan blive gennemført. Så hvis du kigger alene på SustainAgri, så er det projektudvikling, det er også at generere projekter, det er at skabe rammer for virksomhederne. Og så skal vi følge processen, monitere processen, og så sikre at finansieringen også kommer med, hvis der er et behov for det. Og det er der jo ofte.

ENC: Ja, det er der vel. Hvordan vil du så sige, at SustainAgri gør brug af det, du har nævnt i praksis? Det er ved at de går ud finder kunder, og så laver de der pakkeløsninger til kunderne?

CM: Hvis vi nu tager Ukraine som eksempel. Der har SustainAgri et lokalt kontor, med tre ansatte, som forsøger at finde kunderne. De forsøger simpelthen at sortere alle dem der er blålys [ikke relevante kunder] fra, og finde dem der kunne være interessante, og reelle kunder. Dvs. at de tjekker, om kunderne er kreditværdige.

ENC: Ja?

Page 100 of 234



CM: Hvis de ikke er kreditværdige, så kan de jo ikke få et lån. Og arbejder man med sådan en kunde, i et år på et projekt, så kan du have mistet det hele den dag, hvor projektet skal finansieres og det ikke kan lade sig gøre. Så kontorets opgave er sådan set, at få de rigtige kunder fundet frem. Når de rigtige kunder så er der, og salgsarbejdet er indledt, og SustainAgri måske har været dernede, og fortælle om de finansielle muligheder, jamen så er det, at få det samspil mellem virksomhedsgruppen og kunden i gang. Og så eller supportere den proces og hjælpe med finansieringen. Det er sådan set hovedformålet, og derfor er det typisk SustainAgri der kommer med projekter. Der kommer med kunderne, og som så skal få det hele til at fungere. Når man snakker om konsortier, skal der, for at sådan et projekt kan lykkes, være nogen der fronter [er hovedansvarlig for projektets udførelse], og typisk er SustainAgri af sted med den virksomhed, der fronter netværket, konsortiet eller hvad der ellers kan være tale om. Det er det spil, der i virkeligheden er interessant at få til at hænge rigtig godt sammen.

ENC: Ja. På hvilken måde mener du så, at SustainAgri drager fordel af partnervirksomhedernes kompetencer?

CM: De kompetencer virksomhederne har, dem har SustainAgri ikke. Vi er jo ikke fagligt tekniske. Vi har i virkeligheden de opgaver, der handler om projektudvikling. Altså være gode til at generere projekterne, være gode til at skabe rammerne for projekterne, og være gode til at få finansieringen på plads. Det er jo vores speciale. Vi aner ikke noget om grise, vi aner ikke noget om foder og specialfoder, vi aner ikke noget om mikroklima, vi aner ikke noget om staldindretning i forhold til hvilke dyr der skal være der. Om det er søer, smågrise eller hvad det er. Der er alle fagfolkene jo netop samlet i virksomhederne. Af de virksomheder er der nogen der leverer grise, der er nogen der leverer staldinventar, der er nogen der leverer ventilation, der er nogen der leverer vand og varme, der er nogen der leverer rør til gylleanlæg, der er nogen der leverer gyllebeholdere, der er nogen der leverer biogasanlæg osv. Så på den måde, kan du samle en totalpakke til kunden.

ENC: Så SustainAgri tager sig af det mere overordnede forhold og det mere kommunikationsprægede mellem virksomhederne?

CM: Ja.

ENC: Hvordan vil du så sige, at SustainAgri primært kommunikerer med partnervirksomhederne. Er det fx via mail, telefon eller nyhedsbrev, eller noget helt andet?

CM: Det kan Lasse [Bork Schmidt, Managing Director for SustainAgri] nok bedre svare på. Men jeg kan svare på, hvad der blev gjort for halvanden til to år siden.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Der blev lavet nyhedsbreve, for at sikre at alle fik lidt information, så de ved at der faktisk sker noget. Mere er det ikke. Så blev der skrevet mange mails, naturligvis, til de virksomheder som er involverede, men det væsentligste af det hele er interaktionen mellem menneskerne. Fordi det er jo ligegyldigt hvilken virksomhed det drejer sig om, i sidste ende handler det altid mennesker. Den personlige kommunikation er meget vigtig, især i de indledende processer indtil man har skabt det

Page 101 of 234



nødvendige ejerskab, blandt partnervirksomhederne, for projektet. Jeg vil sige at meget af det, er personlig kommunikation og delvis styring af processen, og så vil det efterfølgende bevæge sig mere over på mail og aftalegrundlag der udarbejdes osv. En række møder og den slags. Men den personlige kommunikationer meget central i det her, hvis du skal have folk til at arbejde sammen. Det gør man ikke via en mail.

ENC: Nej, der må det jo være svært, at få den samme personlige kontakt.

CM: Ja, det er det.

ENC: Men det vil så sige, at kommunikationen varierer meget alt efter, hvilken partnervirksomhed der er tale om?

CM: Ja, det gør det.

ENC: Men kommunikationen er vel også, som du selv siger, meget projektbaseret?

CM: Og meget af kommunikationen er i virkeligheden, med dem der fronter det pågældende projekt.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Hvor deres opgave så er, at sørge for at holde projektets underleverandører aktive.

ENC: Okay.

CM: Underleverandøren bliver så også, via nyhedsbreve og andet, også informeret om hvad der sker på de konkrete projekter. Så det er ikke os [SustainAgri] der kommunikerer til alle involverede parter. Det vigtigste er så, hvis vi kan få skabt det ejerskab, som vi lige snakkede om, hvor virksomheden holdes engagerede i projektet, og hvor der bruges de ressourcer der er nødvendige. Fordi det koster at lave eksport. Der skal virkeligt bruges nogle ressourcer.

ENC: Ja?

CM: Og jo større partnerskab, og jo mere af den slags der skal laves, jo flere ressourcer koster det. Men til gengæld har du så også det, som kunderne efterspørger. Nemlig den samlede pakke. Efter min mening bliver sådanne fremgangsmåder mere og mere nødvendige.

ENC: Ja, det gør det vel. Især for mindre virksomheder?

CM: Ja, for der er jo ingen af dem der kan det hele. De er jo netop specialiserede i staldinventar, eller salg af grise. Du ser dem ikke begynde at samarbejde selv, vel?

ENC: Nej. Det er egentligt utroligt at det har taget så lang tid, før man fik den ide, at man egentligt godt kunne slå sig sammen.

CM: Altså, jeg tror det her emne har været brugt, til festmiddagstaler over det hele de sidste 20 år, eller de 30 år som jeg jo har været involveret efterhånden. Men fra festtalerne og så ned til det

Page 102 of 234



konkrete, det er jo der det svære det er. Alle kan sige de her ting, som jeg sidder og siger nu, og synes at det lyder rigtig fint. Men når du skal sidde og virkelig lave noget, som man senere også kan være økonomisk afhængig af, og at to forskellige slags udstyr lige pludseligt skal spille sammen. Hvem har så ansvaret hvis noget går galt? Det er der det begynder at blive rigtig spændende. Så det er ikke fordi, man ikke har snakket om det her, men der er bare ikke rigtigt skabt modeller. Der er ikke rigtigt skabt øvelser, hvor man har gjort noget ved det. Og det er der jeg mener, at det er det lille bidrag SustainAgri giver. Altså forsøger at give.

ENC: Men det må da også være noget af en barriere, som man så møder på det tidspunkt, man skal tage højde for alle de ting et samarbejde indebærer. Så mister man vel også lidt lysten, til at oprette det samarbejde, fordi man så kommer til at stå med alle de problemer. Det kunne jeg da forestille mig, ville være meget generelt.

CM: Du oplever virksomheder der simpelthen siger, at det gider vi ikke. De synes at det er for voldsom en opgave. Og så forsvinder lysten lige så stille igen. Men så er der jo også andre, der bliver og siger, at det er en spændende udfordring. Og der er altid nogen der kan se lyset, og så nogen der føler at de skal bruge for mange ressourcer for et for lille udbytte. Og så holder de bare fast ved det de er gode til.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Det er jo ikke sådan, at SustainAgri kan tage æren for det jeg siger nu, vel. Men i 2008 begyndte det at gå fuldstændig galt for SustainAgris samarbejde med virksomhedsgruppen investeringsmæssigt. Du ved hvordan prisen på jord, og meget andet er gået ned og landmændene blev insolvente, og kan simpelthen ikke investere mere. Og det betød i 2008, 2009, 2010, at landmændene simpelthen ikke købte danske produkter. Tidligere der væltede det jo op, med nye stalde og nye ideer osv., men det stoppede på det tidspunkt. Og det er kun de virksomheder der nåede at flytte deres produktion fra at være salg i Danmark til eksport. Så vi har virksomheder der er gået fra, 70% på det danske marked og 30% eksport, til at have det omvendte. 70% eksport og 30% på hjemmemarkedet. Og jeg tror, et eller andet sted, at vi har haft en lille medvirken i det der, men det er en proces. Men en proces der ikke er slut endnu. De danske landmænd er ikke derhenne endnu, hvor de er på det vilde forbrugerræs. Det er de simpelthen ikke. Og det er svært for dem, at skaffe finansiering, til at lave nogen som helst forbedringer, og det kan de danske virksomheder godt mærke. Så de skal ud, hvordan de vil gøre det.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Det er min personlige holdning, som du hører her.

ENC: Jamen det er også helt fint. Det var jo også den jeg spurgte efter. Så har jeg et spørgsmål, der måske ikke er så relevant for dig, men hvor lang tid, sådan rent generelt, bruger du på at kommunikere med partnervirksomhederne?

CM: Hvis man tager det samlede forbrug, fordelt på alle tre virksomheder [SustainAgri, Danish Water Services og Danish Energy Solutions], så vil jeg sige at halvdelen af tiden, faktisk går med at

Page 103 of 234



sidde og snakke i telefon, og få fat i dem, og få dem drejet i den retning, som forhåbentligt er, den vej som et fælles projekt kan drives. Så det er rigtig meget af min tid. Og så skal jeg jo også servicere, og kommunikere, og måske også, føre frem mod et eller andet, som man tror er det der kan være den rigtige fælles løsning.

ENC: Vil det så sige, at fonden får en funktion som mere svarer til, at være fælles sekretariat for partnervirksomhederne?

CM: Ja det gør det. Typisk, når sådan nogle projekter går i gang, så går al korrespondance over os, og det er der vi skal være gode til at sikre, og måske også lære, at være gode til at sikre at korrespondance går fra, at vi måske har den, til at vi i virkeligheden kun kommer til at være CC [mailfunktionen når mail sendes eller modtages] på den, når det er hele det faglige forløb der kører. Fordi der skal vi ikke fronte, fordi det er ikke vores spidskompetence. Så vores arbejde er i virkeligheden, mere at få virksomhederne til at arbejde sammen, og komme ud og møde kunderne, og få skabt den troværdighed omkring det hele. Og så er det ellers virksomhederne, der må fronte på hele det faglige område. Hvor vi mere får, hvis det er mailfunktionen, CC funktion, så vi ved hvad der sker, men kun styrer der hvor processen drejer sig om, at få samarbejdet til at fungere eller hvis det handler om finansieringen.

ENC: Ja. Så man går over til, en lidt mere rådgivende eller motivator rollen?

CM: Ja.

ENC: Ja. Hvilke aspekter vil du så sige er de vigtigste, for at man kan opbygge tilliden mellem SustainAgri og så de partnervirksomheder der er?

CM: …

ENC: Altså jeg kan sige, at i faglitteraturen der står at man skal fokusere på integritet, pålidelighed og de kompetencer man kan stille til rådighed fra de forskellige virksomheder.

CM: Det svarer lidt til det jeg også siger, ikke?

ENC: Ja.

CM: Vi har tre-fire kompetencer, og det er dem vi skal holde fast ved. Vi skal ikke prøve at gå ind på andre gebeter. Tværtom, vi skal holde os til det vi er gode til, og det mener jeg stadigvæk er projektudvikling, projektgenerering, rammebetingelser og finansiering. Det er vores kerne. Og hvis det bliver gjort professionelt, så får du også skabt tilliden hos virksomhederne. Og hvis de kan se, at det faktisk først kan komme til at fungere, mellem virksomhederne, ved at have os med så er det et stort skridt. Det kan godt være at det ikke betragtes sådan, men det er det faktisk. Fordi det er noget, der ikke rigtigt findes så mange steder.

ENC: Nej, ikke endnu i hvert fald.

CM: Nej.

Page 104 of 234



ENC: Hvilket tillidsniveau vil du så sige der eksisterer mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne lige pt.?

CM: Jeg tror et eller andet sted at tilliden er der.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Men det er en tynd is, og der skal ikke meget til at bryde den. Men den er der. Og hvis den ikke havde været der, ville SustainAgri ikke eksistere i dag.

ENC: Nej.

CM: Så den er bygget op fra nul, og så til at være en institution der bliver taget alvorligt.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Og hvor der jo er 20 virksomheder med, som er interesserede i at bruge de faciliteter og de værktøjer, som vi har udarbejdet. Så der er en tillid, fra dem vi har med at gøre. Men en virksomhed er jo ikke en mand, eller to mænd. Og vi oplever jo, nu snakker jeg lige lidt bredt igen [om alle 3 fonde], at det afhænger meget af hvem i virksomheden det drejer sig om. Vi kan jo ikke servicere alle mennesker i en virksomhed, så vi har en kontaktperson.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Og det der cirkler om ham, har en rimelig høj troværdighed. Men nogle gange ser du, at medarbejdere i virksomhederne vil selv. Og også vil tage æren for det selv.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Og derfor kan der være en interesse i, at koble os af. Og det oplever vi også. At enkeltmedarbejdere ligesom lukker af, for at sige at det klarer jeg selv.

ENC: Nå.

CM: Og det er helt fint. Et eller andet sted, har vi jo ikke brug for at blive fremhævet, for at have lavet et eller andet stort. Men det er jo nogle problematikker der gør, at den der tillid, også afhænger af hvem det er, i de enkelte virksomheder.

ENC: Så det vil sige, at mængden af tillid afhænger af, hvem i har mest kontakt til?

CM: Ja, og hvis du har nogle sælgere. Det er den ene sælger der er hos os, ikke?

ENC: Ja.

CM: Det er jo ikke ensbetydende med, at de andre sælgere synes at de vil følge vores regler, hvis de har en anden vinkel på det. Så vi er meget afhængige af den der kommunikation, vi har med de centrale personer i partnervirksomhederne.

ENC: Men de plejer også tit, at være højt placeret i hierarkiet, gør de ikke?

Page 105 of 234



CM: Jo.

ENC: Og netop derfor, går jeg ud fra, at det kan fungere sådan?

CM: Det gør tingene lettere. Så er det direktøren man snakker med, så bliver tingene sendt ned i systemet, og så fungerer det langt, langt bedre.

ENC: Hvor meget tillid, vil du sige, der er virksomhederne imellem i SustainAgris klynge?

CM: Det er jo der, det begynder at blive vanskeligt. Altså de helt svære øvelser i det her, det er jo, og jeg tror faktisk at jeg glemte at sige det før, det med konsortiedannelser.

ENC: Ja?

CM: Og for reelt at få virksomhederne til at arbejde sammen, når der også er økonomi imellem dem.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Få sikret at der er nogle back-to-back aftaler [samarbejdsaftaler mellem virksomhederne i et projekt], som de kan leve med, og som de synes er retfærdige også. Og der vil jeg sige, at det betyder rigtig meget, at de sidder sammen. At de snakker sammen. Fordi virksomheder som sådan, har jo ikke tillid imellem sig, men det kan personer, der bærer de her virksomheder, have.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Og der betyder det meget, at man kommunikerer på fornuftig vis, og får bygget et tillidsforhold op fordi det er det der bærer det, i sidste ende. Selvfølgelig skal de have nogle hamrende gode produkter, og nogle priser der er konkurrencedygtige internationalt, men i sidste ende drejer det sig altså også om, at der er den tillid mellem dem der skal bære det igennem.

ENC: Ja.

CM: At man kan blive enige. Fx hvis man laver et projekt, og der er fem virksomheder med, i Bulgarien eller hvor det nu er, hvor man så siger, at der er ingen grund til, at man tager fem virksomheder af sted derned sammen med Lasse [Bork Schmidt]. Så sender vi en mand af sted, og skal vi så ikke alle sammen kaste nogle penge i det, og deles om de omkostninger der måtte være?

ENC: Ja.

CM: Jamen, for at gøre det, kræver det jo en troværdighed, det kræver en tillid. Det kræver især en tillid til den mand der tager derned, ikke kun kæmper for sit eget produkt men kæmper for det projekt, den løsning, som de samlet repræsenterer.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Sælger du staldinventar, og er den der tager derned, og så projektet ender med kun at være om staldinventar, vil det ikke skabe lykke i resten af kredsen. Så derfor er det utrolig vigtigt, at den

Page 106 of 234



person har den opbakning, men også respekterer det konsortium, eller den opgave, han i virkeligheden er sat på. Og ikke kun gå, efter sin egen lille del af sådan et projekt, men gå efter det samlede.

ENC: Ja. Jamen der er det vel også vigtigt, at man så tænker over, når man er en del af et konsortium, at man måske optræder mere som en form for ambassadør for det samlede konsortium.

CM: Ja. Du er ambassadør. Du er repræsentant for den virksomhed du er i, og så er du ambassadør for de andre. Og det er egentligt et meget godt udtryk. Du er vitterligt ambassadør for de andre. Og de vil kun være taget med, hvis de har nogle gode produkter, ellers kan du heller ikke være ambassadør for dem, hvis du inderst inde synes at deres produkter ikke er gode. Så er det jo den dårligste ambassadør man kan have.

ENC: Man skal jo gerne kunne stå inde for det, de andre laver.

CM: De skal stå inde for det, og de skal kende det, og vide hvad de har med at gøre.

ENC: Ja, jamen det er jo rigtigt nok. Det leder også meget godt, hen til næste spørgsmål. Som er, hvordan SustainAgri samarbejder med partnervirksomhederne. Og her tænker jeg ikke så meget på projekter, men det de gør for, ligesom du sagde, at have noget mere kontakt til deres kontaktpersoner i de forskellige virksomheder, for at skabe et bedre samarbejde.

CM: Det har vi været noget inde på. Jeg tror at det sker en del i grupperinger.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Det kan være nogen der tager sig af kvæg. Det er en gruppe virksomheder du arbejder med. Der kan være nogen der tager sig af svin, det er en anden gruppe. Der kan være nogen der tager sig af mejerier, og det er en tredje gruppe. Og det er jo dem, du så servicerer som grupper.

ENC: Okay.

CM: Og får dem til at arbejde sammen. Og så engang imellem, så laver du et stort arrangement, hvor du tager dem alle sammen med på tværs af grupperne. Fx har vi lejet et skib nogle gange, og har haft måske 20 farmere, på det her skib. Og der kan de så være alle sammen. Fordi der kan jo både være interesse for slagterier, mejerier, grisefarme, kvæg, kyllinger og hvad ved jeg.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Så du arbejder i de der delklynger af klyngen. Der har et fagligt indsatsområde, og så prøver du engang imellem at få det bredt ud. Også ved at du holder nogle virksomhedsmåder om året, hvor alle virksomhederne mødes og udveksler erfaringer.

ENC: Ja. Hvordan vil du sige partnervirksomhederne hjælper til, i forbindelse med opbygningen af arbejdsforholdet med SustainAgri? Hvad kan de byde ind med?

Page 107 of 234



CM: De byder så ind med de kompetencer, som de nu sidder med. Det er hele den tekniske faglige kompetence. Den har de. Og det er i virkeligheden den de byder ind med. Og så byder de ind med de ressourcer, som de er villige til at kaste ind, i det her fællesskab. De er de to ting, som de kommer med, og som er vigtige. Og der har du forskellige kategorier af virksomheder. Du har nogen der er med, og som vil det og mener det, du har nogen der er med som vil det, men ikke rigtigt kan finde ud af, hvordan de skal gøre det. Du har nogen som er med, og som er der for at være der, og høre hvad sker der, og som helst ikke vil gå glip af noget. Og du har nogen, nu er jeg nok lidt grov, som er der, for at sørge for at andre ikke kommer ind. Uden at man dermed har intentioner om, at kaste en masse ressourcer efter det. Og dvs. at du også har forskellige niveauer af entusiasme, hos disse virksomheder. Og det er virkeligheden. Den kommer du ikke udenom.

ENC: Nej.

CM: Sådan er det desværre.

ENC: Men det er sjovt at tænke på, at der kan være forskellige ambitionsniveauer, når man skulle tro, at de alle er der, for at komme til at eksportere deres produkter.

CM: Ja. Sådan er det. Og sådan er det lidt med danskere. En dårlig vittighed er: Fire rådgivere der sidder på et værtshus i Rumænien, eller hvor det nu er, og sidder og griner og hygger sig. Og så kommer der en anden af deres bekendte hen, og hører dem hvad de griner af. Om de har vundet en ordre? Nej, men de havde sørget for, at en femte virksomhed ikke fik den.

ENC: [Griner]

CM: Og sådan har vi det lidt i Danmark, ikke også?

ENC: Ja.

CM: At egen lykke er godt, men andres ulykke skal man jo heller ikke, helt kimse af.

ENC: Nej. Det er selvfølgelig rigtigt nok.

CM: Det er lidt groft sagt, ikke? Men lige det der spil med virkelig at hjælpe hinanden, og være de der ambassadører, og være 100% engagerede. Det er et stort krav. Som ikke altid kan honoreres. Og der oplever vi virkelig, at der er stor forskel på den entusiasme, og den grad af ressourceindsats, som de enkelte virksomheder kommer med. Og så oplever man en anden ting, som jeg synes er vigtigt også at fremhæve, at den reelle ressourceindsats og deltagelsen, den kommer på det konkrete projekt.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Den teoretiske del, som vi har brugt rigtig lang tid på at bygge op, er ikke lige det partnervirksomhederne synes er mest spændende. Det er omkring konkrete projekter, det er der man får afprøvet de teoretiske baggrunde, som vi har brugt masser af ressourcer på, og arbejdet meget med.

Page 108 of 234



ENC: Det er vel med projekterne, man får partnervirksomhederne til at blive ved med, at holde interessen for samarbejdet med SustainAgri?

CM: Ja.

ENC: Sådan at de også kan mærke, at det bliver til noget?

CM: Ja.

ENC: Ved du hvilke tiltag SustainAgri, enten har gjort, eller tænker på at gøre mht. at udvikle forholdet mellem dem selv og partnervirksomhederne? Der tænker jeg om man fx vil lukke flere ind i klyngen.

CM: Det man prøver på, det er at finde flere virksomheder, der kan komplimentere, dem man allerede har.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Man har udviklet en gruppe nu med mejerier. Det har man ikke haft før.

ENC: Nej.

CM: Så man kan sige, at det er endnu et led, i den samlede ”jord til bord” øvelse. Og det passer smukt sammen med de andre ting man har haft.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Og man er i gang med også, og det er nok en lidt sværere øvelse, at lave slagteridelen. Og der er vi jo ved at være derhenne, hvor vi jo i hvert fald har, nogle ganske, ganske få kæmpeslagterier i Danmark, og så har vi nogle gårdslagterier.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Og det kan godt være, at det er den der gårdslagteridel, der skal arbejdes lidt med på nuværende tidspunkt. Fordi Ukraine og den struktur de fx har, kan være interesseret i at få etableret de der mindre slagterier rundt omkring i landet.

ENC: Ja. Okay.

CM: Så de bygger op, og komplimenterer efterhånden den gruppe af virksomheder, der kunne være interessante.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Og ellers vil Lasse [Bork Schmidt] nok fortælle mere om det.

ENC: Ja. Det er også det jeg tænker. Det er jo noget af det, han ved noget om.

CM: Det ved han noget om.

Page 109 of 234



ENC: Altså vi har jo nok været inde på det: Men hvilke forventninger tror du partnervirksomhederne har til samarbejdet med SustainAgri?

CM: De har den forventning at vi kommer med nogle projekter, som vi kan få gennemført. Og der har vi for få, på nuværende tidspunkt. Og det gælder ikke kun landbrug men også de andre fonde. Der er for få projekter, hvor vi har de samlede løsninger, der bare kan gennemføres. Og det er det de forventer.

ENC: Ja.

CM: At det her på et tidspunkt, kan mærkes på deres bundlinje. Det er interessen.

ENC: Men altså. De har vel en eller anden form for forventning om, at når de træder in som ny virksomhed, så om x antal år, så begynder de at sælge?

CM: Ja. Og det behøves ikke være noget der giver credit til SustainAgri.

ENC: Nej.

CM: Men når du tager en virksomhed som Skov [en af SustainAgris partnervirksomheder] fx, jamen så i den tid de har været med i Ukraine, der har de fået bygget en flot virksomhed op.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Og det ved jeg ikke, om de havde fået gjort uden os. Men i hvert fald, har de fået adgang til kunderne, fået bygget op, deres folk har været med os ude adskillige gange. Så et eller andet sted har vi jo spillet en rolle i det her, om ikke andet så hjulpet med en klarlæggelse af, hvad er deres strategier for det pågældende land. Så jo, jeg tror faktisk at vi på mange punkter, har været med til at bidrage til det. Om vi nogensinde får credit for det, det skal jeg ikke kunne sige. Men jeg tror også at alle partnervirksomheder vil sige, at nu skal der altså vises nogle resultater. Og resultater måles faktisk på, at der kommer noget på bundlinjen. At der kommer nogle projekter ud af det, som man kan måle og veje. Det projekt kom hjem til os. Alt imens de får opbygget en viden om markedet, og kommer ind på det. Det vil de måske ikke engang, sådan rigtig fortælle om, eller tænke på.

ENC: Nej, de synes vel at det alligevel er lidt ligegyldigt, fordi de ikke tjent noget ved det?

CM: Nej, sådan tror jeg ikke, at de vil se på det. Men jeg tror bare ikke, at de vil tænke over den viden, og den mængde af informationer og den opbygning af kunderelationer, som vi har startet. Og hvor meget det så betyder, for mange af de efterfølgende beslutninger, de så har truffet.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Fordi der er jo flere af dem, der så har fået kontorer dernede, og som arbejder i Ukraine. Og hvor der ikke var det før.

ENC: Nej.

Page 110 of 234



CM: Så noget positivt er der jo sket.

ENC: Så noget er der da sket.

CM: Ja. Men du spurgte hvad de ville sige?

ENC: Ja.

CM: Og der kunne jeg godt tro, at de ville sige at nu mangler vi nogle flere konkrete projekter. Som viser, at det her med at arbejde sammen, at det virkelig er løsningen.

ENC: Ja. Og som du så også siger. Partnervirksomhedernes måde at vurdere forholdet på, er at kigge på bundlinjen, og se hvad der er sket.

CM: Har vi fået nogle ordrer? Det betyder det.

ENC: Men hvad er SustainAgris måde at gøre det på? Er det på den samme måde, med at tælle ordrer for at se, hvordan det går med forholdet?

CM: Det er jo om virksomhederne bliver i netværket. Om de deltager, om de er aktive, og så i sidste ende også, om det giver os noget. Fordi vi har to ting der skal give på bundlinjen. Det er timer fra de deltagende virksomheder, og det er delfinansieringen fra den ene side, og det andet der skal give noget på bundlinjen, kan man sige, det er at de finansielle øvelser på et tidspunkt skal til at tage over. Så det er dem, der i virkeligheden bidrager til driften af SustainAgri.

ENC: Ja. Det er vel også nødvendigt på et tidspunkt, når man kommer dertil?

CM: Ja. Der er måske en to-tre år til. Så skal det kunne finansiere sig selv. Og det kan kun være på projekter. Og der mærker man fra dag et, hvis ikke projekterne kommer ind.

ENC: Der vil det vel også være mere konsekvent, mht. entusiasmen fra partnervirksomhederne? Der er man bare nødt til at have nogen der gider.

CM: Og uden dem, så bliver der ingenting.

ENC: Nej.

CM: Så det hele er bundet op på, at der er nogle virksomheder der tror på ideen, der tror på at finansieringen kan være den lim, der i virkeligheden binder dem sammen. Og så at vi forstår, at få de her ting, til at fungere i praksis. Det er jo dejlig simpelt.

ENC: Ja, altså når man sidder og siger det på den måde, så er det jo dejlig simpelt. Jeg ved bare ikke, om alle folk ville være enige i det, når først man står med problemet.

CM: Det er jeg heller ikke sikker på. Og man ryger jo ind, i mange forskellige problemer.

ENC: Ja, det er jo også det. Og det virker jo egentligt fantastisk, for jeg synes at det altid virker som nogle simple problemstillinger, hvis man ser helt objektivt på det. Men hvis man så går længere ind

Page 111 of 234



i det, og bliver lidt mere subjektiv, og kigger på de forskellige folk involverede i tingene, så bliver det lidt mere nuanceret. Og måske også mere besværligt at træffe en beslutning.

CM: Ja.

ENC: Ja. Den sidste del jeg sådan lige, vil høre noget om, det er mht. knowledge management, som er vidensindsamling.

CM: Ja.

ENC: Og mht. indsamling af viden, hvordan gør SustainAgri, eller fondene generelt, for at indsamle viden? Det er jo selvfølgelig nok mest baseret, på de projekter de har. Men hvad gør de, for at få fat i den viden der kan være relevant i den sammenhæng?

CM: Det er faktisk svært sådan lige at sige, for meget af den viden som skal være en baggrund, ikke kun for os men for alle virksomhederne, bliver til ved simpelthen at samle ind på national basis. Og finde ud af, hvad kan lade sig gøre?

ENC: Ja.

CM: Hvad er kornpriserne, hvad er oliepriserne, hvad er grisepriserne, hvad er slagtepriserne? Sådan nogle helt almindelige ting. Hvor mange grise får du per årsso? Får de 13 og vi kan lave 30? Hvordan finder vi så ud af, hvordan bundlinjen bliver, når vi laver sådan et projekt? Så vi forsøger at skabe en fælles forståelse for en vare, og det ved hele tiden at samle informationer, og følge hvordan udviklingen på det her marked så er. Og det kan faktisk svinge temmelig meget.

ENC: Okay.

CM: Og det er vi med til. Og så prøver vi jo velsagtens, at få informationer af de enkelte virksomheder, og få det samlet, således at flere arbejder ud fra det samme vidensniveau.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Fordi er der nogen der mangler viden, så går det jo galt.

ENC: Jamen det er jo også det. Så kan man jo ikke helt, have en ligelig fordeling.

CM: Nej, det kan du jo ikke. Det gør det lidt vanskeligt. Og jo mere professionel kunden er, jo lettere er det at agere. Og ofte har du jo, en gruppe af danske virksomheder på lidt forskellige niveauer, med en kunde der slet ikke er professionel. Det kan give nogle specielle konflikter.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Et typisk eksempel, som jeg da kender til, er at kunderne kun tænker på billige løsninger. Når de så har set løsningerne, tænker de på, hvordan kan jeg skære det i småbidder, så vi kan købe en skrue der, og et søm der, og et murebor der, osv. for at gøre det billigere. Og så glemmer de helheden.

Page 112 of 234



ENC: Ja.

CM: Og det kan godt være at de kan få det 40% billigere, måske, men jeg har set flere eksempler på, især i Ukraine, hvor de har bygget et projekt op, med basis i noget de har været med, til at få udviklet hos os, men er blevet enige om at de nok kan gøre det 20-30-40% billigere selv.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Så får de bygget det op, og så går der fire år, så kommer kunden tilbage og siger ”Årh, det duede altså ikke, det vi fik lavet.” Vi har lige et eksempel fra SustainAgri, med en farm, hvor kunden byggede et slagteri selv, og det er aldrig kommet i gang.

ENC: Nå.

CM: Men han troede at han kunne gøre det billigere og bedre selv.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Og han lavede lige nøjagtigt den der, så køber jeg lidt hist og her. Og så kommer de alligevel igen. Så tog det projekt, der kunne laves på et halvt år, lige to et halvt år i stedet for. Og det er aldrig kommet i gang.

ENC: Nej. Men så er der vel også meget forarbejde fra SustainAgris side, som er gået tabt pga. at kunden vælger at lave det hele selv.

CM: Ja. Det hele er jo et eller andet sted tabt.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Fordi så prøver de at finde ud af, om de kan få billigere staldinventar i Rumænien eller om de kan få noget fra Kina. Fordi reelt får vi det jo også produceret i Kina, og det ved kunderne jo, for de er aldrig dumme. Heller ikke fra østlandene. Så de vil gerne krejle sig igennem processen, fordi det er jo noget de alle dage har været vant til. De vil gerne de samlede løsninger, men de forstår måske ikke helt processen. De forstår ikke alvoren i, at man så også skriver en samlet kontrakt. De elsker at få det dechifreret ned i skruer og bolte og møtrikker.

ENC: Okay. Jeg tror vi har været igennem alle spørgsmålene.

CM: Har vi været det hele igennem?

ENC: Ja, det sidste jeg så har, er ang. vidensdeling partnervirksomhederne imellem, og om det er noget der finder sted, eller om alting går igennem SustainAgri?

CM: Jeg ved at det finder sted. Og jeg ved også, at det finder sted i SustainAgri. For der er fx nogle af virksomhederne der er gået sammen, og har lavet partnerskaber.

ENC: Nå.

Page 113 of 234



CM: I Serbien ved jeg, at der er fire af vores partnervirksomheder, der har været ned, og faktisk få en meget, meget stor ordre. Altså over 100 millioner kroner.

ENC: Nå.

CM: Som de sammen udfører dernede. Altså det er jo bare et eksempel på, at det jo godt kan lade sig gøre.

ENC: Ja, okay. Jeg har hørt meget om SustainAgriklyngen, at de ikke er så gode til at arbejde sammen.

CM: Det er de heller ikke, men der er nogen der gør det. Og det her er jo også med til at lære dem, hvordan de kunne arbejde sammen.

ENC: Ja.

CM: Og hvis du så finder fire virksomheder, der alle siger, jamen skulle vi ikke gøre det, og de kan blive enige om, at ham der tager af sted, og repræsenterer dem, han er ambassadør for de andre også. Og man går efter det. Man går ikke efter et delprojekt. Det er et fælles projekt der bliver lagt på bordet, og en fælles pris på det samlede projekt. Så kan det lade sig gøre, og det er der et par stykker der har bevist.

ENC: Ja, det lyder da godt at det kan.

CM: Ja, ja. Jamen selvfølgelig kan det lade sige gøre. Og hvis det ikke kunne lade sig gøre, kunne vi jo også lige så godt pakke sammen, kan man jo sige. Fordi det her er jo måske nok svært, men det er jo ikke umuligt. Og det er måske der, vi kan adskille os fra nogle franskmænd, tyskere og spaniere. Og så bygge videre på det, ved at demonstrere at det fungerer. Kunderne kan tage ud på enhver farm, og se at der er 27 smågrise per årsso. Og det er der bare. Det kan dokumenteres. Så vi har jo et helt demonstratorium i Danmark. Og det er jo en stærk ting, både at kunne gå ud og sælge et samlet koncept, men du kan også vise, at det rent faktisk bliver brugt, og at det fungerer.

ENC: Det fik mig lige til at tænke på, at jeg skrev noget i december om konsortier. Hvor der faktisk var nogen der havde skrevet, at for konsortier ville den vigtigste opgave være at man havde medlemsvirksomhederne i et vidst antal år, og at man vidste at man var succesfuld på det tidspunkt, de meldte sig ud for at kunne arbejde selvstændigt og eksportere selv.

CM: Ja. Sådan vil det også komme til at fungere. Partnervirksomhederne kan jo sådan set sige, at nu har vi brugt en masse ressourcer, på at være med i det her, og nu mener faktisk godt at vi kan selv. Sammen med nogle andre virksomheder. Og det er jo fint. Altså vores opgave er at støtte danske virksomheder. Vi har ikke andre opgaver. Vi skal ikke forsøge at binde dem til os. Man kan sige at i danske virksomheder, vil det være meget få, der fx kan finde på at uddanne sig, så de kan klare finansieringsdelen selv.

ENC: Ja, det er selvføleligt rigtig nok.

Page 114 of 234



CM: Og derfor vil de jo, formentligt og forhåbentligt, komme tilbage. Og sige, kunne i ikke hjælpe mig. Men hvis de kan klare det andet selv, så er vores øvelse jo lykkedes. Så har de nogle værktøjer de kan bruge, og det er bare perfekt. Så det må vi aldrig komme til at klage over.

ENC: Nej.

CM: Tværtom.

ENC: Nej.

CM: Så det behøves ikke at være negativt, at partnervirksomhederne går ud og siger, at nu kan vi selv.

ENC: Ja, det er jo selvfølgelig rigtigt nok. Men når man først tænker over det, kan det godt lyde lidt negativt, fordi man så tager forretningsgrundlaget væk fra fondene.

CM: Forhåbentligt ligger det forretningsgrundlag så på det finansielle side i den sidste ende.

ENC: Ja, det er jo også det. Det er jo noget der skiller alle tre fonde ud fra så mange andre.

CM: Ja. Det er projektudvikling, konsortiedannelse og så finansiering. Ikke også?

ENC: Ja.

CM: Mig bekendt i hvert fald.

ENC: Ja. Jeg tror egentligt at det var det, så med mindre du har andet at tilføje, vil jeg afslutte interviewet her, og sige mange tak fordi du ville afsætte tiden til det.

CM: Perfekt. Jamen, jeg har ikke mere at tilføje. Og det var så lidt. Du kan jo bare komme, hvis der er mere du gerne vil have svar på.

Appendix 5: Interview transcription – Christian Sønderup

Interview with the participant Cristian Sønderup (CS), Project Manager of the Development Group – a group working with SustainAgri as well as Danish Energy Solutions and Danish Water Services.

The interviewer is Esben Nørris Christensen (ENC).

The interview took place 10th May and lasted about 45 minutes.

Page 115 of 234



ENC: Først vil jeg sige mange tak, fordi du gider at deltage I dette interview. Til at starte med, vil jeg forklare lidt mere om opgavens formål.

CS: Ja, det vil jeg gerne høre om.

ENC: Opgaven går ud på, at jeg kigger på kommunikationen mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne, og hvordan kommunikationen påvirker forholdet parterne og om forholdet kan forbedres på nogle måder. Og jeg kigger nærmere på knowledge managment – hvordan man laver vidensdeling og vidensindsamling, og om det er noget der har en effekt på forholdet mellem de involverede parter. Og om det muligvis er noget der kan forbedres, for at gøre forholdet bedre. Så det var i grove træk det opgaven går ud på. Først vil jeg så spørge ind til dig, mht. hvad din stillingsbetegnelse er og hvad dit job går ud på?

CS: Jamen, min stillingsbetegnelse er at jeg er leder af en udviklingsafdeling, som ligger fælles for de tre fonde, der har kontorfællesskab her. Det er SustainAgri, Danish Water Services og Danish Energy Solutions. Min rolle er i den sammenhæng, at være med til at assistere de tre fonde i udviklingen af forskellige produkter, og samtidigt også forestå den rapportering der er i forbindelse med Erhvervs- og Byggestyrelsen. Derudover over har jeg også den rolle, mere eller mindre, at være limen der får det hele til at hænge sammen i dagligdagen

ENC: Ja.

CS: Så det er sådan meget kort. Men specifikt i forhold til SustainAgri, der har jeg tidligere været studentermedarbejder, og jeg har nu, flere gange, været af sted med direktøren, Lasse Bork Schmidt, hvor vi har været i udlandet på forskellige eksportfremstød, og der har jeg fortalt om vores finansieringsprodukter til relevante kunder. Så har jeg også hjulpet virksomhederne med forskellige opgaver.

ENC: Ja. Og hvor lang tid har du så arbejdet for SustainAgri?

CS: Jeg blev studentermedarbejder i 2009, var der i et år, blev flyttet over i Danish Water Services, hvor jeg var i halvandet år, hvor jeg var indtil jeg blev flyttet ind i denne tværfondslige stilling. Så det er noget der ligner to år i alt [med 37 timer om ugen], men over en længere periode.

ENC: Ja. Okay. De næste spørgsmål har jeg delt ind i kategorier, svarende til de kategorier jeg har været inde og kigge på til min opgave. Så spørgsmålene kommer lidt slavisk i forhold til, hvordan jeg har beskæftiget mig med emnerne.

CS: Selvfølgelig.

ENC: Det første handler om forhold. Forholdet mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne.

CS: Ja.

ENC: Og hvordan du vil definere et godt arbejdsforhold mellem to virksomheder?

Page 116 of 234



CS: Jeg vil sige at et godt arbejdsforhold mellem to virksomheder, i denne her sammenhæng, er lidt atypisk i forhold til hvad man nok ellers vil klassificere som et godt arbejdsforhold mellem to almindelige kommercielle virksomheder. Man kan sige, at her er vi i en fond, som faciliterer en gruppe virksomheder, og skal få denne gruppe af virksomheder til at arbejde sammen om nogle konkrete projekter. Det vil altså sige at partnervirksomhederne, har et behov for SustainAgri på nogle bestemte tidspunkter, og har et behov for at SustainAgri informerer om, hvad der generelt sker i gruppen. Så såfremt SustainAgri kan, dels facilitere når partnervirksomhederne har et behov for det, og dels kan informere når der sker noget i gruppen. Så er man allerede der langt. Spørgsmålet er så om partneren gør tilpas opmærksom på når der er et behov, og om SustainAgri er gode nok til selv at kommunikere.

ENC: Ja.

CS: Umiddelbart vil jeg, i denne sammenhæng, mene at begge dele godt kan forbedres. Men jeg synes som udgangspunkt, at der er en udmærket kommunikation i gruppen.

ENC: Kan du komme med et eksempel på, hvad du mener mht. ikke at være så gode til at kommunikere?

CS: Det er fx i forhold til, hvis en partner i gruppen kommer med et projekt, og vi arbejder videre med projektet. Spørgsmålet er så hvornår i forløbet vi skal orientere gruppen. Der kunne man godt have en kortere reaktionstid. Det kan være at en partner er blevet lovet nogle informationer, eller noget materiale, og de så får det på et senere tidspunkt end aftalt. Det kan også være, at partneren reelt set er for langsomme, til at give os de informationer som vi har behov for.

ENC: Så det handler om, at være lidt bedre til at kommunikere?

CS: Det handler meget om at være bedre til at reagere. I sidste ende, er det at være omstillingsparat og hurtig til at reagere, vigtigt i sådan en sammenhæng, som vi er i her.

ENC: Ja.

CS: Samtidigt vil jeg også sige, at mængden af information også godt kunne være større.

ENC: Okay. Ud fra alt det du lige har sagt, hvilke aspekter mener du så er vigtigst, i forhold til at kunne få et godt arbejdsforhold?

CS: Jeg vil helt sikkert sige, at det handler om gensidig forståelse for, hvorfor partneren har valgt at være med i SustainAgri, og at partneren har oprigtig interesse, for SustainAgris formål. For hvis man ikke har det, bliver man let skuffet, hvorimod dem som er gået ind i SustainAgri, med de rigtige forudsætninger, også er glade for den kommunikation der finder sted.

ENC: Ja.

Page 117 of 234



CS: Så gensidig forståelse og også en fokus, fra vores side, på at holde partnerne opdaterede hele tiden, sådan at de mærker at SustainAgri lever og fungerer, og ikke bare er to til tre årlige virksomhedsmøder. Men at der sker noget løbende.

ENC: At de føler at de får noget ud af at være medlem?

CS: Lige præcist. For de betaler jo både med timer og med kontant tilskud, så selvfølgelig skal de også føle, at de får noget ud af det.

ENC: Ja. Nu du lige nævner det, mht. penge. Partnervirksomhederne betaler et kontingent?

CS: De betaler et kontingent på 15.000 kr.

ENC: Ja. På hvilken måde mener du at SustainAgri drager fordel af de forskellige partnervirksomheder?

CS: SustainAgri drager jo fordel af partnervirksomhederne, på flere forskellige måder. Dels er SustainAgris grundide at man kan levere komplette løsninger inden for forskellige områder i landbrugssektoren. Det kan fx være at sælge en komplet svinestald med ventilation, svinestier, og selvfølgelig også svinene til at putte i dem. Så det er det med, at en enkelt dansk virksomhed, kan måske kun levere en enkelt komponent, men ved at være med i SustainAgri, så har man en mere holistisk tilgang til en bondemands problemstilling.

ENC: Ja. Jeg tror det var meget dækkende. For så at komme videre, til den mere kommunikationsrelaterede del. Hvilke måder kommunikerer SustainAgri mest med deres partnervirksomheder?

CS: Det er jo igennem mails, igennem hjemmesiden. Det er de to, som man generelt modtager information på. Der er et nyhedsbrev der bliver sendt ud hver tredje måned ca., og så er der en hjemmeside, der også indeholder nyheder og informationer omkring fonden. Derudover afhænger det også af, at partneren selv giver udtryk for, at den har brug for noget sparring. Og den kommunikation foregår direkte gennem Lasse, Carsten eller mig, eller gennem vores ukrainske kontor. Og så er der jo en direkte kommunikation gennem både telefon og e-mail, som også finder sted der. Så det er mest de metoder vi gør brug af. Og så selvfølgelig også virksomhedsmøder, hvor man har de her direkte samtaler om, hvor man er på vej hen, hvor man gerne vil hen, og hvad der er sket i den forgangne periode. Og så er der også individuelle partnermøder. Derudover har nogle af partnerne også møder, hvor SustainAgris sekretariat ikke er til stede.

ENC: Ja, og som du også selv siger, så er personlig kontakt vel en vigtig del af kommunikationen.

CS: Det er det helt bestemt.

ENC: Altså vil du sige, at det er den vigtigste måde at kommunikere på?

CS: Jeg vil sige at flere af kontaktformerne, definerer jo forskellige aspekter af SustainAgri. Man kan sige at der er den generelle information af hvad der sker. Og det er jo fint nok at den er mere

Page 118 of 234



skriftlig, men i forhold til at lykkedes med at lave projekter, handler det også langt hen af vejen, om personlige relationer. Personlige relationer får man meget, meget sjældent gennem telefonen eller med e-mails, så derfor ser vi ofte at dem som kender hinanden bedst, er dem der har lettest ved at lave projekter sammen. Derfor er denne direkte kommunikation også et vigtigt element i forhold til at klyngen fungerer.

ENC: Okay. Hvor ofte vil du sige SustainAgri kommunikerer med partnervirksomhederne? Nu har du jo sagt, at det ikke finder sted så ofte som det burde.

CS: Jeg vil sige, at der er nyhedsbrevet som, hvis det bliver sendt ud hver tredje måned, egentligt er fint i forhold til aktiviteterne der finder sted. I forhold til hjemmesiden, og hvornår den bliver opdateret, kunne det godt være hurtigere når der sker noget, og der kunne godt være flere informationer på. Det er det ene sted hvor der er plads til forbedring. Det andet sted er den kommunikation der forgår direkte mellem partnervirksomhederne og SustainAgri. Der skal partnerne også gerne være hurtige i forhold til, at sige til hvornår de har brug for hjælp, fordi vi ikke altid kan vide hvornår de har behovet. Og samtidigt skal vi jo selvfølgelig også, når vi lover vores partnere noget, være gode til at overholde de tidsfrister selv.

ENC: Ja. Ellers er det jo svært, at have et arbejdsforhold der fungerer.

CS: Selvfølgelig.

ENC: Generelt set hvor meget tid bruger du på at kommunikere med partnervirksomhederne i alle 3 fonde? Nu har du jo ikke en stilling, hvor du kun beskæftiger dig med en fond.

CS: Altså, jeg vil sige at jeg i løbet af en uge, kommunikerer jeg med en håndfuld partnervirksomheder fordelt på de tre fonde. Så derudover står jeg jo også for at holde øje med hjemmeside, og det sker jo også løbende. Så jeg har i hvert fald en eller anden kommunikation med partnerne ugentligt.

ENC: Ja.

CS: Men det er jo altid svært at vurdere, om det at noget på en hjemmeside er kommunikation til virksomhederne. Når der er tale om den direkte mailkorrespondance, har jeg kontakt til en håndfuld.

ENC: Man kan jo så også sige, at i forhold til Carsten [Møller] og Lasse [Bork Schmidt] har du jo nok også en mere intern rolle.

CS: Jeg har en meget større intern rolle end de har, og det er dem der skal forestå kommunikationen. Det er mere praktisk kommunikation jeg har i forhold til partnerne. Hvis der er materiale de mangler, eller materiale de skal have. Eller hvis der er noget de skal indrapportere [til EU] som de ikke har fået indrapporteret, så er det min rolle at være i kontakt med de partnervirksomheder.

ENC: Så du har lidt en sekretariatsrolle?

Page 119 of 234



CS: Det er meget mere en sekretariatsrolle end en projektrolle. Her tænker jeg på projektudvikling.

ENC: Ja. Så kom vi til det næste aspekt af arbejdsforhold, som handler om tillid mellem virksomheder. Hvilke aspekter vil du sige er de vigtigste, for at man kan opnå tillid mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne?

CS: Jeg vil sige at der er to punkter, som jeg ser som meget vigtige. Det ene er at man overholder de aftaler man laver med partnervirksomhederne, og at der også er en god personlig kemi mellem både sekretariatet og partnerne.

ENC: Ja. Man kan jo også sige, at den personlige kemi spiller en overraskende stor rolle mellem en fond og en virksomhed.

CS: Ja, men man må bare sande at dem som man kommer godt ud af det med, også langt hen af vejen også er dem, som man har lyst til at arbejde sammen med. Og det er noget som vi har været meget fokuserede på, også i forhold til eksportfremstød, hvor vi har sørget for at holde partnere og kunder meget tæt på hinanden, på fx en båd. Hvor man er sammen, og gør noget sammen, og får knyttet bånd. Det har vi gode erfaringer med, og derfor er vi også opmærksomme på, at det er en del som man ikke skal glemme i forhold til partnere.

ENC: Og vil du så også sige, at det har hjulpet at lave de her forskellige events?

CS: Det er der ingen tvivl om. Det er noget som vi og vores partnere vender tilbage til, og snakker om ved andre lejligheder, og som gør at man har nogle fælles oplevelser, og derigennem også en fælles samhørighed.

ENC: Ja.

CS: Så det gør helt bestemt, at opstår der problemer undervejs i samarbejdet, har man lettere ved at acceptere dem. Så det er helt bestemt vigtigt.

ENC: Ja. Og overordnet set ud fra de kriterier du lige nævnte, der var nødvendige for at tillid mellem to virksomheder kunne eksistere, hvilket tillidsniveau vil du så sige, der er mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne?

CS: Jeg vil sige at der er et rigtig godt tillidsniveau mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne. Partnervirksomhederne bruger SustainAgri, og SustainAgri er også klar ti at hjælpe partnerne. Når partnervirksomhederne komme med projekter, som de gør, så får Lasse [Bork Schmidt] også hurtigt sendt finansieringstilbud ud til virksomhederne. Der er en god sparring imellem partnerne, som også gør at virksomhederne bruger SustainAgri. I forhold til at få EU projekter, som er underliggende SustainAgri, har vi stadig nogle udfordringer i forhold til at få virksomhederne til at acceptere det. Men så snart partnervirksomhederne også ser, at EU projektet også er bundet op på konkrete opgaver, som netop har et fokus på dem, får de også forståelse og tillid til at det der bliver lavet, også skaber værdi for dem.

ENC: Ja.

Page 120 of 234



CS: Men når de hører om et EU projekt, så er det ikke det der har deres interesse. Det er mere at EU projektet indeholder nogle elementer, som rent faktisk har en værdiskabende effekt. Så jeg vil sige, at der er en god tillid, til det arbejde som bliver lavet.

ENC: Ja. Og der er en god tillid imellem alle partnervirksomhederne også?

CS: Imellem partnervirksomhederne er der, som jeg også nævnte tidligere, nogle man kan bedre med end andre. Vi ser også at de partnervirksomheder som er i konkurrence, har en større forsigtighed overfor hinanden end de virksomheder, som kan komplementere hinanden i forhold til at levere løsninger og derigennem også arbejde sammen. Men vi har virksomheder som normalt ikke arbejder sammen, og derfor er der ikke den samme tillid der, som mellem dem der normalt arbejder sammen.

ENC: Nej. Hvordan vil du sige partnervirksomhederne bidrager til opbygningen, af et godt arbejdsforhold med SustainAgri?

CS: Jeg vil sige at partnervirksomhederne bidrager med det, som man kan forvente af dem. De bidrager dels med konkret arbejde, de bidrager i form af at komme til virksomhedsmøderne, komme med godt humør og et åbent sind i forhold til møderne. Derudover bidrager de ikke ret meget. Hvis vi ikke var her som sekretariat, og var fokuserede på at mange af disse bånd skulle knyttes, så ville der sikkert også være nogle af fondene der ikke ville være med. Så derfor er vi også nødt til, at forcere det at skulle arbejde sammen, og være en klynge.

ENC: Det er ikke alle der har den samme forståelse for, hvad sådan et samarbejde indebærer?

CS: Det er det ikke. Der er nogen der er meget fokuserede på, at et samarbejde skal udmønte sig i profit hurtigt, og der er andre der har et mere langsigtet mål, hvor de godt ved at udviklingsarbejdet tager tid. Og at det er okay at det tager tid. Så man har forskellige forventninger. Og dem der har forventninger om, at det skal udmønte sig i profit fra dag et, er mere besværlige i en klynge end dem der godt ved, at det kan tage tid. Så der er nogen der ønsker resultater hurtigere end andre.

ENC: Men det er vel også fordi, at de virksomheder har sat sig et mål om, at om et eller to år, skal vi have en indtjening på så og så meget?

CS: Helt bestemt. Det er jo også fair nok at de har. Men der er det også vigtigt, at det bliver kommunikeret, hvad man bør kunne forvente at få ud af projektet, og at man også fokuserer på, ikke at opbygge forventninger hos de forskellige virksomheder, som vi så ikke kan indfri. Men det kommer ofte også an på hvad virksomhederne selv forventer, for vi kan ikke komme og servere projekterne til virksomhederne på et sølvfad. De er også selv nødt til at komme med projekterne, så vi kan hjælpe dem. Så der er en forventningsafstemning der er meget vigtig.

ENC: Men det er vel også måden man bliver ved med at opretholde et godt forhold, ved at sørge for at lave projekter sammen, og få fordelt arbejdsbyrden?

CS: Det er meget, meget vigtigt at man har nogle konkrete projekter at arbejde sammen om. Fordi udsigten til at tjene penge, som jo er det bærende element i samarbejdet, også kan virke

Page 121 of 234



motiverende mht. at arbejde sammen, hvorimod det at vente på at der reelt set kommer noget konkret, kan virke meget demotiverende. Det kan vi også tydeligt mærke på virksomhederne, om de er motiverede eller demotiverede.

ENC: Man kan vel også sige, at selvom det ikke er meget virksomhederne betaler i kontingent, så går de vel ind med en forventning om, at de penge der er skudt ind i samarbejdet, bliver betalt tilbage, hvis ikke mangedoblet, i løbet af deres medlemstid?

CS: Det er svært at sige, fordi et kontingent på 15. 000 er jo ret billigt, for at have adgang til en række konsulenter, der gerne vil hjælpe din virksomhed. Så det at få fx Lasse [Bork Schmidt] til at udarbejde et finansieringsudkast, vil du ikke kunne få en konsulent til, der vil arbejde meget mere end 15 timer på det, til den pris. Så derfor er det vel rimelig billigt at være med, og man får også meget, hvis man selv er villig til at gøre brug af det der bliver stillet til rådighed. Men hvis man selv sidder og læner sig tilbage i stolen, uden at bruge klyngen, så vil jeg give dig ret i, at man som virksomhed også vil kunne blive skuffet, i forhold til hvad man betaler og det man håber på at få ud af det.

ENC: Ja. Ved du om SustainAgri har gjort sig nogle ideer om at udvikle klyngen? Eller måske udvide den?

CS: SustainAgri har tidligere fokuseret meget på, at have en klynge der kunne tage det første skridt, i forhold til landbruget. Altså det med at kunne lave en svinestald, og derigennem have slagtesvin, have en kostald og derigennem kunne sælge mælk osv. Nu der er det næste at bevæge sig op i værdikæden, sådan at vi også inkluderer mejerier og slagterier, og derigennem skal klyngen også udvikles til at vi kan levere de elementer. Der er vi nået et stykke, men vi er ikke færdige med det endnu.

ENC: Okay. Og det er også den måde de udvikler forholdet, mellem de forskellige virksomheder, ved at klyngen bliver mere diversificeret?

CS: Vi forsøger at have en gruppe, der er velfungerende. Dvs. har virksomhederne nogle gode ”legekammerater”, der ikke er med i klyngen, så overvejer vi om de kan tages med i klyngen, og derved udvide klyngen med virksomheder, som fungerer godt sammen med de virksomheder der allerede er i klyngen. Selvfølgelig er det en åben klynge, hvor vi gerne vil have mange med, men det handler også om at have en velfungerende klynge. I forhold til at udvide klyngen, ser vi ikke så meget på, at få virksomheder som er ens med, men mere at få virksomheder der kan komplimentere hinanden med.

ENC: I din mening og med den erfaring du har, kan du så komme med et bud på, hvilke forventninger partnervirksomhederne kan have til SustainAgri når de indtræder i klyngen?

CS: Mit bud ville være, at partnervirksomhederne har en forventning om, at når de træder ind i samarbejdet med SustainAgri, så vil de kunne få et stykke arbejde udført billigt. Samtidigt har de nok også, nogle forventninger om, at de vil kunne få nogle projekter og få de projekter finansieret. Det vil jeg umiddelbart sige, er deres primære forventninger. Samtidigt har de nyere virksomheder,

Page 122 of 234



som ikke har prøvet at eksportere så meget, nok en forventning om at lære hvordan andre virksomheder agere på eksportmarkedet. Men det er de to første dele, der er de primære forventninger fra partnervirksomhederne.

ENC: Ja. Og det man så gør, for at kunne leve op til forventningerne, er at sekretariatet prøver at udarbejde nogle projekter for dem?

CS: Ja, og samtidigt også bistå virksomhederne i forbindelse med eksportfremstød. Her kan SustainAgris ukrainske kontor jo fx hjælpe. Sådan at når partnervirksomhederne står og prøver at sælge en løsning, at vi så står sammen med dem, og kan assistere i forhold til at vi har udviklet en finansieringsmodel som de kan bruge. Vi kan forklare hvordan den kan bruges, således at finansieringen også kan blive et sælgende element for virksomhederne. Så vi forsøger på flere forskellige måder, at hjælpe virksomhederne. Også mere konkret.

ENC: Ja. Ud fra det du har sagt, så er SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne ligeværdige partnere, på den måde at SustainAgri kommer med nogle forslag, og partnervirksomhederne kommer med nogle forslag, i forbindelse med nye projekter, og også hvordan man bør gøre fremover?

CS: Ja delvist. SustainAgri er jo bundet til et EU projekt, og i det EU projekt, er der defineret nogle retninger, som vi skal gå i. Det vi så forsøger, er at høre virksomhederne, hvordan vi så kan, dels gå i de definerede retninger, men dels også gøre det på en måde, der kan være interessante for virksomhederne. Og så partnervirksomhederne kan se, at de får en værdiskabelse ud af det, og der handler det o meget om, at føle at man bliver hørt. Og derfor har vi jo, for kort tid siden, været rundt og tale med alle virksomhederne, og det skulle netop også gerne være med til, at skabe en fællesskabsfølelse, og skabe en ide om at hver enkelt virksomhed bliver hørt.

ENC: Ja, det er selvfølgelig rigtigt nok. Og mht. det du lige sagde med EU projektet, og de målsætninger der er sat der, er det vel også en af de måder man bruger, for at måle om fonden og det man får ud af partnerskabet, går den vej man gerne ville have det til?

CS: Man kan sige, at vi har i EU projektet en række milepæle, som vi jo gerne skulle nå, og derfor er det jo også vigtigt at vi når dem. Og det kan vi jo konkret måle, om de bliver nået. Så det er helt sikkert en måde vi måler fremgangen på.

ENC: Hvad så mht. at leve op til partnervirksomhedernes mål? Fordi de er jo nok noget anderledes.

CS: Det er jo selvfølgeligt det, fordi hvis vi har gjort vores arbejde godt nok fra dag et, så har de jo også en forventning, der stemmer nogenlunde overens med vores EU projekt. Der har vi prøvet, ikke at have kommunikeret klart nok, i forhold til hvad EU projektet gik ud på, og at partnervirksomheden så havde en anden forventning end det vi de havde fået stillet i sigte. Og det betyder jo, at vi på virksomhedsmøder har været nødt til, at ridse op hvad EU projektet gik ud på, og hvad kernen i det projekt er. Hvor nogen af virksomhederne så har overvejet, om det stadig var et projekt de kunne se sig selv som en del af, og det er selvfølgeligt vi altid vil kunne blive bedre til. Sikre at der er den rigtige forventningsafstemning fra starten, så det ikke bliver et problem.

Page 123 of 234



ENC: Ja. Så det hænger lidt sammen med det, du startede med at sige. At SustainAgri kunne godt være bedre til at kommunikere, men samtidigt kræver det også, at partnervirksomhederne også vidste hvad de gik ind til, og havde lavet nogle forventningsafstemninger i forbindelse med hvad EU projektet gik ud på, og hvad selv gerne ville have ud af samarbejdet?

CS: Ja, det kan man godt sige. Det vigtige er at virksomhederne kan se sig selv i klyngen, og derfor er det at blive lovet noget fra starten, som vi så ikke kan leve op til, er selvfølgeligt noget vi gerne vil undgå. Fordi så får vi jo partnere, der ikke er glade. Og det prøver vi jo selvfølgeligt at undgå, men selvfølgelig er et sælgende argument også fra vores side, at vi har erfaring, og er lykkedes med, at lave projekter på eksportmarkeder. Men vi ved jo ikke, om det lykkes for den enkelte partnervirksomhed. Derfor kan de jo stadig godt blive skuffede, selvom vi har erfaring med, at det er lykkedes tidligere. Det betyder jo ikke at det kommer til at lykkes, efter de er kommet med.

ENC: Nej, det er vel også det. Man kan jo som SustainAgri vel sagtens gå ud og sige, at vi kan de her forskellige ting, og vi har lavet en masse projekter, og det har skabt en masse værdi for forskellige virksomheder. Så kan man jo som ny partnervirksomhed sagtens tænke, at så får vi en masse profit ud af det.

CS: Ja, så får vi nok også en masse ud af det.

ENC: Ja.

CS: Det er ikke sikkert. Det afhænger jo af, hvor meget de også selv engagerer sig, om de også selv har et produkt og om der er nogen der er villige til at købe det, og at man også har det fornødne held på markederne, for det kræver det også nogle gange. Det kræver at man møder den rigtige kunde.

ENC: Ja.

CS: Og det er svært at vide, om man lige finder det match. Men det er da noget vi har erfaringer med, at det kan lykkes.

ENC: Ja. Så skifter vi lidt spor til knowledge management. Hvor det første spørgsmål handler om, hvad SustainAgri gør for at indsamle viden fra partnervirksomheder? Det gælder jo nok mest, når man prøver at gå ind og lave projekter.

CS: Altså, man kan jo sige, at SustainAgri indsamler en viden fra partnerne om, hvad de [partnervirksomhederne] kan, i forhold til den rolle som de er tiltænkt. Så de generelle virksomhedsinformation, mht. hvilke produkter de har osv. er selvfølgeligt gode at have. I forhold til konkrete projekter, så er det Lasse [Bork Schmidt] der sammen med virksomhederne sammensætter den samlede pakke, hvortil virksomhederne også kan komme med deres informationer, mht. leveringstider og hvordan tingene kan skrues sammen.

ENC: Ja. Og den viden der så bliver samlet ind, den bliver så brugt til når der bliver planlagt projekter, og når man påbegynder samarbejdet generelt?

Page 124 of 234



CS: Ja, og så bliver den også brugt i forhold til materiale, som bliver taget med ud til eksportfremstød, så kunderne kan se hvad vi kan tilbyde. På nuværende tidspunkt er vi ved at lave, den samlede beskrivelse af, hvad man kan i forbindelse med kvæg. Og derigennem får man også præsenteret problemstillinger, som man så vil kunne løse. Så det er jo også en måde, udadtil at få vist hvad det er for en klynge, og hvad vi har at tilbyde.

ENC: Ja. Man kan vel også, at det er en god måde, også internt i klyngen, at indsamle viden, og prøve at have det hele et sted.

CS: Lige præcist.

ENC: Og folk kan så nyde godt af hinandens viden.

CS: Ja. Præcist. Og derigennem også sikre, at når fx en virksomhed står på et eksportfremstød, vil de, ved at have vores folder med, stort set også kunne sælge en af de andre partnervirksomheders produkter. Fordi den folder indeholde sælgende argumenter, for hvorfor man skal bruge det og det produkt.

ENC: Ja, men man kan vel også sige, at hvis en virksomhed er ude ved en kunde et sted, så repræsenterer de vel hele klyngen, og ikke bare sig selv?

CS: Lige præcist.

ENC: Og hvor ofte vil du så sige, at der er en form for vidensdeling mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne?

CS: Det er et svært spørgsmål. Der er en vidensdeling, hver gang der er et projekt, selvfølgeligt. Og det er flere gange om måneden der er det. Så er der virksomhedsmøderne, og der er også vidensdeling der. Og så er der sådan noget, som det her materiale som vi lige snakkede om, der er ved at blive udarbejdet. Og så også at videregive de informationer til partnervirksomhederne som er nødvendige. Så det vil jeg sige, at der er en løbende proces, som er svær at fastsætte et konkret antal på, men jeg vil sige, at der ofte er en kommunikation hvor vi, eller en virksomhed, har brug for noget konkret viden.

ENC: Ja.

CS: Og der har vi da helt bestemt en opgave i også, at lagre den viden så vi ikke skal bede om den flere gange.

ENC: Ja, og hvad så med virksomhederne imellem mht. vidensdeling? Er det noget der finder sted eller går det alt sammen igennem SustainAgri?

CS: De virksomheder som er vant til at lave projekter sammen, de kommunikerer direkte med hinanden, eller foregår vidensdelingen primært igennem SustainAgri, som så står for vidensfordelingen.

ENC: Men det er vel også en måde at sikre sig, at alle virksomheder får lige meget viden?

Page 125 of 234



CS: Og det er jo netop det. Det er også det der er ideen. Det er jo ideen med at være i en klynge, at der er et sekretariat, der sørger for at alle bliver informeret, og at alle har glæde af hinandens erfaringer.

ENC: Ja. Jeg tror sådan set det var det, jeg havde at spørge om. Så med mindre du har noget, som du gerne vil tilføje til det vi har været inde på?

CS: Det tror jeg ikke at jeg har.

ENC: Nej, men så skal du have mange tak fordi du gad deltage i interviewet.

Appendix 6: Interview transcription – Lasse Bork Schmidt

Interview between the participant Lasse Bork Schmidt (LBS), Managing Director of SustainAgri, and the interviewer Esben Nørris Christensen (ENC).

The interview took place May 30th and lasted roughly 24 minutes.

Page 126 of 234



LBS: Du starter bare når du er klar.

ENC: Ja. Det er bare helt i orden. Mit første spørgsmål, har med arbejdsforholdet mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne at gøre. Så det første er sådan set, hvordan du vil definere et godt arbejdsforhold mellem firmaer?

LBS: Generelt?

ENC: Ja. Hvad der er det vigtigste, for at få det til at fungere.

LBS: Jamen det vigtigste, for at få det til at fungere, er at man har en fælles målsætning, som det første. Det vigtigste er jo, at få afklaret sådan nogle ting. Så alle er afklarede med, hvad de er. Og så må de jo afgøre, om de så vil med på de vilkår.

ENC: Ja. Okay. Det er så også det vigtigste for dig, at have en fælles målsætning?

LBS: Ja.

ENC: Ja. Super. Hvordan vil du så sige, at SustainAgri gør det. Altså hvordan sætter SustainAgri en fælles målsætning, som alle kan være enige om?

LBS: Det har også været vanskeligt, for de har skiftet lidt. Så det har været vanskeligt. Bl.a. vil jeg sige, at dem der er kommet med, indenfor de sidste to år, og så dem der er kommet med for fem-seks-syv år siden, har ikke nødvendigvis samme målsætning. De [målsætningerne] har desværre skiftet undervejs.

ENC: Ja.

LBS: Der har udfordringen jo så været, når målsætningerne har ændret sig, at forklare de gamle at der nu er kommet en ny målsætning. Det har været vanskeligt.

ENC: Okay. Men det er lykkes, at få det forklaret?

LBS: I en vis grad, ja. Men ikke 100%. Der er nok stadig nogle af dem, der har været med i lang tid, som ikke helt har fundet ud af, at der er kommet en ny målsætning.

ENC: Okay. Ja. Christian [Sønderup] nævnte, at mange målsætninger selvfølgelig også var nødt til, at være noget der stemte overens, med de EU målsætninger der er sat.

LBS: Det er klart. Det er bl.a. det jeg mener med, at målsætningen er skiftet. Dengang SustainAgri startede, var der ikke noget [EU] tilskud, så der var man mere fritstillet i forhold til målsætningen, kan man jo sige.

ENC: Ja.

LBS: Så det er den ene grund.

Page 127 of 234



ENC: Okay. På hvilken måde vil du så sige, at SustainAgri drager fordel, af alle de her forskellige partnervirksomheder der er med?

LBS: Altså på det konkrete plan, der er hele opbygningen af SustainAgri, bygget op på den måde, at vi har forsøgt at samle en gruppe, som supplerer hinanden. Og ikke i alt for stor grad konkurrerer med hinanden. Så det er på det praktiske plan. Så kan man sige, at så er der nogle andre fordele, ved at der er virksomheder på forskellige niveauer, størrelser og den måde de gør ting. Og der prøver vi at udnytte det, at der er den forskellighed, ved at de så også kan lære af hinanden.

ENC: Ja. Men ville du så, på noget tidspunkt, lukke nogle virksomheder ind, som ville være i direkte konkurrence med de nuværende partnervirksomheder? Eller ville det bare slet ikke fungere?

LBS: Vi ville gerne, men det vil ikke fungere.

ENC: Nå, okay. De ville heller ikke kunne arbejde sammen så?

LBS: Nej.

ENC: Jeg har haft læst noget om, og det er selvfølgelig bare rent teoretisk, at virksomheder der er i konkurrence med hinanden, og kan drage fordel af hinanden med fx fælles udvikling.

LBS: Det siger alle teorier også. Men en ting er teori, og noget andet er praksis. I praksis virker det ikke.

ENC: Så der er et stort spring?

LBS: Ja.

ENC: De næste spørgsmål handler om det rent kommunikative. Hvordan kommunikerer SustainAgri med partnervirksomhederne, sådan generelt set?

LBS: Jamen det gør vi alt for lidt i virkeligheden. Kommunikationen er svær, fordi at det er svært at finde en entydig kanal til virksomhederne, så vi kan være sikre på, at de læser det. Altså det primære har jo været, at sende e-mails rundt og holde møder. Det er standarden. Problemet er at med møderne, er det jo, af naturlige årsager, aldrig alle der møder op på en gang. Og e-mails bliver enten overhovedet ikke læst, eller læst meget sporadisk.

ENC: Ja.

LBS: Men det er sådan set det eneste. SÅ kan man sige, at så har vi forsøgt os med noget nyt, nemlig at holde individuelle møder med dem. Det prøvede vi over foråret for første gang. Det har egentligt virket godt, i forhold til at forklare forskellige ting, men det er også en tung omgang at komme igennem. Jeg tror at besøge alle virksomheder, på nær en eller to, tog vel omkring 4 måneder. Så det er noget langsommere. Så er det jo hurtigere at sende brevduer ud, ikke? Så man kan sige, at vi mangler stadig det endegyldige, og fantastiske, svar på, hvordan man kommunikerer mest effektivt. Så jeg il sige, at vi forsøger med fællesmøder og e-mails stadigvæk. I mangel af bedre.

Page 128 of 234



ENC: Ja.

LBS: Og så har vi jo, som sagt forsøgt at holde individuelle møder, og det vil vi nok gøre en gang til.

ENC: Hvor ofte vil du så sige, at SustainAgri, rent gennemsnitligt kommunikerer med partnervirksomhederne?

LBS: Ca. en gang hver anden måned.

ENC: Ja. Okay. Hvor meget af din tid, bruger du, sådan overordnet set, på at kommunikere med dem, som fx at skrive e-mails, og snakke med dem i telefonen?

LBS: Der bruger jeg nok noget, der ligner en tredjedel af min tid. Udover det jeg nævnte, kommer telefonsamtaler så ved siden af. Det er jo mest dem der ringer til os. Vores udadvendte kommunikation, er det jeg beskrev før. Så er der kommunikationen den anden vej rundt, og det er mest dem der ringer til os. Men vi gør sjældent brug af telefonen til kommunikation, nemlig fordi at så bliver det meget individuelt, det de får ud af det.

ENC: Ja. Det er selvfølgelig rigtigt nok, så er der jo forskel på hvad folk de ved. Jeg kom til at tænke på noget Carsten [Møller] sagde, nemlig at når man skulle til at lave projekter, prøvede man mest muligt, kun at kommunikere med den der frontede [partnervirksomheden der er hovedansvarlig for projektets udførelse] projektet.

LBS: Lige præcis.

ENC: Og at den virksomhed så sørger for den videre kommunikation.

LBS: Lige præcis. Men det virker da slet ikke, for de kommunikerer ikke noget som helst videre.

ENC: Nå.

LBS: Det er der det store problem ofte opstår. Nemlig det med, at så hører dem længere ude i rækken ikke noget.

ENC: Nå. Okay. Så dvs. at den dør efter kommunikationen er givet videre til den hovedansvarlige?

LBS: Ja.

ENC: Nå. Ja okay. Mht. tillid mellem to virksomheder, eller SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne, hvilke elementer vil du så sige er de vigtigste, for at kunne opbygge en tillid der gør, at man kan udveksle informationer og viden?

LBS: Jamen, jeg synes noget af det vigtigste er en høj grad af tålmodighed og fokus på målsætningen.

ENC: Ja.

Page 129 of 234



LBS: Også forstået sådan, at man skal være parat til, at det ikke nødvendigvis lykkes første gang. Man skal holde målsætningen for øje. Man har nogle bestemte målsætninger der skal nås, men derfra kan det jo godt være, at der er nogle punkter undervejs, som fejler, så man må starte forfra, og lave noget om. Der synes jeg, at noget af det værste, er at starte på noget og prøver at forcere processen, for at opnå de hurtige resultater, frem for at have tålmodighed.

ENC: Okay. Og igen rent overordnet, hvordan ser du tillidsniveauet mellem SustainAgri og den samlede klynge?

LBS: Det er svært at sige, for det hænger igen sammen med, at vi i perioder har forsøgt at skifte målsætningen. Og det har været et problem. Jeg vil sige, at dem der er kommet ind ud fra, at den nye målsætning passer bedre sammen med vores EU projekt, synes jeg at der er en høj grad af tillid, og samtidigt en høj grad af åbenhed. Åbenhed og tillid hænger meget sammen.

ENC: Ja.

LBS: Der er en høj grad af åbenhed, og dermed også en høj grad af tillid. Så er der nogen i den anden gruppe, der har haft sværere ved at se den nye målsætning. Og der er der ikke nogen tvivl om, at der er nogle ting, som de er knap så åbne om i den forbindelse.

ENC: Er der nogle partnervirksomheder i klyngen, som mere bare er medlemmer for at være der, uden at gøre noget aktivt?

LBS: Ja. Det gør sig gældende for ca. en tredjedel af dem.

ENC: Nå. Vil du så sige, at størstedelen af dem, er dem der var med fra starten, der så er gået lidt døde hen af vejen?

LBS: Ja, helt klart.

ENC: Okay. Det næste er selvfølgelig lidt svært at svare på. Men igen, mht. tillidsniveauet, hvordan vil du sige at det er partnervirksomhederne imellem?

LBS: Uha. Det er svært at svare på, fordi det er svingende. Der er nogen hvor der er en høj grad af tillid, og nogle hvor der slet ikke er tillid. Og der er ingen tvivl om, at jo mere de opfatter sig selv, som mulige konkurrenter, jo mindre tillid er der. Men generelt, er der ikke noget voldsomt højt tillidsniveau.

ENC: Nej. Men igen afhænger det lidt af, hvad de laver, og om de kan komplimentere hinanden?

LBS: Ja, men generelt vil jeg ikke sige at der er nogen tillid.

ENC: Så det hele afhænger af at SustainAgri, skal have det til at fungere?

LBS: Ja.

Page 130 of 234



ENC: Hvordan vil du så sige, at SustainAgri samarbejder med partnervirksomhederne, mht., som du sagde, at lave møder for at finde en fælles målsætning. Laver i så også workshops eller seminarer, eller holder i jer bare til møder?

LBS: Vi holder det primært til møder. Men man kan jo så sige, at vi prøver mere og mere at få lagt et seminaragtigt præg på nogle af møderne. Vi ville rigtig gerne, kunne bruge flere ressourcer på det. Men det er generelt et problem for de enkelte virksomheder, at afse tid, og så er det jo lidt skuffende at afholde et større seminar, hvis det kun er en ganske lille del af gruppen der møder op.

ENC: Ja, det er da rigtigt nok. Det skulle jo gerne være dem alle sammen der møder op. Hvordan vil du så sige, at partnervirksomhederne bidrager til opbygningen af arbejdsforholdet til SustainAgri? Nu har du jo sagt, hvad SustainAgri gør, fx vha. den fælles målsætning og møder, men hvad vil du så sige, at partnervirksomhederne skal bidrage med?

LBS: Hvad de bidrager med, eller hvad de bør bidrage med?

ENC: Ja, vel egentligt begge dele. Fordi en ting er hvad de bidrager med, men hvad synes du at de bør bidrage med, for at et forhold skal kunne fungere?

LBS: Jeg synes generelt ikke, at bidraget lige pt. Er særlig stort. De har svært ved at finde ressourcer generelt. Men som minimum bør de i hvert fald bidrage, med faste kontaktpersoner, så man ved hvem man skal have fat på. Og det gør de selvfølgelig også i et vist omfang.

ENC: Ja.

LBS: Det gør de nogenlunde, så den del fungerer. Det de har svært ved at bidrage med, er det tidsmæssige ressourcer. Det ville jo være ønskeligt, at de havde større mulighed for det. Men der er jo ikke nogen, af de virksomheder vi har, der har mulighed for at deltage i møder, i et særlig stort omfang. Vores samarbejdsniveau ligger jo sådan set på sælgerplan i de forskellige virksomheder. Og en sælger i vore dage, har ikke tid til andet end at sælge. Så alt hvad der ikke giver et salg med samme, gider en sælger ikke deltage i. Og deri ligger vi jo, med vores netværk.

ENC: Så de deltager ikke i noget, hvor de ikke kan se et outcome i den nærmeste fremtid?

LBS: Ja.

ENC: Okay. Nu nævnte du det med kontaktpersoner, og jeg kom til at tænke på, om du så synes at kontaktpersonerne en rimelig god viden om hvad SustainAgri laver, og hvad de kan få ud af det?

LBS: Ja de fleste.

ENC: Ja, det kunne man jo så også, håbe at de havde.

LBS: Ja.

Page 131 of 234



ENC: Det er lidt det samme, men hvordan vil du så sige, at partnervirksomhederne skal bidrage i forbindelse med vedligeholdelse af et godt arbejdsforhold? Det er jo så nok igen om kontaktpersonerne.

LBS: Ja, og så vil jeg sige, at så bør de afsætte nogle flere ressourcer til selve mødeaktiviteterne. Fordi i forhold til netværksdannelse, er det jo nødvendigt at mødes engang imellem.

ENC: Ja, man skulle jo tro, at man med netværksdannelse, var nødt til at møde rimelig jævnlig for at få det til at fungere.

LBS: Ja.

ENC: Hvilke tiltage vil du så sige, at SustainAgri har gjort, for at kunne udvikle forholdet mellem dem selv og partnervirksomhederne?

LBS. Jamen, der er der jo bl.a. indført det med individuelle møder, rundt hos alle virksomhederne, for at kunne sørge for, at bringe dem de rigtige informationer.

ENC: Ja, og måske få lidt mere viden om, hvad de forventer?

LBS: Ja. Lige præcis. Så det er nok et af de væsentligste tiltag vi har foretaget. Så kunne jeg som sagt, også godt tænke mig, at vi fokuserede noget mere på seminarer og workshops, for at gøre det mere interessant at deltage i møderne. Det har været svært at finde på den rigtige recept indtil videre.

ENC: Ja.

LBS: Men det er vel de to elementer, som vi har mest fokus på.

ENC: Ja. Jeg kom til at tænke på, mht. de individuelle møder, hvordan synes du at de har fungeret? Nu har du jo lavet dem.

LBS: Jamen de har fungeret rigtig godt. Groft sagt kan man jo sige det på den måde, at det vi har fortalt, kunne lige så godt være skrevet på en e-mail. Men så ville vi ikke, have fået nogen respons på det overhovedet. Og jeg er ikke sikker på, at det så ville have været, mere end halvdelen der ville have læst det.

ENC: Nej.

LBS: Så på den måde kan man sige, at vi er sikre på at alle har hørt budskabet, og ved hvad det drejer sig om. Og vi har også fået, en eller anden respons fra alle. Det Har været kortfattet, det kan have været et ja eller nej, eller et eller andet, men der har dog været en respons.

ENC: Ja. Og så har i fået noget personlig kontakt samtidigt.

LBS: Ja.

Page 132 of 234



ENC: Mht. tilfredshed i klyngen. Hvilke forventninger tror du partnervirksomhederne har, når de begynder at samarbejde med SustainAgri?

LBS: De har en forventning om, at det vil skabe et større salg.

ENC: Ja. Og de fleste har vel også brug, for hjælp til at eksportere?

LBS: Jo, de har brug for hjælp til at eksportere. Det kan både være generelt, men det kan også være i forhold til de specifikke lande, som vi arbejder på.

ENC: Nå, okay.

LBS: Det kan også være i relation til, at de fleste godt kan se, at i teorien skulle ideen, om en række virksomheder der supplerer hinanden, burde kunne medføre at hvis den ene sælger noget, så anbefaler man også den næste i rækken at eksportere. Det kan jo også føre til et højere salg. I hvert fald i teorien.

ENC: Ja. Men hvad gør SustainAgri så, for at kunne leve op til de her forventninger, hvor partnervirksomhederne jo egentligt gerne bare vil have projekter og kunder?

LBS: Jamen vi prøver jo så at undersøge den proces, ved også at tage med dem ud og holde kundemøder, ikke fordi vi egentligt skal varetage selve processen, men vi prøver, i hvert fald lidt, at lege formidler for dem også, for at se om det kan hjælpe noget i gang.

ENC: Ja.

LBS: Og vi betaler en række udgifter for dem også, for at hjælpe det i gang.

ENC: Ja okay. Men det er vel også, for at få samarbejdet til så at fungere bedre?

LBS: Ja lige præcis.

ENC: Så kan de jo også se nogle konkrete fordele.

LBS: Ja.

ENC: Vil du sige, at SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne er ligeværdige partnere? Altså vil du sige, at partnervirksomhederne måske kommer med forslag til, hvor der kan laves projekter, som de synes er en god ide?

LBS: Det var et godt spørgsmål. Jeg vil sige, at jeg opfatter os som ligeværdige partnere, på den måde forstået, at vi med de fleste har en åben og ligefrem dialog. Så på den måde ja. Men så er det jo alligevel ikke anderledes, end at jeg også stadigvæk betragter vores partnervirksomheder, som kunder i butikken hos SustainAgri. Så på den måde er vi jo ikke ligeværdige. Jeg vil sige, at det er en kombination af et partnerskab, og en kundevirksomhed.

ENC: Ja. Så du har aldrig forventet, at de skulle byde ind med så meget?

Page 133 of 234



LBS: Nej.

ENC: Okay. Bruger du nogle metoder, for at finde ud af hvordan tilstanden er, mht. forholdet mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne? Bruger du nogle målsætninger, som du kan holde det op imod?

LBS: Nej.

ENC: Nej? Så dvs. den måde ud kan se det på, er om virksomhederne bliver i klyngen?

LBS: Ja, præcis.

ENC: Hvad vil du så sige, der bliver gjort for at indsamle viden, fra de forskellige partnervirksomheder? Er det med mailkorrespondance frem og tilbage, eller er det mere på møderne?

LBS: Det er mere på møderne. Vores er faring er jo, at med mailkorrespondance, er der ikke rigtigt nogen der svarer. Så det er på møderne.

ENC: Ja. Okay. Og den indsamlede viden, bliver så brugt i forbindelse med nye projekter, går jeg ud fra?

LBS: Ja.

ENC: Og er det så alle virksomhederne, som du vil sige byder ind med lige meget?

LBS: Nej. Slet, slet ikke. Det er meget forskelligt. Tit er det også os, der kommer med forslag, hvor partnervirksomhederne så siger ja eller nej. Oprindeligt var der jo også en målsætning om, at alle skulle være enige. Den målsætning er vi også gået bort fra, for det satte tingene i stå i lang tid.

ENC: Ja. Det kan vel også tage noget tid, får alle bliver enige om noget som helst?

LBS: Jamen, det kunne slet ikke lade sig gøre. De blev aldrig enige om noget som helst.

ENC: Nå.

LBS: Det var ikke en mulighed.

ENC: Nej okay. SÅ dvs. at der var stilstand, så længe alle skulle være enige?

LBS: Nej, men oprindeligt blev SustainAgri jo startet, med det formål at gå efter det ukrainske marked. Den gruppe af virksomheder der var dengang, 14 eller 15 virksomheder, var enige om at lave en fælles indsats i Ukraine. Så langt så godt. Men efter der så var andre, der gerne ville ind andre steder, kunne man ikke nå til enighed.

ENC: Nå.

Page 134 of 234



LBS: Og det er så det, der har forsinket processen. Samtidigt er der så nogen der er faldet fra i Ukraine, uden at der er kommet helt så mange til. Og nogen vil så gerne andre steder hen og forsøge sig. Det har man ikke kunne opnå enighed om.

ENC: Nå, okay. Jeg ville ellers have troet, at der ville have været enighed om, at sprede det til flere markeder.

LBS: Nej, det var der ikke. Man ville ikke sprede sig, fordi der trods alt er konkurrenter i gruppen, og man ville jo ikke have konkurrenterne med over på andre markeder. I Ukraine blev man enige om hvordan man skulle dele kagen, så at sige. ”Jeg laver det produkt, du laver det produkt”. Men der er måske nogen, der laver tre eller fire produkter, og det gør de andre også, så derfor er der jo noget overlapning.

ENC: Nå. Ja okay.

LBS: I Ukraine blev man enige om, at dele det på en bestemt måde, men det kunne man ikke blive enige om det andet sted, nemlig.

ENC: Nå, okay. Jeg ville ellers bare have troet, at det var den samme model, som man førte over på et andet marked.

LBS: Nej, nej.

ENC: Men det er jo selvfølgelig også svært, hvis der er nogen der træder ud.

LBS: Ja, og hvis der var nogen, der allerede var i gang på det marked.

ENC: Nå. Ja, okay. Så kommer du jo, og tager deres del af markedet.

LBS: Ja.

ENC: Jamen selvfølgelig. Og hvor ofte vil du så sige, at den videndeling mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne finder sted? Altså hvis du siger at det finder sted på møderne, hvor ofte er det så?

LBS: Ja. Jamen det gør det vel to til tre gange om året.

ENC: Ja. Til virksomhedsmøderne?

LBS: Ja, ja.

ENC: Okay. Ved du så, om partnervirksomhederne deler viden med hinanden på tværs af klyngen? Udenom SustainAgri?

LBS: Ja nogen gør, og nogen gør ikke.

ENC: Så det er sådan fifty-fifty?

LBS: Ja.

Page 135 of 234



ENC: Okay. Jamen det var sådan set, de spørgsmål jeg havde. Så det var dejligt at du havde tid til det.

LBS. Ja. Det var så lidt.

ENC: Men tak for det.

Page 136 of 234



Appendix 7: List of partner companies

Partner companies participating in the questionnaire:

Danish Farm Design

Danish Farm Design is a consultancy providing its customers with knowledge and information regarding planning and financing of projects within the building of piggeries and byres.

Danish Farm Design is located in Odense, Denmark.

Contact person: Bjarne K. Pedersen , Managing Director

More information can be found on the company website: http://www.danishfarmdesign.dk/

EnergiMidt

EnergiMidt is an electric company which provides energy for households as well as for farm buildings.

The company is located in Silkeborg, Denmark.

Contact person: Kurt Mortensen, Energy consultant within the farming sector

More information can be found on the company website: http://energimidt.dk/privat/sider/privat.aspx

Industri-Montage Vest

Industri-Montage is a consulting engineer company within refrigeration equipment for the food industry as well as ventilation and air conditioning systems for e.g. piggeries and byres.

The company is situated near Vojens, Denmark.

Contact person: Palle Lemminger, Managing Director

More information about the company can be found at: http://im-vest.industri-montage.dk/

Page 137 of 234



JMS Managament ApS

JMS Management ApS is a consultancy company specialising in providing strategic development strategies and making market analysis for especially SME’s.

The company is located in Odense, Denmark.

Contact person: Jørgen Meier Sørensen, Managing Director

More information can be found at: http://www.jmsmanagement.dk/default.htm

Little Dane ApS

It is a consultancy company providing customers with knowledge and know-how regarding the building of piggeries in Eastern Europe.

The company is located in Moscow, Russia.

Contact person: Lars Thode Kristensen, Managing Director

Its website is: http://www.marcon.ru/ (It is only available in Russian)

Nordic Environment ApS

It is a consultancy company specialising in environmental solutions and process technologies.

The company is located in Charlottenlund near Copenhagen.

Contact person: Alan Rasmussen, Managing Director

The website is: http://www.nordic-environment.com/

S.A. Christensen & CO.

The company is one of the world’s largest producers of milking equipment.

It is situated near Kolding, Denmark.

Contact person: Oksana Lunderskov, Area Sales Manager

The company’s website can be found via this link: http://www.sac.dk/showpage.php?pageid=695356&displayid=2450674

Page 138 of 234



Kongskilde A/S

Kongskilde A/S is a consultancy company which specialises in the combination of cultivation and industrial techniques, knowledge and know-how for the farming sector.

The company is located in Sorø, Denmark.

Contact person: Michael Andersen, Head of the Project Department

The company website: http://www.kongskilde.com/Corporate/

Ingvald Christensen A/S

The company produces, sells and service machinery for the slaughtering of animals.

The company is located in Odense, Denmark.

Contact person: Leif Hye-Knudsen, Area Sales Manager

The company website can be found at: http://www.ingvald.dk/

Influx

The company produces and services equipment made for the dairy and food industries.

It is located in Vissenbjerg, Denmark.

Contact person: Ebbe Bojer, Managing Director

The company website is: http://influx.dk/

Partner companies not participating in the questionnaire:

Jyden Bur A/S

Jyden Bur produces pigs and cattle housing to be used within piggeries and byres.

The company is located in Vemb, Denmark.

Contact person: Jens Agergaard, Managing Director

More information about the company can be found at: http://www.jydenbur.dk/

Page 139 of 234



Porc-Ex A/S

Porc-EX A/S sells pigs for breeding as well as weaners, slaughter pigs and sows to farmers who are just setting up business.

The company is located in Kolding, Denmark.

Contact person: Holger B. Sørensen, Owner

The website is: http://www.porc-ex.dk/

Skov A/S

Specialises in the production of air conditioning within piggeries and byres as well as the monitoring of animal production within farming.

The company is located in Glyngøre, Denmark.

Contact person: Peter B. Kierklo, Regional Sales Manager Eastern Europe

Company website: http://www.skov.com/DA/Pages/Default.aspx

Partner company that did not wish to participate:

Bovi Danmark

Bovi Danmark is an exporter of different types of breeding cattle used within the farming sector.

The company is situated in Rødding, Denmark.

Contact person: Evald P. Madsen, Managing Director

The company website is: http://www.bovi-denmark.dk/

Page 140 of 234



Appendix 8: Interview agreement forms(From all three interviews)

Page 141 of 234



Page 142 of 234



Page 143 of 234



Page 144 of 234



Page 145 of 234



Appendix 9: Questions for interview(In English and Danish)

Interview questions (English)

Introduction:

My name is Esben and, as you might know, I am looking into how SustainAgri manages its relationships with its partner companies.

Before I begin, do you have any questions?

In order to provide some information about you as a person, I will start by asking you some relevant information concerning you.

What is your job title?

What does your job entail?

How long have you been working for SustainAgri?

Relationships:

How would you define a good working relationship?

Which aspects of a business relationship do you feel are the most important?

In practice, how does SustainAgri use these aspects when dealing with the partner companies?

How does SustainAgri benefit from the partner companies? (Tangible as well as intangible ways they benefit.)

Relationship marketing and communication:

Communication - How does SustainAgri communicate with the partner companies? (E.g. via mail, newsletters, telephone conversations etc.).

Communication - How often does SustainAgri communicate with its partner companies?

Communication - In general, how much of your time is spent on communicating with the partner companies?

Trust – Which aspects are the most important when building trust between SustainAgri and the partner companies? (E.g. literature states that trust is created through integrity, dependability and competence).

Page 146 of 234



Trust – What is the level of trust between SustainAgri and the partner companies?

Trust –What is the level of trust among the partner companies in the cluster?

Cooperation: How does SustainAgri build relationships with its partner companies? (E.g. by seminars, workshops, meetings, projects etc.)

Commitment - How would you describe the relationship between SustainAgri and the partner companies in general?

Commitment - How do partner companies contribute to building relationships?

Commitment - How do partner companies contribute to maintaining relationships?

Relationship management:

Commitment - What has been done by SustainAgri to develop relationships between SustainAgri and the partner companies?

Satisfaction - In your opinion, which expectations do the partner companies have about SustainAgri?

Satisfaction – What is done to live up to these expectations?

Control mutuality – In your opinion, is SustainAgri and the partner companies equal partners within the relationship? (E.g. do all involved parties decide everything together or does SustainAgri make most of the decisions?)

Measuring – How does SustainAgri measure the status of a relationship? (E.g. by reaching goals and objectives set by the different partner companies together with SustainAgri)

Knowledge management:

Knowledge gathering - What is done to gather knowledge from the partner companies?

Using knowledge - How is this knowledge used in practice?

Knowledge sharing - How is knowledge shared between SustainAgri and the partner companies?

Knowledge sharing - How often is knowledge shared between SustainAgri and the partner companies?

Knowledge sharing - How do the partner companies share knowledge with each other?

Page 147 of 234



Interview spørgsmål (Danish)

Introduktion:

Mit navn er Esben og som du sikkert ved, er jeg ved at skrive mit speciale, der handler om SustainAgris håndtering af kommunikationen med fondens partnervirksomheder.

Før vi starter, vil jeg lige høre dig ad, om du har nogle spørgsmål før vi begynder?

Jeg vil først spørge om lidt relevant information, som vil give et bedre indtryk af dig som person.

Hvad er din stillingsbetegnelse?

Hvad indebærer dit job?

Hvor lang tid har du arbejdet for SustainAgri?

Forhold:

Hvordan vil du definere et godt arbejdsforhold?

Hvilke aspekter mener du er vigtigst i forbindelse med et godt arbejdsforhold?

Hvordan gør SustainAgri, i praksis, brug af disse aspekter, når de beskæftiger sig med partnervirksomhederne?

På hvilken måde drager SustainAgri fordel af partnervirksomhederne? (Både mht. konkrete/fysiske fordele, såvel som immaterielle fordele).

Relationship marketing og kommunikation:

Kommunikation – Hvordan kommunikerer SustainAgri med partnervirksomhederne? (Fx. via mail, nyhedsbreve, telefon osv.)

Kommunikation – Hvor ofte kommunikerer SustainAgri med partnervirksomhederne?

Kommunikation – Generelt set, hvor meget af din bruger du på at kommunikere med partnervirksomhederne?

Tillid – Hvilke aspekter er de vigtigste, for at bygge og vedligeholde tillid mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne? (Fx. står der i faglitteraturen at tillid er skabt gennem integritet, pålidelighed og kompetencer).

Tillid – Hvilket tillidsniveau er der mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne?

Tillid – Hvilket tillidsniveau er der blandt partnervirksomhederne på tværs af klyngen?

Page 148 of 234



Samarbejde - Hvordan samarbejder SustainAgri med partnervirksomhederne? (fx. Ved afholdelse af seminarer, workshops, møder, projekter etc.)

Engagement – Hvordan vil du beskrive forholdet mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne rent overordnet?

Engagement - Hvordan bidrager partnervirksomhederne til opbygningen af arbejdsforholdet med SustainAgri?

Engagement - Hvordan bidrager partnervirksomhederne til vedligeholdelsen af arbejdsforholdet?


Engagement – Hvilke tiltag har SustainAgri brugt/gjort/gjort sig, for at udvikle forholdet mellem dem og partnervirksomhederne?

Tilfredshed – Efter din mening, hvilke forventninger har partnervirksomhederne til SustainAgri ?

Tilfredshed – Hvad bliver gjort for at leve op til disse forventninger?

Kontrol gensidighed – Efter din mening, er SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne ligeværdige partnere i arbejdsforholdet?

Afmåling af forholdet– Bruger du nogle metoder for at vurdere tilstanden af forholdet mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne, som fx. målsætninger?


Vidensindsamling – Hvad bliver gjort for at indsamle viden fra partnervirksomhederne?

Brug af viden- Hvordan bliver den indsamlede viden brugt i praksis?

Videndeling – Hvordan bliver viden mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne udvekslet?

Videndeling – Hvor ofte bliver viden mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne udvekslet?

Videndeling – Hvordan udveksler partnervirksomhederne viden med hinanden?

Page 149 of 234



Appendix 10: Interview guide

Interview guide for semi-structured interviews

The interview is divided into five sections:

Introduction

Relationships

Relationship marketing and communication

Relationship management

Knowledge management

The interviews last between 24 and 49 minutes and took place between the 10th of May and the 30th of May 2012.

The interview participants are:

Managing Director of SustainAgri, Lasse Bork Schmidt, interviewed on 30th of May 2012 – lasting approximately 24 minutes.

Vice Director of SustainAgri, Carsten Møller, interviewed on 10th of May 2012 – lasting about 49 minutes.

Head of the Development Group, Christian Sønderup, interviewed on 10th of May 2012 – lasting about 45 minutes.

Introduction:

This section is used to inform the interview participant of the project and gives them a chance of asking questions regarding the project. However, beforehand the participants have been asked to read through and sign an interview agreement form with more information about the project and how the interview will be conducted.

The questions for the participant within this section are easy and should be quickly answered but will provide me with some information which is useful when finding out which areas of relationship marketing, relationship management, knowledge management and communication with the partner companies they might know most about. However, these questions provide me with more information about the participant and how they might view certain aspects of the relationship

Page 150 of 234



between SustainAgri and the partner companies as well as how they perceive the reality of the relationship dimensions and the aspect of knowledge management.

My name is Esben and, as you might know, I am looking into how SustainAgri manages its relationships with its partner companies.

Before I begin, do you have any questions?

In order to provide some information about you as a person, I will start by asking you some relevant information concerning you.

What is your job title?

What does your job entail?

How long have you been working for SustainAgri?

Relationships:

This section concerns the aspect of relationships between two companies and which aspects might be most important for the interview participant in this connection.

The participant is asked to define a good working relationship as well as point to which aspects, in their opinion, are the most important. This way the participant explains his specific definition of relationships which will then be the one used during the interview. It is important to find out how the participant, since they are all working for SustainAgri, define relationships and the most important aspects. The definitions of the participants will also be compared to the definitions made by scholars within relationship management during the analysis section. As a conclusion of this, the participant is then asked what they think of the relationship between SustainAgri and the partner companies and which benefits are created both tangible and intangible.

How would you define a good working relationship?

Which aspects of a business relationship do you feel are the most important?

In practice, how does SustainAgri use these aspects when dealing with the partner companies?

How does SustainAgri benefit from the partner companies? (Tangible as well as intangible ways they benefit.)

Page 151 of 234



Relationship marketing and communication:

The third section in the interview guide is Relationship marketing and communication. Here questions regarding the communication between SustainAgri and the partner companies are asked as well as how often communication takes place.

In connection with the above mentioned questions, the participant is again asked to make a definition, this time for trust, when trust exists between companies and which aspects are the most important for SustainAgri. This is done, as previously with relationships, to look into what is deemed important by the participants and if these answers correspond to Grunig and Hon’s (1999) dimensions of trust: Integrity, dependability and competence. This will be further discussed during the analysis section of this thesis.

The definition provided by the participants will then make it possible to ask questions regarding the level of trust existing between SustainAgri and the partner companies.

Finally during this section, one question regarding cooperation and three questions regarding commitment shown both by SustainAgri and the partner companies are asked – including how the partner companies maintain the relationship with SustainAgri.

As the headline of this section states, the following questions are primarily concerned with the aspect of relationship marketing.

Communication - How does SustainAgri communicate with the partner companies? (E.g. via mail, newsletters, telephone conversations etc.).

Communication - How often does SustainAgri communicate with its partner companies?

Communication - In general, how much of your time is spent on communicating with the partner companies?

Trust – Which aspects are the most important when building trust between SustainAgri and the partner companies? (E.g. literature states that trust is created through integrity, dependability and competence).

Trust – What is the level of trust between SustainAgri and the partner companies?

Trust –What is the level of trust among the partner companies in the cluster?

Cooperation: How does SustainAgri build relationships with its partner companies? (E.g. by seminars, workshops, meetings, projects etc.)

Commitment - How would you describe the relationship between SustainAgri and the partner companies in general?

Commitment - How do partner companies contribute to building relationships?

Commitment - How do partner companies contribute to maintaining relationships?

Page 152 of 234




During the fourth section, Relationship management, questions concerning commitment, satisfaction, control mutuality and measuring are asked. These questions will try to uncover which expectations the participants think the partner companies have and whether or not these expectations are fulfilled. As a consequence of these questions, I have chosen to include a question concerning measuring of relationships in order to find out if measures between SustainAgri and the partner companies have been developed.

This section also looks into three of the four dimensions by Hon and Grunig (1999): Commitment, Satisfaction and Control Mutuality.

Commitment - What has been done by SustainAgri to develop relationships between SustainAgri and the partner companies?

Satisfaction - In your opinion, which expectations do the partner companies have about SustainAgri?

Satisfaction – What is done to live up to these expectations?

Control mutuality – In your opinion, is SustainAgri and the partner companies equal partners within the relationship? (E.g. do all involved parties decide everything together or does SustainAgri make most of the decisions?)

Measuring – How does SustainAgri measure the status of a relationship? (E.g. by reaching goals and objectives set by the different partner companies together with SustainAgri)


This section is primarily about the knowledge management part of the relationship between SustainAgri and the partner companies and how knowledge is gathered, used and shared between all the companies involved.

Knowledge gathering - What is done to gather knowledge from the partner companies?

Using knowledge - How is this knowledge used in practice?

Knowledge sharing - How is knowledge shared between SustainAgri and the partner companies?

Knowledge sharing - How often is knowledge shared between SustainAgri and the partner companies?

Knowledge sharing - How do the partner companies share knowledge with each other?

All interview participants are thanked for participating in the interview and taking the time to answer my questions.

Page 153 of 234



The answers to these questions will form the questions used in the questionnaires which will be sent out to the partner companies.

Page 154 of 234



Appendix 11: Mail introducing questionnaire to partner companies

Kære SustainAgri partnervirksomhed,

Mit navn er Esben, og jeg er praktikant hos SustainAgri. Jeg er i gang med at skrive mit speciale, der undersøger forholdet mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne, med fokus på tilfredshedsgraden, mængden af videns- og informationsdeling, og kommunikationen imellem de involverede medlemmer og SustainAgri.

Som resultat af dette har jeg lavet et spørgeskema til partnervirksomhederne, som tager ca. 5 minutter at udfylde.

Den indsamlede viden fra spørgeskemaerne, har til formål at analysere kommunikationen, og det samlede arbejdsforhold, mellem medlemmerne og SustainAgri, samt at kigge nærmere på om forbedringer kan foretages.

Resultatet af specialet skulle gerne kunne bruges, i den fremtidige kommunikation mellem SustainAgri og partnervirksomhederne.

Spørgeskemaet er lavet til at kunne udfyldes på computeren, men kan selvfølgelig også udfyldes i hånden.

Det ville være dejligt, hvis spørgeskemaet kan blive udfyldt og mailet, eller postet, tilbage til SustainAgri; helst inden tirsdag d. 5/6.

Jeg håber, at du vil være behjælpelig med udfyldningen af spørgeskemaet.

På forhånd tak for hjælpen.

Venlig hilsen,

Esben Nørris Christensen

SustainAgri

Sanderumvej 16B

5250 Odense SV

Page 155 of 234



Appendix 12: Questionnaire(In English and Danish)

General information (English)

1. What is your company’s main field of work?

Supply Production Consulting Providing knowledge

Other:

2. Number of employees in your company: 1-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201+

3. What is your position within the company (e.g. Project Manager, CEO)?

Page 156 of 234



Communication

How do you normally communicate with SustainAgri (e.g. by telephone, mail, in person etc.)?

Email Phone Regular mail In person Other:

4. How often do you have personal (face-to-face) contact with an employee from SustainAgri? Once a week Once every two weeks Once every three weeks

Once a month Once every two months Once every three months

Please tick the boxes below according to your degree of satisfaction with the information and services provided by SustainAgri.

Not at all satisfied

Slightly satisfied

Moderately satisfied

Very satisfied

Extremely satisfied

How is SustainAgri at informing you about new activities within the cluster, e.g. through updating their website and sending out newsletters?

What do you think of the amount of information provided by SustainAgri?

How important is the personal contact for you?

Does SustainAgri provide sufficient information in connection with new export projects?

Membership information

5. How long has your company been a member of SustainAgri? (> means less than)

>1 year >2 years >3 years >4 years More than 4 years

6. How many projects has your company participated in, together with SustainAgri, since becoming a partner?

Page 157 of 234



7. What were your expectations when joining SustainAgri?

8. To what degree have the above mentioned expectations been met?

Not at all Slightly Moderately Very much Extremely much

Eventual comments:

9. Please name minimum 3 advantages of being a member of SustainAgri:

10. Are there disadvantages in connection with being a member of SustainAgri? Yes No

If yes, please state the disadvantages?

11. How has the membership of SustainAgri contributed to your company as a whole?


Level of satisfaction

12. Have you at any time cooperated with other partner companies within the cluster? Yes No

13. In a few words, please describe your relationship with the other partner companies of SustainAgri:

Page 158 of 234



Please tick the boxes below according to your degree of satisfaction with the questions regarding the information provided by SustainAgri.


Slightly satisfied


Very satisfied

Extremely satisfied

Do you often share information and knowledge with SustainAgri, e.g. in connection with meetings and the planning of new projects?How much information and knowledge do you generally share with SustainAgri?To what extent, do you think SustainAgri makes use of the competencies provided by your company, e.g. in connection with export projects?How much do you know about the goals of SustainAgri’s EU-project?

Overall, how dedicated are your company in the cooperation with SustainAgri?

Please tick the boxes below according to your degree of satisfaction with your cooperation with the questions regarding the other partner companies of SustainAgri.


Slightly satisfied


Very satisfied

Extremely satisfied

Do you cooperate with the other partner companies outside of the projects made with SustainAgri?

Do you share project-related information and knowledge with the other partner companies of SustainAgri?

14. To what extent do you feel you are able to influence decisions made by SustainAgri?


Page 159 of 234



15. Please explain how you influence the decision-making process of SustainAgri?

Page 160 of 234



Please tick the boxes below according to your degree of satisfaction regarding the questions about how your company feels about working together with SustainAgri and what benefits there might be.


Slightly satisfied


Very satisfied

Extremely satisfied

What is your level of satisfaction with SustainAgri?What is your level of satisfaction with the projects carried out by SustainAgri?Are you satisfied with the level of information provided by SustainAgri?How do you rate working with SustainAgri?Has the membership of SustainAgri made your company more competitive than previously?

16. To what extent do you feel that cooperation with other partner companies benefits your company?

Not at all Slightly Moderately Very Extremely

Satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied

Thank you very much for filling out the questionnaire. This has been a huge help for me and hopefully it will also benefit you in future dealings with SustainAgri!

Generel information (Danish)

17. Hvad er firmaets hovederhverv? Leverandør Produktion Konsulent Videninstitution

Andet:

18. Antallet af ansatte i firmaet: 1-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201+

Page 161 of 234



19. Hvad er din stillingsbetegnelse (fx. Project Manager, Direktør eller lign.)?

Page 162 of 234



Kommunikation

20. Hvordan kommunikerer firmaet normalvis med SustainAgri? (Du må gerne sætte kryds ved flere felter).

Email Telefon Post Personligt Andet:

21. Hvor ofte har du personlig kontakt med en ansat fra SustainAgri, fx et møde hvor to, eller flere, er det samme sted på samme tidspunkt? En gang om ugen En gang hver anden uge En gang hver tredje uge

En gang om måneden En gang hver anden måned En gang hver tredje måned

Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med de informationer og services som SustainAgri tilbyder.

Slet ikke tilfreds

En smule tilfreds

Nogenlunde tilfreds

Meget tilfreds

Virkelig tilfreds

Hvordan er SustainAgri til at informere virksomheden om nye aktiviteter i klyngen, fx. gennem hjemmesideopdateringer og udsendelse af nyhedsbreve?

Hvad synes du om den samlede mængde af information, som SustainAgri sender ud?

Hvor vigtig er den personlige kontakt for dig?

Sørger SustainAgri for nok information, i forbindelse med nye eksportprojekter?

Medlemskabsinformation

Page 163 of 234

Andet:



22. Hvor lang tid har firmaet været medlem af SustainAgri? (> betyder mindre end)

>1 år >2 år >3 år >4 år Mere end 4 år

23. Hvor mange projekter har firmaet deltaget i, sammen med SustainAgri, siden optagelsen som partnervirksomhed?

24. Hvilke forventninger havde i, da firmaet blev optaget som medlem?

25. Er forventningerne blevet indfriet?

Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig meget

Eventuelle kommentarer:

26. Nævn venligst minimum 3 fordele ved at være medlem af SustainAgri:

27. Er der nogen ulemper forbundet med at være medlem af SustainAgri? Ja Nej

Hvis ja, skriv venligst hvilke ulemper:

28. Generelt set, på hvilken måde har medlemskabet af SustainAgri hjulpet firmaet?


Tilfredshedsniveau

Page 164 of 234



29. Har firmaet på noget tidspunkt samarbejdet med andre partnervirksomheder fra klyngen? Ja Nej

30. Beskriv venligst jeres arbejdsforhold med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri:

Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med den samlede information ydet af SustainAgri.

Slet ikke En smule Engang imellem

Ofte Meget ofte

Deler firmaet ofte informationer og viden med SustainAgri, fx. i forbindelse med møder eller planlægningen af nye projekter?

Deler firmaet normalvist meget information og viden med SustainAgri?

Synes du at SustainAgri gør nok brug af de kompetencer, som jeres firma tilbyder. Fx i forbindelse med eksportprojekter?

Hvor meget ved du om SustainAgris mål i forbindelse med EU-projektet?

Arbejder firmaet dedikeret, på at få det størst mulige udbytte ud af samarbejdet med SustainAgri?

Page 165 of 234



Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med samarbejdet med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri.


Ofte Meget ofte

Samarbejder i med de andre partnervirksomheder, udover projekter der involverer SustainAgri?

Deler i projektrelaterede informationer og viden med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri?

31. Føler du, at dit firma har indflydelse på beslutninger truffet af SustainAgri?


32. Beskriv venligst på hvordan firmaet har indflydelse på beslutningsprocessen?

Afkryds venligst felterne i skemaet nedenfor i forhold til dit tilfredshedsniveau, i forbindelse med hvad dit firma synes om samarbejdet med SustainAgri, og hvilke fordele der er ved dette.

Slet ikke tilfreds

En smule tilfreds

Nogenlunde tilfreds

Meget tilfreds

Virkelig tilfreds

Hvad er dit firmas tilfredshedsniveau mht. samarbejdet med SustainAgri?

Hvor tilfreds er i med projekterne?

Er i tilfredse med det nuværende informationsniveau som SustainAgri yder?

Hvad synes i om samarbejdet med SustainAgri?

Har det at være medlem af SustainAgri, gjort firmaet mere konkurrencedygtigt end tidligere?

Page 166 of 234



33. Hvordan synes du at samarbejdet med SustainAgri har gavnet dit firma?

Slet ikke En smule Nogenlunde Meget Virkelig

tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende tilfredsstillende

Mange tak fordi du tog dig tid, til at udfylde spørgeskemaet. Det er en stor hjælp for mig, og forhåbentligt vil det også komme dig og din virksomhed til gode, i den fremtidige kontakt med SustainAgri!

Page 167 of 234



Appendix 13: Completed questionnaires

Kongskilde A/SGenerel information

1. Hvad er firmaets hovederhverv?

x Leverandør Produktion Konsulent Videninstitution

Andet:

2. Antallet af ansatte i firmaet: 1-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 x 201+

3. Hvad er din stillingsbetegnelse (fx. Project Manager, Direktør eller lign.)? Project manager

Page 168 of 234



Kommunikation


x




x højst en gang om året


Slet ikke tilfreds

En smule tilfreds

Nogenlunde tilfreds

Meget tilfreds

Virkelig tilfreds


x


x

Hvor vigtig er den personlige kontakt for dig? x


x


Page 169 of 234

Andet:




>1 år >2 år x >3 år >4 år Mere end 4 år

7. Hvor mange projekter har firmaet deltaget i, sammen med SustainAgri, siden optagelsen som partnervirksomhed? Et par tilbud

8. Hvilke forventninger havde i, da firmaet blev optaget som medlem? Salg af et anlæg per år , efter 1-2 års

9. Er forventningerne blevet indfriet? x


Eventuelle kommentarer: Kongskilde har ikke været aktiv selv, grundet mangel på salgspersonale.

10. Nævn venligst minimum 3 fordele ved at være medlem af SustainAgri: Fælles eksportfremstød, lokalt kontor, deltagelse i lokal agro udstillinger

11. Er der nogen ulemper forbundet med at være medlem af SustainAgri? Ja x Nej


12. Generelt set, på hvilken måde har medlemskabet af SustainAgri hjulpet firmaet? x


Tilfredshedsniveau

13. Har firmaet på noget tidspunkt samarbejdet med andre partnervirksomheder fra klyngen?

Page 170 of 234



x Ja Nej

14. Beskriv venligst jeres arbejdsforhold med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri: Udarbejdelse af tilbud for Egebjerg maskinfabrik, i forbindelse med fælles projekt



Ofte Meget ofte


x


x


x


x




Ofte Meget ofte


x


x

Page 171 of 234



15. Føler du, at dit firma har indflydelse på beslutninger truffet af SustainAgri? x




Slet ikke tilfreds

En smule tilfreds

Nogenlunde tilfreds

Meget tilfreds

Virkelig tilfreds


x

Hvor tilfreds er i med projekterne? x


x


x


x


x



Page 172 of 234




JMS Management ApSGenerel information



Andet:

2. Antallet af ansatte i firmaet: x 1-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201+

3. Hvad er din stillingsbetegnelse (fx. Project Manager, Direktør eller lign.)? Direktør

Page 173 of 234



Kommunikation


x x x


5. Hvor ofte har du personlig kontakt med en ansat fra SustainAgri, fx et møde hvor to, eller flere, er det samme sted på samme tidspunkt? En gang om ugen x En gang hver anden uge En gang hver tredje uge



Slet ikke tilfreds

En smule tilfreds

Nogenlunde tilfreds

Meget tilfreds

Virkelig tilfreds


x


x



x


Page 174 of 234

Andet:




>1 år >2 år >3 år >4 år Mere end 4 år x

7. Hvor mange projekter har firmaet deltaget i, sammen med SustainAgri, siden optagelsen som partnervirksomhed? 5 (forundersøgelser etablering)

8. Hvilke forventninger havde i, da firmaet blev optaget som medlem? Netværksudvikling + projekter




10. Nævn venligst minimum 3 fordele ved at være medlem af SustainAgri: Godt netværk

Info. omkring eksportkredit m.m. samt ESCO





Tilfredshedsniveau


Page 175 of 234



x Ja Nej

14. Beskriv venligst jeres arbejdsforhold med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri: Tilskudsordninger i.f.m. etablering



Ofte Meget ofte


x


x


x


x


x



Ofte Meget ofte


x


x

Page 176 of 234







Slet ikke tilfreds

En smule tilfreds

Nogenlunde tilfreds

Meget tilfreds

Virkelig tilfreds


x



x


x


x


x



Page 177 of 234




EnergiMidtGenerel information



Andet:

2. Antallet af ansatte i firmaet: 1-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 x 201+

3. Hvad er din stillingsbetegnelse (fx. Project Manager, Direktør eller lign.)? Energirådgiver

Page 178 of 234



Kommunikation


x x



En gang om måneden En gang hver anden måned x En gang hver tredje måned


Slet ikke tilfreds

En smule tilfreds

Nogenlunde tilfreds

Meget tilfreds

Virkelig tilfreds


x


x



x


Page 179 of 234

Andet:




>1 år >2 år >3 år x >4 år Mere end 4 år

7. Hvor mange projekter har firmaet deltaget i, sammen med SustainAgri, siden optagelsen som partnervirksomhed? 2

8. Hvilke forventninger havde i, da firmaet blev optaget som medlem? Nemmere adgang til udenlandske markeder




10. Nævn venligst minimum 3 fordele ved at være medlem af SustainAgri: Klyngedeltagerne kan være ambassadører for hinanden

11. Er der nogen ulemper forbundet med at være medlem af SustainAgri? x Ja Nej


Vi brugte meget tid på møder i.f.m. finansieringsmodeller, efter finanskrisens indtog



Tilfredshedsniveau

Page 180 of 234



13. Har firmaet på noget tidspunkt samarbejdet med andre partnervirksomheder fra klyngen? x Ja Nej




Ofte Meget ofte


x


x


x


x


x



Ofte Meget ofte


x

Page 181 of 234




x





Slet ikke tilfreds

En smule tilfreds

Nogenlunde tilfreds

Meget tilfreds

Virkelig tilfreds


x



x


x


x


x


Page 182 of 234





Ingvald Christensen A/S

Generel information



Andet:

2. Antallet af ansatte i firmaet: 1-5 x 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201+

3. Hvad er din stillingsbetegnelse (fx. Project Manager, Direktør eller lign.)? Area Sales Manager

Page 183 of 234



Kommunikation


x



En gang om måneden X En gang hver anden måned En gang hver tredje måned


Slet ikke tilfreds

En smule tilfreds

Nogenlunde tilfreds

Meget tilfreds

Virkelig tilfreds


X


X

Hvor vigtig er den personlige kontakt for dig? X


X


Page 184 of 234

Andet:




>1 år X >2 år >3 år >4 år Mere end 4 år

7. Hvor mange projekter har firmaet deltaget i, sammen med SustainAgri, siden optagelsen som partnervirksomhed? ET projekt

8. Hvilke forventninger havde i, da firmaet blev optaget som medlem? Vi havde en stor forventning

9. Er forventningerne blevet indfriet? X



10. Nævn venligst minimum 3 fordele ved at være medlem af SustainAgri: 1 Vi er mange forskellige firmaer --- 2 Sustain Agri har kontor i landet (Ukraine) --- 3 Der kan arbejdes på tværs af firmaer





Tilfredshedsniveau

Page 185 of 234



13. Har firmaet på noget tidspunkt samarbejdet med andre partnervirksomheder fra klyngen? Ja x Nej




Ofte Meget ofte


x


x


x


x


x



Ofte Meget ofte


x

Page 186 of 234




x





Slet ikke tilfreds

En smule tilfreds

Nogenlunde tilfreds

Meget tilfreds

Virkelig tilfreds


x



x


x


x


x


Page 187 of 234





Page 188 of 234



Influx

Page 189 of 234



Page 190 of 234



Page 191 of 234



Page 192 of 234



Industri-Montage Vest A/S

Page 193 of 234



Page 194 of 234



Page 195 of 234



Page 196 of 234



Danish Farm DesignGenerel information



Andet:

2. Antallet af ansatte i firmaet: 1-5 x 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201+


Page 197 of 234



Kommunikation


x x x


5. Hvor ofte har du personlig kontakt med en ansat fra SustainAgri, fx et møde hvor to, eller flere, er det samme sted på samme tidspunkt? En gang om ugen En gang hver anden uge x En gang hver tredje uge



Slet ikke tilfreds

En smule tilfreds

Nogenlunde tilfreds

Meget tilfreds

Virkelig tilfreds


x


x



x


Page 198 of 234

Andet:





7. Hvor mange projekter har firmaet deltaget i, sammen med SustainAgri, siden optagelsen som partnervirksomhed? > 10

8. Hvilke forventninger havde i, da firmaet blev optaget som medlem? Forventning om mange realiserede projekter




10. Nævn venligst minimum 3 fordele ved at være medlem af SustainAgri: 1. Netværk med andre danske virksomheder, 2. finansieringsmulighed, 3. Udarbejdelse af konsortiemodel for eksport af teknologi/know-how

11. Er der nogen ulemper forbundet med at være medlem af SustainAgri? x Ja Nej

Hvis ja, skriv venligst hvilke ulemper: For stort tidsforbrug i forhold til udbyttet



Tilfredshedsniveau

Page 199 of 234




14. Beskriv venligst jeres arbejdsforhold med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri: Samarbejde om konkrete projekter, hvor en eller flere samarbejdspartnere kan tilbyde ydelser til den samme kunde



Ofte Meget ofte


x


x


x


Kan ikke besvares med disse svarmuligheder


do



Ofte Meget ofte


x

Page 200 of 234




x



16. Beskriv venligst på hvordan firmaet har indflydelse på beslutningsprocessen?Deltagelse i møder, bestyrelsesmøder, projektmøder


Slet ikke tilfreds

En smule tilfreds

Nogenlunde tilfreds

Meget tilfreds

Virkelig tilfreds


x



x


x


x


x


Page 201 of 234





Little Dane ApSGenerel information



Andet:

2. Antallet af ansatte i firmaet: x 1-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201+


Page 202 of 234



Kommunikation


x x



x En gang om måneden En gang hver anden måned En gang hver tredje måned


Slet ikke tilfreds

En smule tilfreds

Nogenlunde tilfreds

Meget tilfreds

Virkelig tilfreds


x


x



x


Page 203 of 234

Andet:




>1 år >2 år >3 år x >4 år Mere end 4 år

7. Hvor mange projekter har firmaet deltaget i, sammen med SustainAgri, siden optagelsen som partnervirksomhed? Ingen

8. Hvilke forventninger havde i, da firmaet blev optaget som medlem? Høje forventninger til finansiering og salg




10. Nævn venligst minimum 3 fordele ved at være medlem af SustainAgri: Ikke sikker på der er nogen





Tilfredshedsniveau


Page 204 of 234



x Ja Nej

14. Beskriv venligst jeres arbejdsforhold med de andre partnervirksomheder i SustainAgri: Godt



Ofte Meget ofte


x


x


x


x


x



Ofte Meget ofte


x


x

Page 205 of 234







Slet ikke tilfreds

En smule tilfreds

Nogenlunde tilfreds

Meget tilfreds

Virkelig tilfreds


x



x


x


x


x



Page 206 of 234




Nordic Environment ApSGenerel information


Leverandør Produktion Konsulent Videninstitution

x Andet: Ingeniørfirma som både sælger rådgivning og udstyr.

2. Antallet af ansatte i firmaet:

x 1-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201+


Page 207 of 234



Kommunikation


x x


5. Hvor ofte har du personlig kontakt med en ansat fra SustainAgri, fx et møde hvor to, eller flere, er det samme sted på samme tidspunkt? En gang om ugen En gang hver anden uge En gang hver tredje uge En gang om måneden En gang hver anden måned x En gang hver tredje måned


Slet ikke tilfreds

En smule tilfreds

Nogenlunde tilfreds

Meget tilfreds

Virkelig tilfreds


x


x



x




Page 208 of 234

Andet:




Ingen


Målet var at indgå i Turn Key projekter med så højt kvalitetsniveau at svinefarme med tilhørende slagterier var i stand til at blive ISO 22000 certificerede. Dette gjorde det muligt for de ukrainske landmænd at eksportere til Vesteuropa og andre lande, som betaler høje priser for god kvalitet. Nordic Environment ApS ville stå for certificering samt vand- og spildevandsbehandling gennem formidling til danske virksomheder og rådgivere.


x


Eventuelle kommentarer: Finanskrisen satte en stopper for investering i Turn Key projekter.


1. En organisation som kan stå for markedsføring og alt det praktiske, 2. Virksomheder står stærkt ved at samarbejde i klynger. 3. Bedre muligheder for at få støtte gennem fondsmidler og støtteordninger.

11. Er der nogen ulemper forbundet med at være medlem af SustainAgri?

Ja x Nej



x


Tilfredshedsniveau

Page 209 of 234



13. Har firmaet på noget tidspunkt samarbejdet med andre partnervirksomheder fra klyngen? Ja x Nej




Ofte Meget ofte


x


x


x


x


x



Ofte Meget ofte


x

Page 210 of 234




x




Sustain Agri arbejder hen mod igen at deltage i Turn Key projekter med støtte fra EKF.


Slet ikke tilfreds

En smule tilfreds

Nogenlunde tilfreds

Meget tilfreds

Virkelig tilfreds


x



x


x


x


x



Page 211 of 234




S.A. Christensen & CO.

Generel information


x x Leverandør Produktion Konsulent Videninstitution

Andet:

2. Antallet af ansatte i firmaet:

1-5 6-20 21-50 x 51-100 101-150 151-200 201+

3. Hvad er din stillingsbetegnelse (fx. Project Manager, Direktør eller lign.)? Area sales manager - flere lande

Page 212 of 234



Kommunikation


x x


5. Hvor ofte har du personlig kontakt med en ansat fra SustainAgri, fx et møde hvor to, eller flere, er det samme sted på samme tidspunkt? En gang om ugen En gang hver anden uge En gang hver tredje uge En gang om måneden En gang hver anden måned x En gang hver tredje måned


Slet ikke tilfreds

En smule tilfreds

Nogenlunde tilfreds

Meget tilfreds

Virkelig tilfreds


x


x



x



>1 år x >2 år >3 år >4 år Mere end 4 år

Page 213 of 234

Andet:




?? hvad mener man under projekter?, aktiviteter-3, salg-0


netværk


x




Netværk, information

11. Er der nogen ulemper forbundet med at være medlem af SustainAgri?

Ja x Nej



x


Tilfredshedsniveau



Vi sælger supplerende produkter til kvag.

Page 214 of 234





Ofte Meget ofte


x


x


x


x


x



Ofte Meget ofte


x


x



Page 215 of 234





Slet ikke tilfreds

En smule tilfreds

Nogenlunde tilfreds

Meget tilfreds

Virkelig tilfreds


x



x


x


x


x




Page 216 of 234



Appendix 14: Mail thanking contact persons for participating(The mails varied a little but all contained the same message to the participant.)

The contact person’s name has been deleted.

Hej XX.

Tusind tak for besvarelsen af spørgeskemaet, det er en stor hjælp.

Hav en fortsat god dag.

Med venlig hilsen,

Esben

Page 217 of 234



Appendix 15: Questionnaire guide

The questionnaire is divided into four sections and asks the most relevant questions based on the interviews with the employees of SustainAgri as well as questions regarding the four dimensions: Trust, commitment satisfaction and control mutuality, created by Hon & Grunig (1999).

Normally, during a questionnaire it is custom to have a short introduction of the project and the benefits it may give to the relationship between themselves and SustainAgri. However, I did not feel that there was sufficient spcae for this since the questionnaire would otherwise have been too long. As a result of this, the introduction was written in the mail which was sent out to the contact persons together with the questionnaire.

It should take about five minutes to fill out and has been teste don two people before being sent out. The two people looked for grammatical and spelling errors, wrong values within the figures and how long the questionnaire took to fill out.

General information

The first section concerning general information asks questions regarding the main field of the different companies as well as the number of employees and the occupation of the person filling out the questionnaire. This is relevant since the different types of partner companies might have different views on the relevance of being a partner company of SustainAgri.

1. What is the main field of occupation for the company?

Supply Production Consultancy Knowledge institution

Page 218 of 234



Other:

2. Number of employees in the company: 1-5 6-20 21-50 51-100 101-150 151-200 201+

3. What is your occupation within the company?(fx. Project Manager, CEO etc.)

Page 219 of 234



This sections is primarily made in order for the participant to answer some easy questions without having to think too hard and thereby ease them into the following questions (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010). This is also mentioned by (Ghauri & Grønhaug, 2010) as the best way to introduce the participant to the questionnaire.

Communication

The second section is looking deeper into how SustainAgri communicates with its partner companies. This is very important to the relationship which was also reflected in the interviews with the employees of SustainAgri. The most important of these communication methods is personal communication since communication from both SustainAgri and the partner companies can be shared and new information can be explained in detail.

Furthermore, the consistency, relevance and level of information from the partner companies’ point of view are asked during this section. This is done to find out how regularly communication between SustainAgri and the partner companies take place.

4. Normally, how does the company communicate with SustainAgri? (You may tick more than one box).

Email Phone Post Personally Other:

5. How often do you have personal contact (face-to-face) with an employee from SustainAgri? Once a week Once every other week Once every third week

Once a month Once every other month Once every third month

Please tick the boxes in the figure underneath in connection to your level of satisfaction and the services provided by SustainAgri.


Page 220 of 234

Other:



satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied

How is SustainAgri at informing you about new activities within the cluster, e.g. through updating their website and sending out newsletters?

What do you think of the amount of information provided by SustainAgri?

How important is the personal contact for you?

Does SustainAgri provide sufficient information in connection with new export projects?

Membership information

During the membership information section questions regarding the duration of the membership will be addressed as well as the expectations the partner companies had as they joined SustainAgri and whether or not these expectations have been fulfilled.

6. How long has the company been a member of SustainAgri? (> means less than)

7. >1 year >2 years >3 years >4 years More than 4 years

8. Since joining SustainAgri, how many projects have the company participated in?

9. Which expectations did you have when the company joined as a member?

10. To what degree have the above mentioned expectations been met?


Page 221 of 234



Eventual comments:

11. Please write 3 advantages of being a member of SustainAgri:

12. Are there disadvantages in connection with being a member of SustainAgri? Yes No

If yes, please state the disadvantages?

13. How has the membership of SustainAgri contributed to your company as a whole?


Level of satisfaction

During this last section the general level of satisfaction is looked into together with questions regarding knowledge management and how knowledge is shared across the companies and with SustainAgri. This section also ends with a question concerning if the cooperation has benefitted the specific partner company.

14. Have you at any time cooperated with other partner companies within the cluster? Yes No

15. In a few words, please describe your relationship with the other partner companies of SustainAgri:

Please tick the boxes below according to your degree of satisfaction with the questions regarding the information provided by SustainAgri.

Page 222 of 234




Slightly satisfied


Very satisfied

Extremely satisfied

Do you often share information and knowledge with SustainAgri, e.g. in connection with meetings and the planning of new projects?How much information and knowledge do you generally share with SustainAgri?To what extent, do you think SustainAgri makes use of the competencies provided by your company, e.g. in connection with export projects?How much do you know about the goals of SustainAgri’s EU-project?

Overall, how dedicated are your company in the cooperation with SustainAgri?

Please tick the boxes below according to your degree of satisfaction with your cooperation with the questions regarding the other partner companies of SustainAgri.


Slightly satisfied


Very satisfied

Extremely satisfied

Do you cooperate with the other partner companies outside of the projects made with SustainAgri?

Do you share project-related information and knowledge with the other partner companies of SustainAgri?

16. To what extent do you feel you are able to influence decisions made by SustainAgri?


17. Please explain how you influence the decision-making process of SustainAgri?

Page 223 of 234



Please tick the boxes below according to your degree of satisfaction regarding the questions about how your company feels about working together with SustainAgri and what benefits there might be.


Slightly satisfied


Very satisfied

Extremely satisfied

What is your level of satisfaction with SustainAgri?What is your level of satisfaction with the projects carried out by SustainAgri?Are you satisfied with the level of information provided by SustainAgri?How do you rate working with SustainAgri?Has the membership of SustainAgri made your company more competitive than previously?

18. To what extent do you feel that cooperation with other partner companies benefits your company?


Satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied satisfied

The questionnaire ends with a thank you from me to the people who have filled out the questionnaire. Also a mail is sent out to each person returning the questionnaire thanking them for their time.

Thank you very much for filling out the questionnaire. This has been a huge help for me and hopefully it will also benefit you in future dealings with SustainAgri!

Page 224 of 234



Appendix 16: Partnership agreement contract

Erklæring om deltagelse som partner

Nedennævnte virksomhed/institution/myndighed/fond/forening

Navn:

bekræfter hermed at være partner i pågældende projekt under et af de danske strukturfondsprogrammer i perioden 2007-2013.

Projekttitel: SustainAgri.

Virksomheden/institutionen/myndigheden/fonden/foreningen er som partner bekendt med indholdet i ansøgningen om strukturfondstilskud af

(dato/måned/år)

og accepterer, at strukturfondstilskuddet udbetales til tilsagnsmodtageren, og at virksomheden/institutionen/myndigheden/fonden/foreningen figurerer på den liste over støttemodtagere, projekttitler og tilskudsbeløb, der offentliggøres i henhold til artikel 7, stk. 2, litra d) i Kommissionens gennemførelsesbestemmelser for strukturfondene, KFO 1828/2006.

Page 225 of 234



For rigtigheden af de afgivne oplysninger:

Navn på virksomhed/institution/myndighed/fond/forening:

Juridisk status for virksomhed/institution/myndighed/fond/forening:

(A/S, ApS, I/S, K/S, A.M.B.A., personligt ejet virksomhed, erhvervsdrivende fond,

selvejende institution, offentlig myndighed, forening eller andet)

CVR-/CPR-nr. for virksomhed/institution/myndighed/fond/forening:

Tegningsberettigedes navn: ___________________________

Adresse:

________________________________________

Dato / underskrift

Page 226 of 234

Documents

Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: A case study …pure.au.dk/portal/files/47742314/samlet_opgave.docx · Web view“Relationship management in a non-profit foundation: