Examensarbete i Hållbar Utveckling 92
Public Private Participation
A case-study of public-private participation to promote environmental technology development by SMEs in Sweden
Public Private Participation A case-study of public-private participation to promote environmental technology development by SMEs in Sweden
Victoria Bothma
Victoria Bothma
Uppsala University, Department of Earth SciencesMaster Thesis E, in Sustainable Development, 30 creditsPrinted at Department of Earth Sciences,Geotryckeriet, Uppsala University, Uppsala, 2012.
Master’s ThesisE, 30 credits
Examensarbete i Hållbar Utveckling 92
Public Private Participation
A case-study of public-private participation to promote environmental technology development by SMEs in Sweden
Victoria Bothma
ii
Content
1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 PROBLEM BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 PROBLEM ................................................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 AIM AND DELIMITATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 OUTLINE .................................................................................................................................................. 3
2 METHOD ..................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................................ 5 2.2 THEORY ................................................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 CHOICE OF SECTOR ................................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 CHOICE OF UNITS OF ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 6 2.5 EMPIRICAL STUDY .................................................................................................................................... 6
2.5.1 Case study ........................................................................................................................................ 6 2.5.2 Data collection ................................................................................................................................. 6 2.5.3 Finding interviewees ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.5.4 Data analysis .................................................................................................................................... 8
2.6 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 8
3 LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE ........................................................ 10
3.1 LITERATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................................................. 10 3.2 THE STAKEHOLDERS............................................................................................................................... 11 3.3 PARTNERSHIPS ....................................................................................................................................... 13
3.3.1 Social Partnerships ......................................................................................................................... 13 3.3.2 Advantages of partnerships ............................................................................................................. 14 3.3.3 Problems in partnerships ................................................................................................................ 15 3.3.4 Common success factors in partnerships ......................................................................................... 16
3.4 PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTICIPATION............................................................................................................. 17 3.4.1 PPP as a part of environmental governance .................................................................................... 17
3.5 COLLABORATION-MOTIVATION-ACTION FRAMEWORK ............................................................................ 18
4 BACKGROUND FOR THE EMPIRICAL STUDY ................................................................................. 20
4.1 POLICY BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 20 4.2 A COLLECTION OF AGENCIES................................................................................................................... 20 4.3 REGIONAL BUSINESS NETWORKS ............................................................................................................. 21
5 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................... 22
5.1 BACKGROUND TO THE ORGANISATIONS ................................................................................................... 22 5.1.1 Sustainable Småland ....................................................................................................................... 22 5.1.2 Sustainable Sweden Southeast ......................................................................................................... 23 5.1.3 Affärsdriven Miljöutveckling and Business Region Göteborg ........................................................... 23
5.2 VALUES AND MOTIVES ........................................................................................................................... 24 5.2.1 Private organisations ...................................................................................................................... 24 5.2.2 Public organisations ....................................................................................................................... 25
5.3 DYNAMICS OF COOPERATION .................................................................................................................. 26 5.3.1 Private organisations ...................................................................................................................... 26 5.3.2 Public organisations ....................................................................................................................... 26
5.4 GOALS ................................................................................................................................................... 28 5.4.1 Private organisations ...................................................................................................................... 28 5.4.2 Public organisations ....................................................................................................................... 28
6 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................... 29
6.1 MOTIVATIONS FOR COLLABORATION....................................................................................................... 29 6.1.1 Compatibility of motives, attitudes and goals ................................................................................... 30
6.2 ADVANTAGES OF PARTNERSHIPS ............................................................................................................. 30 6.3 THE COLLABORATION-MOTIVATION-ACTION FRAMEWORK ..................................................................... 33
7 CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................ 37
7.1 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH..................................................................................................... 37
iii
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................................... 38
Literature and publications .................................................................................................................... 38 Internet................................................................................................................................................... 41 Personal Communication ....................................................................................................................... 42
APPENDIX I ................................................................................................................................................. 43
1 INTERVIEW GUIDE ................................................................................................................................ 43 1.1 Guide to questions for companies ................................................................................................. 43 1.2 Guide to questions for public organisations .................................................................................. 43
iv
Public Private Participation: A case-study of public-private participation to promote environmental technology development by SMEs in Sweden. VICTORIA BOTHMA Bothma, V., 2012: Public Private Participation: A case-study of public-private participation to promote environmental technology development by SMEs in Sweden.. Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, 92. 43 pp, 30 ECTS/hp Abstract: With the increasing understaning of the need for sustainable development, many are finding that existing systems of governance are not sufficiently complex to solve the environmental crisis (see Glasbergen, 2011; Brown et al., 2009). As a result, the recent years has seen the rise of public-private participation, strengthened by the endorsement of the concept by the World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 (Andonova, 2010). In Europe, the concept of collaboration between state and private sector has been further endorsed by EUCETSA and former SWENTEC. Using a literature review to establish a theoretical basis, the study then embarks on a qualitative case-study of regional environmental technology networks. This study investigates the motivations causing the companies and networks to go into partnership with one another, and whether these motivations conflict. It also aims to find the perceived benefits of cooperation and the perceived end goals. The study finds that motivations for entering into partnership often seem to be business opportunity-oriented, although elements of risk, values, legal compliance and using existing capabilities also play a large role. Keywords: Sustainable development, small and medium-sized enterprises, public-private participation, environmental technology, partnership Victoria Bothma, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden
v
Public Private Participation: A case-study of public-private participation to promote environmental technology development by SMEs in Sweden. VICTORIA BOTHMA Bothma, V., 2012: Public Private Participation: A case-study of public-private participation to promote environmental technology development by SMEs in Sweden.. Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, 92. 43 pp, 30 ECTS/hp Summary: Sustainable development was defined by the Brundtland Commission in 1987 as ”development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987: 43). Nevertheless, however desirable this goal may be, the solutions are inherently complex (Gray & Wood, 1991) and involve a large amount of stakeholders that need to be taken into account (Hemmati, 2002). Therefore, governments today seek a broader collaboration between many actors in society in order to find and implement solutions to societal problems (Giguere, 2001). Environmental technology is a sector that is well-situated in a time of increasing environmental focus , but the sector in Sweden mostly consists of companies with less than ten employees (SWENTEC, 2009). As a result, these companies do not always have the resources to expand internationally to larger markets (Pers.com., Strömberg, 2012). Additionally, small companies are more vulnerable to economic fluctuations (Storey, 1994). Therefore the state, who have a duty towards their citizens to promote their long-term benefit (SWENTEC, 2009), are in a good position to support these companies and promote a competitive environmental technology sector through supportive regional networks. This thesis studies the regional public networks set up to promote and help environmental technology companies in Sweden, with the aim of finding what motivates companies and networks to enter into partnership. The study consists of a literature review that discusses the concepts of a mulit-stakeholder view, as well as current ideas of public partnerships with the private sector. It also includes a case-study, where representatives from the public and private sector involved in regional networks are interviewed to give their views on partnership. The main conclusions that the thesis finds is that companies are strongly motivated by perceived economic benefits of partnerships. However, there was also a strong motivation in meeting with future customers and business partners as well as the possibilities involved in taking part in public projects. Additionally, the study finds that partnerships can bring many advantages, including knowledge sharing, resource sharing and access to investors. Keywords: Sustainable development, small and medium-sized enterprises, public-private participation, environmental technology, partnership Victoria Bothma, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden
vi
Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor Dr Cecila Mark-Herbert at SLU for her dedicated help throughout the thesis project. Her ideas and feedback had a profound effect on the entire thesis project. Thanks also go to my evaluator
Dr Karin Hakelius for her comments in advance of the presentation.
Further thanks go to the representatives of the organisations and company that I interviewed.
Final thanks go to my husband and my family for their support throughout my studies.
vii
Abbreviatons
AfM Affärsdriven Miljöutveckling, part of Business Region Göteborg
ASSET Association for Swedish Environmental Technology
BRG Business Region Göteborg
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
CMA Collaboration-Motivation-Action framework
EUCETSA European Committee of Environmental Technology Suppliers Associations NGO Non-governmental organisation
SME Small – to medium-sized enterprises
SSSE Sustainable Sweden Southeast AB
SusSm Sustainable Småland
SWENTEC Swedish Environmental Technology Council
1
1 Introduction This chapter explains the background to the rise of participation and networks as a tool of governing. It also
explains the aims and delimitations of the project and its outline.
1.1 Problem background In 1987, the Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as ”development that meets the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987:
43). For the last 25 years, this quote has set the foundations for our understanding of what sustainable
development is. However, the definition of what we as humans need may vary, and even the best technology that
we can afford may not always be sufficient to solve our problems (Sachs, 1999). Additionally, the high level of
complexity of environmental problems caused by mechanisms and feedback effects not fully understood has
created tension, blame and confusion between various factions that can often be seen in the media.
For many years, it has been recognised that the complexity of problems faced with regards to the environment
and sustainability requires a more complex solution than what has previously been offered (Gray & Wood, 1991;
Giguere, 2001; Hemmati, 2002). One of these solutions is collaborative interorganisational alliances. These are
seen as a solution due to the much larger range of skills available, as well as a sharing of resources, economies of
scale and other benefits (Ibid.; Glasbergen et al., 2007). The democratic nature of partnerships through the
stimulation of public debate further recommends the collaborative strategy as a political tool (Giguere, 2001).
Additionally, the possibility of engaging stakeholders in change processes is seen as both legitimising the
process and ensuring a better rate of success through acceptance of the process (Hemmati, 2002).
The last 15 years have seen a great increase in the number of partnerships between public and private actors (Andonova, 2010). The World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johanesburg in 2002 is estimated to have
stimulated the registration of over 400 public-private partnerships (Ibid). It is to be noted that these are likely
only official partnerships, and there might be a much greater number of inofficial, informal partnerships that also
are likely to play an important role in how business is done.
With a growing focus and discussion on sustainable development, the focus on environmental technology is also
expanding daily. Consumers are becoming aware of their purchasing decisions having an impact on the world
around them (Cronin et al., 2011; Straughan & Roberts, 1999; UNEP, 2005). However, evidence shows that this
does not always translate into them making a different purchasing decision. Indeed, some suggest that green
products only make up at most 4% of the global product market share, despite claims by consumers that they
consider ‘green’ issues when purchasing (UNEP, 2005: 14). However, a report by the Swedish Environmental
Technology Council (SWENTEC) suggests that there is also little reason for companies to embark on highly innovative environmental technology solutions (SWENTEC, 2009). This might be for several reasons, such as
perceived high cost of adoption, the high risk of untested technologies, for which there might only be a limited
market, or perhaps even the lack of knowledge about new technologies both from the side of companies and
consumers. A study by Cronin et al. (2011: 159) sites a number of sources that suggest that the perceived high
cost of ‘going green’ is in fact not correct; indeed, they propose that the increasing environmental focus leads to
greater financial benefits, increasing competitiveness and higher levels of innovation. SWENTEC claims that
state bodies are well situated to act to increase sustainable development in their regions, as they have a duty
towards their citizens to promote their long-term benefit (SWENTEC, 2009). It could be argued that companies
act just as much for a long-term advantage as governmental organisations. However, the latter are certainly in the
position to aid with funds and networks in order to promote values that are considered important for the state.
Additionally, the bringing together of many perspectives in a network of actors might have business cluster-related benefits. Porter (1990), suggests that well-defined clusters may lead to increased productivity, increased
innovation and the stimulation of new businesses.
The stimulation of certain sectors, such as the environmental technology sector in this case, has in the past often
been done through setting up government organizations. The purpose of these organisations is multi-faceted and
varied. They can act as a source of information and advice, a forum for ideas and a source of new partnerships
(Green Business Region, 2011). According to a SWENTEC report, the Swedish environmental technology sector
mainly consists of small- to medium-sized companies (SMEs). Indeed over 80% of environmental technology
companies in Sweden have ten employees or less (SWENTEC, 2009: 13). The environmental technology sector
is comprised of companies that technologically contribute in some way to improving the environment, such as
waste and water treatment, recycling and sustainable city planning (www, Sustainable Sweden Southeast AB,
2
2012). Cooperation between these companies and the public sector also exists, as there are many organizations
for the support of such companies, but their abundance may confuse companies, leading to a perhaps even
greater inefficiency than were there fewer organizations. Due to the small size of many companies, and their
likely greater specialization, many are more vulnerable to economic fluctuations and are statistically more likely
to fail than larger companies (Storey, 1994). As a result, although they might be highly reliant on effective
technology, they are also likely to be less able or less willing to take high risks. Thus, cooperation with other
companies and knowledge hubs such as universities might be a way of increasing competence in the companies,
perhaps minimizing risk by being more aware of many options.
1.2 Problem
Although there has been an evident rise in partnership as a method for knowledge sharing, there is by no means a
consensus as to its efficiency (see Van Huijstee et al., 2007; Andonova, 2010; Hemmati, 2002). Partly, this can
be attributed to the difficulty in measuring many of the desired outcomes of partnerships, such as knowledge, networks and other qualitative effects. For example, authors point out that companies have difficulties fully
participating in partnerships due to the risk of disclosing private information (van Huijstee et al., 2007; Gray,
2007). Public actors might on the other hand find it difficult to combine their duty to the population in general
with their desire and duty to aid companies in the preferred sector. Companies likewise might find it difficult to
focus on their core business if they are required to participate for the public good (see Gray, 2007; Austin, 2007).
Yoshimura and Yoshikawa (1998: 7) point out that “cooperative work is feasible only when each partner can
mutually benefit from sharing their knowledge”. The same is true for the cooperation between private and public
actors. Although it can be seen from government literature (see SWENTEC, 2009) that the state is eager to
increase the amount of entrepreneurs acting in the green technology field, the motives of the private actors to
enter into such a partnership also need to be fully understood in order to make the partnership successful. Additionally, Macdonald and Chrisp (2005) argue that in order for a partnership to succeed, it is important to
acknowledge the true motives (rather than just those stated) behind the initiation of the partnership in order for it
to be successful.
It is also important to understand the goals that companies and organisations have in mind when entering into
partnership. A goal, according to the Oxford Dictionaries, is defined as the ”aim or desired result”, to be
contrasted with the motives as ”the reason for something” (Oxford Dictionaries 2012). Thus, the motives provide
a historical perspective of underlying values and the present state of things, whereas the goal is where the
organisation wants to end up. An analysis of goals should preferably include both public goal and ulterior goals
(perhaps the company wants to increase their market by having a public body name behind them but do not want
to say so), as well as attempts to find unconscious goals. The reason for this is that these goals will affect the
partnership to a very great extent (Gray 2007; Austin 2007). To be aware of them therefore might lessen sudden surprises or a sudden realisation that goals are conflicting (ibid).
There is a political interest in the type of partnership investigated. In many cases, including this, there is a
political background to the initiative, as seen by the municipal involvement. As will later be described, the
organisation that is the target of this study is part of a much larger European programme. This programme, in its
turn, has resulted from a pan-European desire to increase environmental technology (EUCETSA, 2011). Further,
the organisations being studied are directly linked to the state, implying that the state finds a benefit in
collaborating with businesses. Finding out why the state or public bodies are interested in collaborating with
businesses and what they see as a goal of that collaboration is therefore an important step in understanding
collaboration behaviour. Aside from the political aspect it is also important to understand why private actors
enter into the networks and what benefits and goals they see in these collaborations, and whether they agree with those of the public organisations.
1.3 Aim and delimitations
The aim of this study is to identify and describe what motivates private and public actors to enter into
partnerships with one another. The overall objective is to develop a framework of collaboration motivations.
Research questions of particular interest are:
- Why are organisations and companies interested in cooperating?
3
- What are the perceived goals of the cooperation?
- Are the interests and motives of the various parties conflicting or compatible?
- What are the benefits of cooperation for the state and for private actors?
The study is focused on regional organisations under the umbrella organisation ASSET (Association for Swedish
Environmental Technology), which is a collective of regional and sector organisations for the support of
environmental technology. It does not aim to evaluate the collaborations or working methods of the
organisations, but rather to describe values and behaviours held by the organisations and their member
companies. ASSET is also connected to an EU umbrella organisation, but this EU organisation will not be
investigated.
The method selected, personal interviews of a semi-structured nature, enables a more in-depth probing into
issues of choice. However, it is also resource-consuming both in data gathering and in processing and analysis.
Therefore, it has been necessary to interview a smaller amount of people than a survey would have allowed for
in order to limit the study to the appropriate scope for a master thesis.
Theoretically, the thesis has been limited to analysing data using the theory presented in the thesis and using
these findings to adapt a framework by Austin (2007) to fit public organisations as well as private organisations.
The decision to adopt this framework was taken due to its fit with other collaboration literature as well as its
possibility to be easily adapted both for this thesis as well as for the future. The aim is to create a tool for
understanding and presenting motivations of collaborations in a way that is easily overviewed. By adapting this
framework with the empirical evidence, the framework can be used as a preliminary hypothesis for how collaborations function.
The subjects chosen for interview are directly connected to the organisations in either a state organisational role
or in a private organisational role. Although politics is in many ways connected with the organisations,
politicians will not be interviewed, nor will the focus of the thesis be political. The decision to focus on the
entrepreneurial side is partly to avoid subjective political views, as well as the opportunity to adopt a more
objective role as a descriptive analysist of a phenomenon. Additionally, the units of analysis is only those
directly connected with the partnership, rather than a wider range of stakeholders, as the partners are considered
to be those key to understanding behaviour in the partnership. It is however also recognised that there may be
several people in the organisations not formally recognised that may have a large impact on the partnership.
1.4 Outline This chapter provides an overview of the structure and main arguments of the different chapters contained in this
thesis. Figure 1 shows an outline of the thesis structure.
The first chaper provides a background to the inception of this thesis, and describes why the questions posed are
necessary. It also gives an indication of the present status on research in the subject. Using a historical outlook,
this section describes how the interaction between businesses and the state has moved from being hierarchical, to
having a sense of cooperation and interaction.
Chapter two describes the methods used to gather in data for the empirical study. It also provides evidence why
these methods were chosen as best fitting the type of study. It is argued that interviewing in a semi-structured
form provides the best tools to find descriptive information of attitudes in particular, as more structured methods
would risk researcher bias in the choice of topics and questions.
A more full theoretical picture with a review of literature is embarked on in chapter three, for the purpose of
building an understanding of what we may empirically expect to be the case. By broadly describing the various
contributions made by academics, it builds a foundation for the research conducted in the thesis. It discusses the
changing role of stakeholder theory and its impact on business strategy, and how this has affected the move to
more interactive forms of governance. Finally, the end of the chapter describes the theoretical tools used to
model the most common motivations for the different parties via the Collaboration-Motivation-Action
framework.
4
Figure 1. Illustration of the outline of the study.
The background of the organisations involved and the use of participation as a governance tool is described in
chapter four. The essence of this chapter is that there has been a progression of increased interaction in
governance over the last few decades that has led to the creation of state agencies supporting business. These
agencies often work as networks, sometimes run by the members themselves, in order to increase knowledge
sharing and collaboration between companies and between municipalitites and companies.
Chapter 5 delineates the results from the empirical study. It presents a background of the public organisations and what has motivated their choices so far, as well as looking at their present values, motives and goals.
Additionally, it looks at the values and motives of companies, and how the relationships between company and
public sector look in practice.
Chapter 6 analyses the results and compares them to the theory and models built up in chapter 2. The CMA
model is adapted to fit the empirical results and analyses the results through the theory presented as a framework
for the study. The analysis is then discussed using relevant literature, and how the analysis supports or differs
from the context given for the study.
Finally, chapter 7 gives an overview of the study and the conclusions that can be drawn from the study.
5
2 Method This chapter describes the choices related to the carrying out of this study. It describes methods of data collection
and the theoretical foundation of the study.
2.1 Literature review The theoretical understanding was built though a literature search and review. At the start of the project, when a
very general topic had been decided upon, a literature search was conducted to further delimitate the problem.
The table below (table 1) shows commonly used search terms in databases. These were utilised both individually
and in combination with other search terms, depending on the search results. Databases used include the Uppsala
University library database, the Swedish national library database LIBRIS, as well as international databases
such as JSTOR, Elsevier and SpringerLink.
Table 1. Commonly used search terms
Sustainable Development Entrepreneurship
Public-private participation Collaboration
Stakeholder theory Qualitative methods
Environmental technology Green technology
Corporate social responsibility Partnership
Another important source of initial information was the search of previous theses done in related subjects. These
were interesting both to ensure the uniqueness of the project as well as providing a good overview on commonly
used literature. Additionally, government reports on environmental technology provided an insight into the
public stance on the issue as well as interesting literature. Using the bibliographies of theses, academic papers
and government reports, the literature field was expanded.
2.2 Theory
The theory framework of the study was formed through the critical use of the literature review, where I attempted to extract the commonly agreed upon characteristics of partnership and conceptual frameworks that
aided the understanding of the problem. Thus, the process has been of an iterative nature, where new insights
have led to a development of a theoretical perspective. These theories are further described in chapter 3.
Public-private participation was chosen as a theoretical framework due to the complexity of the partnership
notion. These partnerships are complex in that they involve more than one stakeholder and consequently the
culture and ideas of at least two actors means that it is relevant to investigate literature on the area to gain a full
understanding of the problem (van Huijstee et al. 2007). Other frameworks, such as multi-stakeholder
collaborations, can lend important insights into collaborations, but they do not as fully cover the dynamics and
conflicts of interest that can be seen in the collaborations between state and private sector.
The Collaboration-Motivation-Action model (Austin, 2007) was chosen because of the ability to present
attitudes and behaviour in a condensed way. Additionally, it is easily amended with new information; indeed, it
was amended to use in public organisations at the theory stage of the thesis using literature. After data had been
collected from interviews, the framework was again amended for a better fit to the Swedish environmental
technology organisation context.
2.3 Choice of sector Only three years ago, 80 percent of the environmental technology sector in Sweden was made up of small
companies with less than 10 employees (SWENTEC 2009: 13). However, the interest in the environmental
technology sector from the side of the government is significant. It is interesting to note that almost half of the
area of Sweden is covered by a public regional organisation for the support of environmental technology
companies (see ASSET 2012). This large interest in the sector, as well as the growing importance of
6
environmental technology solutions in large sustainable city projects such as Malmös Western Harbour (Malmö
Stad 2012), shows the growing importance of sustainable technology.
The literature search found that although there are many studies on the subject of public-private participation
(see van Huijstee et al. 2007), most do not apply to the Swedish context. Further, no studies were found
concerning the environmental technology sector, despite the almost nation-wide application of the PPP idea
through regional networks. Therefore, a study on this topic could benefit the research area through insights into
this phenomenon.
2.4 Choice of units of analysis The units of analysis for this study were public organisations supporting environmental technology and their
member, or associated, companies. Public companies were found through the website of the head organisation
ASSET, where network contact persons and contact details were listed. Member or affiliated companies were
found through the listings on the network websites. As some networks had more information than others, these were favoured in collecting data. Through the websites, much information and understanding could be gained
through other means than verbal communication, giving the means of corroborating information provided in
interviews. Since some organisations also included larger companies and companies not clearly of the
environmental technology sector, the companies contacted were part of a purposive sample of companies that
were deemed to fit the keywords of ‘small-medium-size enterprise (SME)’ and ‘environmental technology
company’.
2.5 Empirical study
The concept of cooperation between public and private actors is complex and requires both a theoretical and
empirical understanding. The first is needed in order to build up an understanding of the dynamics of
participation, in order to be able to isolate the particular problems or issues of the case study.
Yin (2011), in his seminal work on qualitative research, describes the importance of acknowledging and
describing the research lens through which one has viewed the results. This means that assumptions or biases
held are brought into the open and discussed, and their effect on the study determined. The method for this thesis
is in many ways that of testing an hypothesis or model derived from literature. This has its advantages, in that it
enables an efficient search for data. However, it does also imply a danger in missing data that does not fit with
the model or the pre-conceived ideas. Further, there is a risk of misunderstanding interviewees based on expectations of what they will say. In accordance with suggestions from Yin, precautions have been taken in
minimising bias through method. This includes cross-checking procedures with many sources of academic
literature, and cross-checking data results with an even spread of respondents.
2.5.1 Case study
The empirical understanding, through case-study research, is one way in which the initial hypotheses and models
of the literature study can be developed. Although a case-study does not allow for direct transferral of the
knowledge, it allows for learning and a greater confidence in the results through observations of the phenomenon
(Eisenhardt 1989). It can be argued that the only way that human behaviour can be explained is through thorough
examination of the context of the phenomenon itself (Lantz 1993). If this is accepted, it also follows that generalising understanding is problematic, as contexts vary. Nevertheless, it is of interest to compare theoretical
frameworks with what can be seen in practice. That is, if the knowledge we gain from theoretical studies can be
implemented to understand a complex reality. Furthermore, although great claims cannot be made from the basis
of a smaller study, it can be indicative of greater trends and should not as such be considered unimportant (Gray
2004).
2.5.2 Data collection
The chosen methods for data collection is that of interviewing and website analysis. Interviewing is chosen as a
mode of data gathering due to its descriptive nature. There are many techniques for gaining large amounts of
information in a relatively short space of time. Web site information is used to gain information where
interviews were not possible, as well as gaining further information about networks and companies.
7
Several authors (Lantz 1993, Gray 2004, Kvale & Brinkmann 2009) agree that interviewing is an appropriate
method for exploring attitudes. In an interview, the respondent has the possibility of explaining in detail and with
their own words what their thoughts on a particular topic are. In comparison, a questionnaire often asks
respondents to state their level of agreement with pre-established statements and ideas. The nature of the
research question is such that it demands to know both ‘how’ (qualis) something has occurred, as well as ‘how
much’ (quantitas) of the phenomenon (Lantz 1993). Thematic interviews leave the respondents able to freely
describe the phenomenon and themselves filter what they think is relevant (Lantz 1993: 18-19). In contrast, the
completely structured interview allows the researcher to receive very exact responses to exact questions.
However, this also means that the researcher has already filtered what knowledge is of relevance, and there is a
risk of vital information being ignored (ibid). The information needed for this thesis requires a high level of
description not completely known (the qualis) as well as attempting to verify a framework based on information already known (the quantitas). Consequently, the interview technique chosen is a semi-structured form, which
allows specific questions to be asked, but also leaves room for the interviewee to elaborate on what they find
important.
Thematic questions were formed on the basis of the research questions and the theoretical Collaboration-
Motivation-Action framework (CMA) in order to verify the hypotheses contained in the model. The questions
aimed to establish the background of the organisation, the motivations for entering into the partnership in the
first place and what they considered especially meaningful in the network. To contextualise answers, both
companies and organisations were also asked to describe the form of collaboration (what does the organisation
actually do), what goals they had with the collaboration and what they saw as the function of the network (see
full interview guide in Appenix I). The question guide was used as a starting point in the interview and this is
what was sent to companies and organisations, stating that these were the main questions of interest. The guide was not rigidly adhered to in the cases where the respondent was found to have included the answer in a previous
question. Respondents were to a large extent encouraged to speak freely on the given theme, but were sometimes
asked to clarify a certain point or to elaborate on a point not covered by the interview guide.
The interviews were conducted with members of the public organisation ASSET through their regional agencies,
as well as companies being supported by ASSET. In order to achieve a more reliable spread of opinions and to
counteract localised opinions and culture, the interviewees sought were of a wide geographical spread. However,
due to the difficulty in attaining interviews with private companies, information on companies also includes the
public organisations’ views on what motivated companies.The table below (table 2) shows the persons and
organisations interviewed, when they were interviewed and when their approval of the transcript came in.
Table 2. Interviewees
Interviewee Organisation/Company Telephone interview
date
Transcript approved
Sven Josefsson,
Entrepreneur
Eco-Quality Consulting
AB
02/08/12 10/08/12
Ann-Christin Bayard Sustainable Sweden Southeast AB
14/08/12 10/08/12
Johan Thorsell Sustainable Småland 09/08/12 20/08/12
Maria Strömgren Affärsdriven
Miljöutveckling (part of
Business Region
Göteborg)
10/08/12 20/08/12
Due to the wide geographical spread of interviewees, the chosen method of interviewing is over the telephone.
Whilst this limits the ability to analyse respondents’ non-verbal cues, such as body language, the method has
several other benefits. Firstly, the large geographical spread of interviewees becomes insignificant if the method
does not require the participants to travel to any one place. Secondly, it is anticipated that the ability to
participate in an interview in familiar surroundings (at work or at home) puts both the interviewer and
8
interviewee at greater ease (Miller, 1995; Hanna, 2012). Respondents may also feel that less of their time is
wasted and therefore feel more disposed to granting an interview (Sturges & Hanrahan, 2004). Additionally, the
relative ease of ‘attending’ the interview makes risks such as a last-minute cancellation almost non-existent.
Initial contact was by e-mail.
The quality and reliability of data is an issue with any research, just as it is with qualitative research in particular
(Roulston, 2010). In general, this issue has been addressed in this thesis by planning and preparing theoretically.
In the case of interviewing, preparation was done by thorough research into interviewing methods and careful
selection of questions. One of the difficulties met with in selecting interviewees was the small number of
potential interview candidates and the difficulty in reaching them. This was counteracted by repeated reminders
and early on communicating the amount of time needed (approximately 20 minutes) as well as sending out an interview guide at an early stage. As far as was possible, the respondents interviewed presented a geographical
and organisational diversity. Interviews were recorded in order to have the maximum amount of documentation
and transparency, supported with notes throughout the interview. All attempts were made at recognising bias in
the interviewer and interviewees alike in order to determine how this may have affected the study (Yin, 2011).
2.5.3 Finding interviewees
Contact details for the organisations were found through the ASSET website, and the contact details for
companies through the websites of the regional organisations.
The greatest problem faced during the course of research was the difficulty in locating and contacting interviewees. The number of networks and organisations intitially provided only a small number of possible
interviewees. With a very low response rate, despite reminders, the full number of interviewees was, in the end,
very small. Equally, the difficulty in locating companies, as these were not always listed on the network website,
was correspondingly low in response. Per necessity, the companies chosen were therefore part of the networks
with websites that listed what companies were part of the networks.
In the case of companies, it can be expected that those companies that responded are those that are more active
participants in the partnership. However, it is unfortunately also possible that they did not receive either initial
contact or reminder, since these were sent out in July, during which month most of Sweden is on holiday.
2.5.4 Data analysis
Through analysis, date can be broken down into parts and connections can be made between different concepts
(Gray, 2004). There are many forms of analysing data gathered from interviews. The method used in this study is
a theoretical reading (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). In this method, the researcher reflects and analyses the text
(transcribed interviews in this case) from the perspective of specific themes of interest, rather than following a
systematic analytic technique (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009: 236). These themes of interest, or theoretical classes
(Gray, 2004), are derived firstly from the gathering of data through literature and secondly through the gathering
of interview data.
In this study, the literature review provided a hypothesis of what motivations would be visible in the interview
analysis stage. Data from the interviews were then extracted and compared to the expected results. From this hypothesis testing, the framework was then adapted to better fit the results.
2.6 Ethical considerations Gray (2004) states that the main ethical issue with data collection through interviews is that respondents should
not be harmed or damaged through the research. Therefore, to avoid psychological distress in the interviewees,
informed consent was sought at all points in the research process. This included explaining research aims, what
information was sought and how their data would be handled. In an early stage of communication, an interview
guide with the questions of interest was e-mailed out, so that the candidates could make an informed decision as
to whether they wanted to be involved. Those that agreed to be interviewed were informed at the start of the
interview of the recording, and that they had the right to at any point pull out of the interview if they do not feel
comfortable continuing. At the end of the interview, respondents were informed that the interview would be
transcribed and that the transcript would be sent to them for approval before its use in the study. This was done
so that the respondents could correct any misunderstandings, and also so that they could, if they so desired, add
9
to their statements. As confidentiality is another issue with interviewing (Gray 2004), permission was also asked
of the respondents to publish their name and the name of their organisation in the study, which was in all cases
given.
It is important to note that the author of this thesis has a background in business studies as well as sustainable
development. This has had a large impact in the choice of research area, since business is the primary area of
expertise. It is worth noting that there may be a bias in favour of business-driven measures for sustainability due
to this academic background. Additionally, it should be noted that there may be a geographical bias to the thesis.
The geographical setting of this study is Sweden, but also in a larger perspective European. As the study to a
large extent combines implicit culture in interviews and interview analysis, the conclusions drawn from it will
not necessarily hold true for other countries or regions.
10
3 Literature review and theoretical perspective This chapter introduces the concept of partnerships for sustainable development. It discusses why there has been
a change in governance approaches as well as the reasons for partnership increasingly being used as a method of
governance for sustainable development. It also examines the problems associated with partnerships and what
insights are vital for making a partnership effective, as suggested in literature.
3.1 Literature review
In recent years a growing interest for environmental and social awareness has been seen in organisations and
consumers alike. The reasons for this interest have many causes, and there is no real consensus from researchers
as to the exact reasons for companies to ‘go green’ or whether it is worth them doing so (Mathur & Mathur
2000). Although the term 'greening' is ambiguous, a broad definition is that it consists of efforts to lower environmental impact and a desire to increase awareness of environmental and social issues within the company
(Cronin et al 2011).
Cronin et al., in their work on the strategic importance of going green, suggest that companies benefit from
greening in many different ways. Firstly, they argue that energy efficiency and responsible use of resources is
increasing because of the growing cost of materials and energy in many countries (2011: 159). Energy efficiency
and waste reduction are steps that the authors agree enable companies to regain any expense incurred by
adopting the measure. However, since this is a purely profit (or perhaps rather break-even) argument, it could be
debated that there is no real commitment to environmental issues, but rather one for lowering cost. Secondly, the
authors argue that organisations are willing to change because of the increased pressure on them by consumers
themselves (Cronin et al. 2011: 159): after all, they exist to provide for the needs and wants of their consumers. However, as previously stated, green products only make up 4% of global product market share, so the real
power of the consumers is perhaps limited in this field, or the consumers overstate their buying preferences
(UNEP 2005).
It is difficult to argue the usefulness of benefits such as savings through greater efficiency, but there have
historically been diverse opinions as to whether social responsibility is worth the time and money spent on it by
companies (see Levitt 1958). Researchers of this view argue that the financial cost of social incentives is higher
than the benefit, so that companies who spend on such initiatives are at a financial disadvantage (Aupperle et al.
1985, Ullmann 1985, Vance 1975). Other researchers argue that the implementation costs of socially responsible
measures are in fact minimal and that other benefits, such as employee morale and corporate image offsets these
costs (Moscowitz 1972, Parket & Eilbirt 1975).
Cronin et al. argue that there has in recent years been a shift from profit thinking to a more balanced view of
decision-making, where companies consider the needs and effects of a much broader range of stakeholders than
previously (2011: 161). Nevertheless, there are also arguments that profit is a limiting factor to socially
responsible measures, as efforts will only expand within the limits of profitability (Parket & Eilbirt, 1975;
Ullmann, 1985).
Lamarche and Rubinstein (2012) contend that companies have a fourfold responsibility, these being: economic
responsibility to be profitable, legal responsibility to abide by laws, ethical responsibility to be fair and their
philanthropic responsibility of being good citizens (see also Horrigan, 2010; Cronin et al, 2011). In short, the
authors consider that companies have the same legal and ethical responsibilities as other citizens. This is not a
view shared by all, although many business academics argue that multiple stakeholders need to be taken into account. Freeman et al. (2010) discusses that business and capitalism is not about social responsibility, but that
for the sake of higher financial performance, it should consider multiple stakeholders. Likewise, in the late
1950's Levitt argues that social responsibility and welfare measures by corporations, although desirable, only
make sense if they are also economically beneficial (1958). Nevertheless, corporate social responsibility
measures are becoming increasingly common, and that they are considered necessary in a competitive situation
(Freeman et al., 2010).
Building on the multiple stakeholder argument, Horrigan (2010) argues that increasing the amount of regulation
concerning corporations’ social and environmental responsibility will result in the state having to accept the
increasing involvement of businesses in decision-making. Considering that one of the great arguments in CSR is
a wider view of stakeholders (see Lamarche & Rubinstein, 2012), giving the public a greater say and importance
11
should not be a problem in a CSR-ideology. However, it is worth noting that increasing the scope of business
from business to a social function may require extra incentives and resources.
Partnership is an increasingly adopted method of providing businesses with the resources and incentives to
engage with politics (Andonova 2010). Further, partnerships can provide both tangible and intangible resources
in providing economies-of-scale. This is argued by Lee and Klassen (2008), who suggest that resources such as
knowledge and expertise can be supplemented by collaborations. The seminal work edited by Glasbergen and
Mol (2007) introduces many of the vital ideas concerned with partnership for sustainable development. Although
mostly positive towards the concept of partnership, this book takes the view that partnerships are in many ways
here to stay and that we have to make them work as best we can. Indeed, as Van Huijstee et al. point out, most
literature on the subject of partnership is not critical to partnership as a concept (2007). The relatively uncritical acceptance evident in the book can be seen as negative in its single dimension, but can also be interpreted as a
result of the malleability and diversity of partnerships. Thus, criticisms are mostly levelled at the factors that
make for bad relationships, rather than the idea as a whole (van Huijstee et al. 2007).
A review of current literature on partnership is provided by Van Huijstee et al.(2007), who summarise much of
the present research and attempts to view the pattern and direction of knowledge. All literature studied for this
thesis seem to agree that partnerships are increasingly used for the purpose of sustainability governance (see
Bovaird 2004, Andonova 2010, Hemmati 2002; Glasbergen 2011). However, as Gray (2007) points, although
partnerships are never easy, partnerships within the sustainable development frame are more than usually ridden
with conflicts of interest. Many of these conflicts can be seen to stem from the clash of motives and goals that
the partners have on the partnerships. The increasing participation between public and private actors has caused traditional spheres of society to be mixed up, so that no longer is social welfare only the concern of the state, but
it is increasingly the concern of businesses (Glasbergen 2011; Levitt 1958). This may cause businesses to be
confused about their role, which has traditionally, as Levitt states, simply been to make money. It is interesting
to note that as early as 1958, Levitt considered that he and others equally of the opinion that “the business of
business is profits” (1958: 42) would not be invited to repeat such ideas on famous stages. With the rise of
movements such as the degrowth and zero growth movements (see Meadows et al., 1972) it would perhaps not
be surprising if there is an underlying profit-focus to many partnerships that is not always as clearly expressed as
it should be for the sake of the partnership.
The difficulty in working with an organisation in a different sector is emphasised by Selsky and Parker (2005),
who argue that partners looking at the same problem may view it in a different way, be motivated by different
things and use different approaches to solving it. This conclusion is supported by Glasbergen (2011), who adds that partnerships will only function with the building up of mutual trust in securing added value for all parties.
The many conflicts and problems that partnerships can face emphasises the high importance of understanding the
motives and problems of public-private partnerships. Welpe et al. (2012), in a study how entrepreneurs view
business opportunities and what motivates them, suggest that although emotions play a large part in motivating
action, acquiring captial is one of the biggest challenges facing entrepreneurs. Thus, the authors claim,
entrepreneurs are more likely to exploit an opportunity if the potential financial gain is higher. Conversely,
public actors must focus on the public good rather than that of individual companies, and they are often
motivated by the need to solve a societal problem (Glasbergen et al., 2007). However, it could also be argued
that public actors are similarly motivated by more material outcomes, as the likelihood of successful policy
implementation is considered by some to increase with a higher stakeholder involvement (Hemmati, 2002).
3.2 The stakeholders The connection between stakeholder theory and corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been discussed for a long time. Jones (1980: 59-60) defined corporate social responsibility as “the notion that corporations have an
obligation to constituent groups in society other than stockholders and beyond that prescribed by law or union
contract, indicating that a stake may go beyond mere ownership”. It should be considered a legitimate concern
especially on the behalf of organisations that a very wide definition of stakeholders and sphere of responsibility
is only a theoretical possibility. In reality, no company can take absolutely everyone into account. Nevertheless,
it is important to point out that the matter of stakeholders is not necessarily tied to ownership or as simple as a
primary or secondary stakeholdership (see Jones, 1980), in which stakeholders are effectively ranked based on
how important they are to the organisation. Rather, it can involve a very large and complex network of
organisations and individuals, especially if one of the main stakeholders is a public organisation.
12
Sustainability and environmental issues are often highly complex in nature and involve many different
stakeholders, due to the wide-reaching effects of social, economic and environmental problems (Gray & Wood,
1991). Therefore, it is important to take a wider view of the stakeholder limitation. The definition of stakeholder
that will be used in this thesis is that of Freeman. He stated that "a stakeholder in an organization is (by
definition) any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's
objectives" (Freeman, 1984: 46). Additionally, it is an empirical reality that companies can be vitally affected by,
or themselves affect, virtually everyone (Mitchell et al., 1997). The public organisations created for the use of
entrepreneurs and SMEs are of specific importance and use by certain groups and individuals, and as such are
more limited in the stakeholder view than Freeman’s definition. However, if seen as part of environmental
legislation by the state, and part of their implementation of legislation, the stakeholder view per necessity
becomes wider.
As a case for a wider stakeholder involvement, Fraser et al. suggest that local engagement can help to build the
community’s capacity to address future problems (2006). This could perhaps take the shape of creating a more
stable economy in terms of a wide variety of employers and a greater accumulation of skilled workers or simply
building up relationships that create socioeconomic stability. Some authors also suggest that a community’s
capacity to solve future problems increases with local engagement, and that this can potentially be a more
important goal than strictly project-related results (Fraser et al., 2006). In the case of the stimulation of local
businesses, we could theorise that this could have effects on the economic stability of the region, if we assume
that the added aid from the state would result in a greater success rate of businesses. Additionally, a larger
amount of companies and a greater level of innovative companies might very well attract people to live in the
region and present inhabitants to stay, leading to a greater vivacity and income to the region.
Although the importance of a wide stakeholder definition in environmental matters has been discussed in this
section, it is nevertheless useful to categorise the stakeholders of ASSET as an organisation, as well as for the
partnerships springing out of it. Firstly, it facilitates a greater level of detail in the area of analysis where the
preconditions and reactions can be studied. Secondly, although ASSET may be affected by many different
factors, the partnerships themselves are more affected by some categories than others. Further, although many
factors may affect the partnership, those that can be controlled are within the partnership itself. As the interest is
only of a small core group, it therefore becomes interesting to use a more exclusive form of stakeholder theory.
Using a categorising model according to Roberts (2003) to separate the various groups of stakeholders from one
another based on their effect on the core entity, a much clearer picture of stakeholders emerge.
Figure 2. Stakeholders of ASSET’s partnerships (adapted from Roberts 2003)
Government &
regulatory
agencies
Board of
Directors
Suppliers
Distributors
Service providers
Investors
Journalists
Community
members
Politicians
Tax-payers
Special interest groups
Customer
segment A
Customer
segment B
Partnership
Authorisers Business partners
External
influencers
Customer groups
Shareholders
Customer
segment C
Employees
13
The diagram shows four categories of stakeholders that are perceived to have an effect on the central partnership:
authorisers, business partners, customer groups and external influencers. These four categories are divided into
sub-groups of stakeholders that are contained within the category definitions.
Authorisers provide the authority for the partnership to function and are able to regulate and monitor the
partnerships, such as regulating business and providing subsidies to encourage certain sectors (Roberts, 2003).
The model shows the authorisers as shareholders, government and regulatory agencies and the board of directors.
From a CSR perspective, shareholders are seen as having less interest, as they wish for a return on their
investment on a shorter timescale (Roberts 2003). However, in the case of a smaller company, it could also be
argued that shareholders and employees and owners are the same, and that these have a much greater interest in
the long-term benefits.
Business partners facilitate the operations of the company, and therefore include such diverse actors as suppliers
and investors. These actors are very closely connected to the company side of the partnership and it is therefore
in their interest to maintain a long-term view (Roberts, 2003). Partners in business can have a great effect on the
partnership through the effect that they have on businesses. For instance, an investor can potentially discourage
participation in a network if they do not see a profit in the partnership for themselves.
External influencers are not directly linked to the partnership or company, but are of interest because of the
partnership’s influence on outsiders (Roberts, 2003). Influencers such as journalists and the media can have a
tangible effect on the public perception of companies (Henriques & Sadorsky, 1999) and can therefore make a
difference to the company’s reputation and value. Other important external influencers are community members, without whose approval a public network may find it difficult to continue, and politicians, who can forge an
important link between networks and government.
Customer groups will also affect the partnership from a business point of view, as they are ultimately the
deciding factor in the survival of the business. If they do not approve of the service or product, there is very little
that either the public organisation or company can do to make them do so. Roberts points out that different
consumer segments act differently with regard to CSR. For example, consumers want to feel that the products
they buy do not harm the environment more than business customers might (Roberts, 2003). However, business
customers have to safeguard a good reputation and be seen not to harm the environment (Glasbergen, 2011).
3.3 Partnerships It is important to establish from the beginning that unlike many other forms of collaboration, partnerships are
often less set forms of organisations based on mutual commitment and has little or no legal status (Seitanidi &
Crane 2009; Glasbergen, Biermann & Mol 2007; Bovaird 2004; Andonova 2010). This can have several effects
on the outcome of the cooperation. Firstly, because of the lack of legal status, it also means that there is less
necessity for clear goals to be reached: there might not be a contract to fulfil. As a result, partnerships can be free
to pursue long-term goals or intangible benefits of cooperation. However, the lack of formality can also mean
that there is a lack of perceived legitimacy and a lack of clarity that cripples work (Van Huijstee, Francken &
Leroy, 2007: 83).
The reasons for entering into partnerships can be many and varied. Van Huijstee, Francken and Leroy (2007)
identify many different roles that partnerships fulfil in academic literature. These could be defined as falling into either a market, a policy or a social role. In the market role, we have the benefit as making and deepening
markets and bolstering institutional effectiveness (2007: 79; Reinicke & Deng 2000). Policy roles can include
agenda setting and policy development, and the social role could be a voice-giving role to unheard groups
(Reinicke & Deng 2000).
3.3.1 Social Partnerships
It is suggested that partnerships have a social function, i.e. that they are set up to solve problems commonly in
the realm of government policy and public bodies (Glasbergen, Biermann & Mol 2007, Seitanidi & Crane 2009).
Social functions would by this definition be something that is for the public good, rather than the good of
individual actors.
14
It may be suggested that this includes environmental issues, as well as those of social welfare. That many
companies have been and are motivated by partnerships aiming at environmental issues is evident if one explores
the local supermarket. Numerous paper products come with a Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) stamp and fish
comes recommended by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), to give two examples. The partnerships that
will be studied in this thesis are motivated in part by a political aim, although it too has an environmental
motivation and economic motivation. Due to the human dependency on the environment around them and the
often high cost of mitigating damage already done (Miller & Spoolman 2009), it could certainly be argued that
environmental motives fall into the societal problems category.
It is important to note that if partnerships are indeed motivated by social and environmental concerns rather than
by profitability alone, we have to consider that the success of the partnership might not be evaluated simply by considering financial gain or increased sales, but rather that the partnership itself might be part of the goal
(Andonova, 2010; Glasbergen, 2011). As the focus of the partnership is not primarily profitability it is likely that
this cannot be measured within a short time-frame, and that this type of partnership is therefore difficult to
compare to ordinary business practice. It is also likely that many effects and benefits are not of the measureable
kind (Glasbergen, 2011; Seitanidi & Crane, 2009), such as increased networks and knowledge exchange. It is
important to understand this aspect of social partnerships for both evaluators and participants in order for
motivations and perceived benefits to be clear and the levels of expectation of the partnership to be placed at an
appropriate level. To do otherwise might lead to participants being disillusioned when they see few material
consequences coming out of the partnership and might lead to partnership abandonment (Tholke, 2003).
3.3.2 Advantages of partnerships
Having established the definition of partnerships as well as the use of partnerships in a social function, this
section will focus on the advantages that can be gained from working in a collaborative alliance. A summary of
the important advantages of partnerships is found in the table below (table 3).
Table 3. Advantages derived from partnership from a corporate perspective
Advantages Source
Access to financial resources Van Huijstee et al., 2007
Knowledge sharing Van Huijstee et al., 2007; Reinicke & Deng, 2000
Increased legitimacy Glasbergen & Groenenberg, 2001
Cluster benefits Porter, 1990
Creating involvement in issue Andonova, 2010
Cooperation and using common resources Cronin et al., 2011
There are many benefits to working in a partnership from many points of view. Even though the partnership in
question might have social (and thus less financially directed goals), there are economic benefits to increasing ones’ network in a partnership. For example, collaborating with a government organisation might give access (or
at least ease the access) to financial resources (van Huijstee et al., 2007). This might simply take the form of the
government organisation advising on the availability of government funding and helping with applications. One
could ponder whether the increased level of legitimacy stemming from the partnership with the organisation
(Glasbergen & Groenenberg, 2001) might facilitate the process of receiving finances, but certainly aid in finding
sources of finance are already a great help. Additionally, being part of a larger network of similar companies
could bring about knowledge sharing as companies (van Huijstee, Francken & Leroy, 2007; Reinicke & Deng
2000) that are not direct competitors can complement each other. It should, however, not be seen as a
disadvantage if many companies are direct competitors, as this can lead to cluster benefits (Porter, 1990) as
supporting services are built up around the cluster. Also, the proximity to competitors could potentially lead to a
spiralling level of innovation as companies try to outdo each other.
Cooperation and using common resources is an idea that is brought up by Cronin et al., stating that channelling
resources for use by several companies enables sharing of expertise and knowledge: “Such decisions allow a
firm not only to increase their own capabilities through the proxy of the suppliers and partners, but also to use
the time and resources that are typically invested in developing those capabilities in other areas, including
environmentally friendly product and/or process innovation” (Cronin et al., 2011: 166).
15
Andonova also brings up a less tangible benefit of public-private partnership, which is its use as a tool for
“engaging non-state actors in dialogue and co-governance on the basis of soft, experimental agreements” (2010:
32). In other words, it can be used to create involvement in an issue by actors that might otherwise be outside of
the sphere of action.
Apart from organisational benefits to working in a partnership, it is important to understand what makes
partnerships work or not work. After all, as Glasbergen (2011) points out, if partnerships are indeed, as many
suggest, key to achieving sustainability, it is imperative that the collaboration works.
3.3.3 Problems in partnerships
Having described the various advantages of working in a partnership, this section develops the potential
problems that can arise in partnerships between partners of different sectors. A summary of the important factors
is provided in the table below (table 4).
Table 4. Problems in partnerships
Problems Source
Differences in motivation, approach and views Selsky & Parker, 2005
Blurring of responsibilities Van Huijstee et al., 2007; Bovaird, 2004; Giguere,
2001; Tholke, 2003
Legitimacy loss Hemmati 2002; Glasbergen, 2011
Cultural differences Hartman & Stafford 1997; Selsky & Parker, 2005;
Glasbergen, 2010
Insecurity about outcomes Van Huijstee et al. 2007; Tholke, 2003
Lack of trust Cowe 2004; Hemmati 2002; Tholke 2003; Gray 2007
Whilst many authors recognise the benefits of collaborating (see Glasbergen 2011, Andonova 2010, Brown, de
Jong & Levy 2009), some even deeming it a necessity for sustainable development, all recognise that
partnerships are wrought with troubles and that a successful partnership is the product of hard work. This view is
reinforced by authors such as Selsky and Parker (2005), who point out that actors from different sectors who
focus on the same issue are likely to view it in a different way, be motivated by different things and use different
approaches. The reason for this may be very great differences in identity and culture between the two
organisations (Glasbergen 2011, Gray 1989), which will be expanded upon later. In a very practical sense it is
important to have an understanding and awareness of these differences and problems, as most partnerships will
face them at some time. Some problems brought up by many authors are that tasks and responsibilities become
blurred, participants suffer legitimacy loss, cultural differences between parties hamper partner dynamics and
that participants feel insecure about the outcomes (van Huijstee et al., 2007).
The blurring of responsibilities and tasks may happen if the partnership is of an informal kind, or if the
responsibilities have not been properly drawn up (Tholke, 2003). But it is also likely to happen in the most well-
regulated of partnerships, as each partner might hold the partnership, rather than the separate entities, responsible
for carrying out tasks (Bovaird 2004; Giguere 2001). If any party is unsure about who does what it is likely to
affect the productivity of the relationship. There are naturally varying degrees of confusion around the set tasks,
but if it affects the core activity of the partnership the results could be far-reaching.
Legitimacy loss may come especially for public organisations if they are seen to be collaborating in projects that
are not appreciated or with companies that do not enjoy a good reputation in business or with society (Hemmati
2002). This could be seen as a more important risk for NGOs, where reputation is one of their foremost assets
and sources of revenue (Glasbergen 2011). However, one could argue that this is also a risk for government organisations, as the government initiating the project might lose reputation if a partnership is seen as not
functioning or, at worst, to be unethical. This could also be seen as an important issue for municipal projects, as
what is undertaken will be well-known in the community, and failure to produce results can result in
unpopularity. Therefore it is important to counter legitimacy loss also in municipal projects.
Cultural difference between parties is a very likely problem in every partnership (Hartman & Stafford 1997).
Culture is defined as a set of shared values and beliefs in a group (Schein 2004). What this means in practice is
that every organisation and company has a ‘way in which things are done here’ that often is not very flexible, i.e.
16
people want to do things the way they are used to doing things and they have their own goals to pursue (Selsky
& Parker 2005). In a collaboration or network where many actors come together, having to adapt to one
another’s way of working can potentially lead to frustration and inefficiency. For example, a smaller company
might have a very flat hierarchy where decisions are made quickly, whereas a governmental organisation might
have to abide by certain rules of working, including bureaucracy. As a result, the company might over time
develop a certain hesitancy in cooperating with the governmental organisation, as they are perceived as slow-
moving and rigid. Based on this, we can surmise that if the public and private actor are closer together in culture,
or are at least perceived to be so, then the relationship will be more likely to be successful. This is supported by
Glasbergen (2010) in his comparative study of the World Wide Fund for Nature Netherlands (WNF) and
Greenpeace. In this study he came to the conclusion that WNF was more successful than Greenpeace because
they were better at speaking the language of business and worked in a manner familiar to businesses. Greenpeace, on the other hand, was perceived as unpredictable and unreliable because it did not keep agreements
if it found other opportunities to reach its objectives.
Insecurity about the outcomes may come about especially if the project is very long term or if the timeline has
not been agreed upon (Tholke, 2003). It is also a likely outcome of social partnerships, as the outcomes, as
previously mentioned, are likely to be difficult to measure quantitatively and might be very long in showing at
all. Partnerships can be considered a risk merely by the quality of not being ‘business as usual’ ( van Huijstee et
al. 2007: 84).
3.3.4 Common success factors in partnerships
Although there are many problems associated with working in a partnership, numerous studies have found a
range of factors that benefit a collaboration.The table below (table 5) shows the most important success factors
in partnerships, as found in the literature studied.
Table 5. Common success factors
Common success factors Sources
Careful choice of subjects, goals and partners Glasbergen, 2011; Tholke, 2003; Korf, 2005;
Glasbergen & Groenenberg, 2001;
Respect and trust Hemmati, 2002; Tholke, 2003; Gray, 2007
Transparency Brinkerhoff, 2002
Support from influential factors, e.g. politicians
and media
Van Huijstee et al., 2007; CSD Partnerships Fair
Secretariat, 2004)
Authors have suggested a number of factors that are commonly key to making a partnership successful. Among
these are the careful choice of subjects, goals and partners, as well as a respectful, open way of working, trust and support from outsiders such as politicians and media (van Huijstee et al., 2007; Korf, 2005). Although
academics in the field agree there is no single recipe for success, and no single definition of success, it is
important to understand these aspects of partnership, so that potential conflicts or weaknesses can be quickly
identified and dealt with. As such, a number of important factors have been chosen and will be described. The
basis for choice is their regular occurrence in partnership literature as well as their wide applicability to different
cases. Thus, there will be additional factors for success in other cases, but in a general case, these are the factors
that are considered necessary for all partnerships. That the factors are generally applicable is especially
important in the case of ASSET, as the large number of partners, as opposed to the one-to-one relationship often
investigated in literature, demands a different level of analysis.
The careful choice of subjects plays a large role in many of the risks and challenges previously mentioned. A partner that has a bad reputation when it comes to environmental management and responsible business can
damage a partner already enjoying a good reputation (Glasbergen, 2011; Tholke, 2003). However, it is also
important to choose a partner that will put in as much effort into the relationship as oneself, as to do otherwise
will make an unbalanced relationship (Korf, 2005). Korf has been supported in this conclusion by the findings of
Glasbergen and Groenenberg (2001) in their comparative study of partnerships by WWF and Greenpeace. In this
study, they found that WWF’s higher level of commitment and involvement produced the goals the partnership
set out to fulfil. On the other hand, they found that Greenpeace had very little involvement in the partnership and
that the greater workload was on the commercial partner. At the end of the partnership, Greenpeace had not
17
succeeded in reaching the partnership goal, which the authors partly put down to partner inequality in work and
commitment, as well as partner unsuitability. Seitanidi and Crane support Glasbergen and Groenenberg’s view
of this problem of partnership inequality, suggesting that partnerships require active rather than passive
participation in order to be effective (2009).
Another important factor of success is an open and respectful way of working, which is necessary for the
building of a shared understanding as well as trust (Hemmati 2002; Tholke 2003; Gray 2007). This openness and
transparency are especially important in areas of common concern and types of information that can potentially
influence the partnership effectiveness (Brinkerhoff 2002).
It has previously been mentioned that insecurity about outcomes is seen as a common problem in partnership. Therefore, the realistic setting of goals can be seen as paramount to success (Tholke 2003). This factor also plays
a role in managing partnership attitudes and determining appropriate management actions.
Finally, support from influential factors such as politicians and media has, as discussed in the stakeholder section
(section 3.2), a potentially strong effect on companies and organisations due to their ability to affect public
perception in a positive way (van Huijstee et al., 2007; CSD Partnerships Fair Secretariat, 2004). This argument
can be extended to involve the effect that support from state agencies has for legitimising the partnership. For
example, customers to businesses involved in a state partnership may feel more confident about conducting
business with a company that a state agency has put forward through a meeting or project.
3.4 Public-private participation This section discusses in detail the type of partnership that is being studied, leaning on the topics discussed in the
previous section. The diagram below shows the discursive progression of partnerships.
A public-private partnership (or PPP) is an agreement for collaboration between public actors and non-state
actors, mainly with the aim to implement policy (Andonova, 2010; Reinicke & Deng 2000). In the same way as
other partnerships, it does not have to be a formal agreement, but it is a mutual commitment to work together
(Bovaird, 2004). 3.4.1 PPP as a part of environmental governance
Public-private participation is a relatively new tool when it comes to implementing government policy. Their
popularity can partly be attributed to the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development, where
partnerships were promoted as a preferred vehicle of sustainable change. The reason for this, according to van
Huijstee et al. was that the sustainability issue is so complex that it was considered that active involvement of all
spheres of society was necessary to solve them (van Huijstee et al., 2007). Partnerships were described as a part
of a new type of governance, characterised by consultation and cooperation, as well as a market orientation by both public and private actors in their striving for sustainability (Glasbergen et al., 2007). However, some
authors argue that there is a lack of evidence for partnerships actually contributing positively to sustainable
development, although this can partly be due to the vagueness of the sustainability concept (van Huijstee et al.,
2007). Others question whether it is possible for private actors to act fully in the public interest, or whether they
will only act for the common good when it is also beneficial to them (Glasbergen et al., 2007). Others point out
that the lack of accommodation on the public body’s side for the needs of the private partner can lead to an
unsuccessful relationship, which does not fulfil the sustainability goal (Glasbergen 2010; Selsky & Parker,
2005).
Glasbergen et al. suggest that partnerships are often formed “in reaction to the failure of government policy”
(2007: 13). The premise of PPP as a tool for governing sustainability is that societal problems are not only for the government to solve, and that choices have to be made in a multi-actor context (CSD Partnership Fair
Secretariat, 2004; Giguere, 2001). Here we have to ask ourselves again why it should be the responsibility of
private actors to solve problems, and whether it is fair to companies. Certainly, the aims of the government can
be achieved whilst still benefiting the private sector, and this would depend on the policy to be implemented. In
the case of support for entrepreneurs, one could argue that entrepreneurs (at least within the chosen sector) are
benefiting as much from the cooperation as the public actor, assuming a functioning relationship. The possibility
to play an important role and to influence the market towards a certain direction can be done through regional
law, but this creates a very inflexible framework and may not meet all needs (Biermann et al., 2007). The idea of
18
partnership as a flexible and malleable cooperation thus becomes an attractive and viable option, where the state
can have involvement, but where the market is also allowed to function relatively freely (Hemmati, 2002;
Giguere, 2001).
3.5 Collaboration-Motivation-Action framework
In order to facilitate the comparison and analysis of the participants’ motives and actions, the Collaboration-
Motivation-Action framework developed by Austin (2007) will be used and compared empirically with the
results from interviews. Austin developed the framework to analyse the collaboration between NGOs and private companies. Using the literature studied and the results from the empirical study, the framework is therefore
adapted to better fit the expected behaviour and attitudes of public organisations as well as companies in chapter
6.
Table 6. Company collaboration-motivation-action framework (Austin 2007, p. 50-53).
Motivational
categories
Compliance-driven Risk-driven Values-driven Business-
opportunity-driven
Behavioural forces Legal obligation External threats Core beliefs Economic self-
interest
Management
orientation
Preserving status
quo
Averting negative
consequences
Validating
institutional
integrity
Capturing economic
gains
Action focal points Politics
Legislation
Regulation
Reputation
protection
Employee loyalty
Philantropy
Corporate social
responsibility Reputation
enhancement
Resource access
Consumer
patronage
Product
differentiation
Market expansion Employee
enrichment
Supply
development
Competitive
advantage
The framework contains four components: motivational categories, behavioural forces, management orientation
and action focal points. Motivational categories is an attempt at categorising the motivations for business to
engage in sustainable development or social value creation. Motivations can include altruistic as well as
utilitarian views for both businesses and the state (Cronin et al., 2011). Emotions play a very large part in how
entrepreneurs act (Welpe et al., 2012) and it is the task of the state to care for its citizens both socially and economically. These motivations are themselves sorted into four categories: compliance-driven, risk-driven,
values-driven and business-opportunity-driven motives.
The behavioural forces decide what motivations will be acted upon. If the behavioural forces are properly
understood, it can to some extent predict what the motivations will play an important role. The compliance-
driven motivation is fuelled by legal obligation. This means that the company is acting out of a forced sense of
duty because of existing laws (Austin, 2007). Thus, the behaviour as such is not primarily based on personal or
organisational conviction to a cause, even though there may still be a conviction in favour of a cause. Risk is
dictated by external threats to the company. These threats may take a wide variety of forms, such as a threat to
the company reputation (Glasbergen, 2011; Austin, 2007; Roberts, 2003), a difficulty in retaining employees
(Austin, 2007) or even a need to improve their competitive advantage (Glasbergen, 2011). Values-driven motivation is dictated by the organisation’s core beliefs. Finally, business opportunity is dictated by economic
self-interest.
Behavioural forces also affect the management approach, the latter being what the company or organisation is
trying to do to meet the behavioural force. In fulfilling a legal obligation, management strives for a status quo
(Austin, 2007). That is, rather than actively working for a change of conditions, they are striving to maintain
them as much as possible. Dealing with external threats involves averting negative consequences, such as
working to improve the company’s reputation. Validating the institutional integrity is at the heart of exercising
core beliefs and the pursuit of business opportunities is aimed at the desire for economic gains (Austin, 2007).
19
The focal points for action are those set out by the management areas. These describe the main areas that an
organisation may choose to focus on to achieve a specific goal or management orientation. Thus, to manage legal
compliance, the focus is on political, regulatory and administrative actions as well as interaction with
government authorities (Austin, 2007). Managing risk and averting negative consequences focuses on the
mitigation of damage, as well as maintaining employee and consumer loyalty. Core beliefs can be managed by
reputation management as well as philantropic actions. Finally, the pursuit of economic gain will entail
management of products, markets and suppliers, as well as production to generate competitive advantage
(Austin, 2007).
20
4 Background for the empirical study This chapter looks at the background for the empirical study, showing that there has been an increase in the
public-private interaction in state governance, as well as an increase in broader stakeholder perspectives for
businesses. One of the ways this has been manifested in the Swedish context is through the creation of regional
state agencies for the support of business activities. Often, these agencies function as networks, sometimes even
run by the member businesses themselves, in order to increase things like the level of business collaboration and
knowledge sharing (see van Huijstee et al., 2007).
4.1 Policy background
Previously in this thesis, the increasing importance of sustainability and environmental action has been expanded
on. Environmental problems are generally complex in nature, due to their incorporation of many factors (see Giguere, 2001). For instance, a problem with water pollution into an international sea is not only going to
include biological solutions, but also great skills in diplomacy, negotiation and economics in order for all parties
to agree on a satisfactory solution. Likewise, in the area of business, sustainability cannot be achieved through
simple methods. Many academics agree that so far, present systems have not been able to deal with the
complexity of the problems posed, and have suggested that increasing collaboration between stakeholders can be
a way to solving problems (Gray & Wood, 1991; Giguere, 2001; Hemmati, 2002).
Collaborative alliances are a way of increasing stakeholder involvement in procedures. Collaboration provides a
more complex solution than what can be seen in traditional systems of governance (Giguere, 2001). It also
introduces the benefits of economies of scale and a sharing of resources, as companies (many of which are small)
become part of a much larger network (Bovaird, 2004). The private sector also has a greater involvement in decision-making due to their proximity to decision-makers (Hemmati, 2002).
4.2 A collection of agencies
The organisation ASSET, or the Association for Swedish Environmental Technology, is an umbrella
organisation for regional and national organisations furthering Swedish green technology (www, ASSET, 2007).
Their task is to be a forum for partnerships between companies and professional groups within the green
technology field. They also support the interests of green technology companies in relation to government, the
public and businesses. Further, they represent the industry in dealing with national and international authorities
and organisations (www, ASSET, 2007).
The organisation itself spans entire Sweden, most of the member organisations being regional development
organisations. ASSET lists eleven organisations as part of its network, where the concentration is in the southern
part of the country (www, ASSET, 2007). The organisations are a mixture of both regional and national collaborative organisations of environmental technology companies. The aim of these regional agencies has a
small variance, but have in common a strive to support businesses in the environmental technology sector. Some
focus on helping especially small companies and increasing entrepreneurship, whereas others strive to achieve a
better business climate for all companies in the region (see www, BRG, 2012; www, Sustainable Sweden
Southeast, 2012).
ASSET is a member of the European Committee of Environmental Technology Suppliers Associations
(EUCETSA), a non-profit association since 1999 (www, EUCETSA, 2011). EUCETSA, just like ASSET in
Sweden, has a mission to promote the international competitiveness of Europe’s environmental technology
industry. They act both as a link between business and the European Commission, business and EU research
programmes and standards bodies as well as collaborating with other international organisations. They also
promote awareness about the economic and environmental benefits of environmental technologies and attempt to gain the support of favourable legislation (www, EUCETSA, 2012).
21
4.3 Regional business networks Regional networks are one of the ways in which the state indirectly supports businesses in sustainability work.
Most of the organisations are a collaboration between several municipalities with the aim of providing a network
for companies with an environmental technology profile. Some of the networks are companies in their own right
(see www, Kompetensspridning i Umeå AB, 2012; www, Sustainable Sweden Southeast AB, 2012), with
companies and municipalities as co-owners (Pers.com., Bayard, 2012). The companies in the networks have a
wide variety of business areas, including environmental care, renewable energy, water and waste treatment, recycling and sustainable city planning and building (www, Sustainable Sweden Southeast AB, 2012; www,
Business Region Göteborg, 2012).
One of the stated goals for the business networks is to combine research with experience and knowledge from
companies (www, Sustainable Sweden Southeast AB, 2012). In collaborating with universities as well as with
companies, the organisations are able to provide companies with expert knowledge and solutions to problems, as
well as giving access to international expertise through the contact networks of the involved academics
(Pers.com., Bayard, 2012).
22
5 Results This section describes the results of the interviews and their incorporation into the Collaboration-Motivation-
Action framework. The results are discussed under a number of headings. These headings have been selected as
those covering the area of the research questions. Firstly, the background information of the organisations that
came out of the interviews are provided as an introduction to the reader and to facilitate the understanding of the
complete picture of the organisations and their choices. Secondly, values and motives are discussed as separate
from the organisation, as the aim is to understand how organisations may work. Thirdly, the results pertaining to
the dynamics of cooperation are presented. Finally, the perceived and desired goals of the network-company
cooperation are shown. Under each chapter, the results are ordered under ‘private organisations’ and ‘public organisations’, although it should be noted that this does not mean that the information under the headings comes
exclusively from one type of organisation or the other, as both have much to say about the other.
5.1 Background to the organisations This section looks at caused the setting up of the organisations in order to give a brief overview of the green
technology record in the region, as well as an understanding of what the initial aims of the organisations were
when they set up. This information is key to understanding why the organisations have become what they are
today, and understanding motivations, both those that are stated and those that are not.
5.1.1 Sustainable Småland
Växjö in Småland has a history with green technology that reaches over 30 years back in time. In 1980, they
introduced biomass as a way of producing energy, and have since increasingly focused on environmental aspects within the building, waste treatment and energy sectors (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012). As a result, they have
received many study visits; from 2005 onwards there have on average been around 100 visiting groups per year,
of which approximately 80-85% have been focused on the environment (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012). However, it
became apparent that there was a limited involvement from companies in study visits and matching between
visits and companies was not optimal. Companies became weary of receving visitors that were not matched to
their company needs.
Thus, from 2007 the municipality attempted to create a model of organisation where companies could participate
better in visits and were able to utilise business opportunities that came out of the visits (Pers.com., Thorsell,
2012). Through studying other regional networks, an entirely new model of organisation was settled on, aiming
to create a more business-driven organisation with involvement from state, businesses and academia. The idea
was to find business opportunities that suited members and for the organisation to then sell a package of information and background material of the opportunity to the business, thus financing itself. Through this
package of contacts, financing information and market needs, the business would save time and resources
finding the same and be able to quickly pursue the opportunity. However, the organisation quickly realised that
this model did not work. A lack of trust between the nine members and members and the organisation led to
opportunities not being followed up on, and members dropping out at a late stage. As a result, the organisation
realised that a reorganisation was needed, and that building up trust between partners was a necessary aspect.
Members needed to themselves actively pursue opportunities, but to do so, they had to know one another better.
For this end, three steps of collaboration were developed and implemented (see text box).
Three steps of collaboration
In a first step of increasing member trust, a rotating schedule of meetings was introduced. The meetings
are held at the members’ business facilities, and the host presents their business to the other members. This
is held throughout the year, so that all businesses at some point hold a meeting. In a second step, the
organisation and companies look at what emergent solutions are possible between the companies. New,
collaborative solutions are found, of new products or services that can be created together and sold on an
international market. These products or services are then developed and sold in a third stage of
collaboration (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012).
23
As a result of the building of trust and the improved matching between companies and visitors, the organisation
found that the companies were more willing to receive visitors to the municipality, and were much more eager to
follow up on business opportunities that came out of these visits.Additionally, the involvement of the university
means that product development and research, as well as research links, are much more easily accessible to the
companies. 5.1.1.1 Entry into the network
At present there are only nine members in the network. The low member count is a deliberate strategy to allow
members to know and trust one another before admitting new members. New members are recruited when there
is a new business opportunity that demands another type of knowledge and expertise than can be found in the
existing members.
5.1.2 Sustainable Sweden Southeast
Sustainable Sweden Southeast (SSSE) was came into existence in 2001 through an existing collaboration
between companies, municipality and university in the 1990s when the focus was on Agenda 21. The success of
the collaboration led the parties to see the possibilities in learning from one another and wanting to continue
working for sustainable development in the region. The university, named Högskolan Kalmar (now
Linnéuniversitetet), did a preliminary study to look at the possibilities of starting an organisation within that area
(Pers.com., Bayard, 2012). More companies and municipalities were contacted and in 2001 there were 7-8
companies and 5-6 municipalities as well as Linnéuniversitetet.
Structure of the network is so that the public organisation functions as a node for many actors both
internationally and nationally (Pers.com., Bayard, 2012). The organisation connects businesses with potential
customers and visitors, limiting visits to those that are of definite interest to the company. They also function as
a connection to other state organisations.
Initially, there was a lot of work in Poland and the Baltic states, but after the crisis of 2008 and subsequent
economic problems particularly in that area, the focus shifted to northern Europe and at home in Sweden.
5.1.2.1 Entry into the network
The network is a limited company (Swedish aktiebolag or AB), which means that most
companies and municipalities are shareholders in the network. A few of the companies have
foreign ownership, and since they cannot as easily become shareholders, they are associated
part-owners instead.
5.1.3 Affärsdriven Miljöutveckling and Business Region Göteborg
Business Region Göteborg is a municipally owned company that is primarily owned by the city of Gothenburg,
with collaborative links to the other twelve municipalities in the Gothenburg region. The organisation has existed
in some form since the 1970s in the shape of an authority for business that then developed into an organisation at
the turn of the 21st century. At that point, the department known as Affärsdriven Miljöutveckling (business-
driven environmental development) was founded (Pers.com., Strömgren, 2012).
The decision to focus on green technology came about as it was found to be one of several areas of industry that
had potential for growth in the Gothenburg area (Pers.com., Strömgren, 2012). Initially, the companies dealt with
environmental problems such as air pollution, waste-water and solid waste treatment. At present, in addition to
the ’traditional’ green technology companies, members also include IT-companies focusing on minimising
energy useage, as well as transport companies. One large area of collaboration is within sustainable city planning, where they offer companies meetings with municipal and private builders to present products, as well
as an opportunity to find out what the market needs. They also offer help in participating in projects abroad
within their field, facilitated by the many contacts of the municipalities. Further assistance is also given in
finding investors and foreign investors in countries of interest.
24
Collaboration in Affärsdriven Miljöutveckling (AfM) is largely based on projects and participation in seminars
and networking meetings. This is done through networking meetings and seminars, which are often aimed at, for
example, a mutual type of customer. They also arrange study visits to the Gothenburg area. Another large part of
their work is that they participate in various demonstration and development projects, aimed at encouraging
action in that area of business.
5.1.3.1 Entry into the network
The unit of Affärsdriven Miljöutveckling does not have membership in a strict sense, but
companies become part of projects and are offered opportunities to meet with other
companies and potential collaborators, customers and investors (Pers.com., Strömgren, 2012).
The organisation charts the companies in the region on a yearly basis and contacts new
companies that fit into the profile of the organisation. Companies involved in the network are
also continuously visited to keep abreast of needs and wants in the industry.
5.2 Values and motives
One of the important factors that had to be investigated for this thesis was values, and to what extent values
affected the decisions made. The decision to establish values held by respondents was taken due to their
perceived importance in deciding prime motivations for collaborators. It was anticipated that the primary values
for public organisations was going to be more philanthropic or society-serving in nature, due to their mandate in
providing societal services. Companies were also expected to have environmental values, due to their position as
environmentally friendly companies, as well as a strong focus on profitability and business opportunities.
This section also looks at the motives behind the cooperative work of networks and companies. These motives
are influenced by the values held as well as the desired goals. However, they are more detailed than goals and not necessarily as precise. In comparison, the goals show an outcome, whereas a motive for cooperating may
cover a longer time-span, such as the desire for companies to start cooperating more with each other. As values
may be unconsciously held or freely divulged, this section treats both values and motives, as values may be read
from what stated motives are and may often overlap.
5.2.1 Private organisations
Through interviews with public organisations and knowledge derived from their long experience in meeting with
businesses’ needs, it was found that there were indications that companies were less environmentally focused
than expected. The company interviewed, Eco-Quality Consulting, stated that in his opinion, sustainable
development should be key to the work in public organisations. However, he reported that he had once invited a lecturer on CSR, which many of the companies present had apparently not heard of before (Pers.com., Josefsson,
2012). Speaking about a lecture given to the network by a CSR consultant from Stockholm he stated (translation
in italics):
Companies in the network were, he said, not aware of the full extent of the environmental debate. The same
interviewee, a consultant on how to meet ISO requirements, later stated that the only people he had found who
understood the need for his service was a group of students at Linköping University, for whom he had presented
his ideas. It is difficult to fully establish the presence of environmental awareness in companies, but it is
“Han hade en bra föreläsning och det jag slogs av var att – det var en sådan där allmän föreläsning – men...det
var nytt för flera av deltagarna. Jag trodde det var allmänt för alla...Och företagen, dom inser inte riktigt
möjligheterna, dom ser det fortfarande som något jobbigt.” – Sven Josefsson, Eco-Quality Consulting AB,
2012
”He delivered a good lecture, and what struck me was that – it was one of those general lectures – but...it
was new for several in the audience. I thought this was something everyone knew...And the companies, they
don’t quite realise the possibilities, they still see it as something tedious.”
25
interesting to note that a recent study by the informational systems company Visma found that only 1.5% of
Swedish SMEs state that environmental concerns are of high importance in purchasing decisions (Visma, 2012).
Additionally, Maria Strömberg, a section director from Business Region Göteborg, stated that an important
motivation for companies was their need to be ’ahead of the game’ in the technology field, and that companies
were not environmentally friendly for the sake of it per se.
Another aspect that can attract companies is the opportunity to utilise the professional contacts that the
organisation possesses. For example, all organisations offer possibilities to present products and services to
selected visitors, as well as receiving study visits. The benefit of these visits was that they often can result in a
business opportunity (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012; Pers.com, Bayard, 2012). There is also the opportunity to
become a part of larger projects, such as the involvement of AfM into the city busses in Gothenburg (Pers.com., Strömgren, 2012). Indeed, the company that was interviewed stated that contacts, work and development
opportunities were the main reasons for him initially joining (Pers.com., Josefsson, 2012). Another reason stated
was the willingness to participate in a knowledge exchange with other companies, something he did not feel had
really occurred in his network.
A service that all organisations offer that is of use to companies is the help they can provide in securing finance
as well as business advice. This is one service that Eco-Quality consulting had used and found of distinct value
(Pers.com., Josefsson, 2012).
5.2.2 Public organisations
Public organisations were expected to have values that were a mix between personally and privately held values.
They were also expected to be motivated by a regional sense of competition, so that their values could be described as regionally loyal. It is difficult to fully understand the interplay of personally held and official
values, since all people interviewed were speaking in an official capacity and not as private people. However, it
is likely that what they decide to speak about is influenced by their personal beliefs.
One of the main functions of all public organisations was regional growth through the strengthening of
companies in the region. The importance of being able to market the region as a high-tech region capable of
providing complete technological solutions in the green technology area was especially emphasised by all
(Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012; Pers.com., Bayard, 2012; Pers.com., Strömgren, 2012). For one organisation, the
interviewee described the importance of the region being ‘cutting edge’ in their approach to technology as well
as in their services, something that influenced their approach to organisation set-up and management (Pers.com.,
Thorsell, 2012). AfM described the benefit Gothenburg’s image derived from being the testing site for public
transport innovations and renewed city areas (Pers.com., Strömgren, 2012). It seemed clear from all interviews conducted that this marketing aspect of the organisations was in itself seen as important. However, the networks
were also there in order to economically strengthen the region as a whole. For instance, one organisation - AfM –
emphasised the role of the network in creating a better business climate and promoting its diversity by
supporting small companies.
Two organisations specifically mentioned a regional strength in environmental technology as a reason for setting
up the organisation (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012; Pers.com., Strömgren, 2012). However, all organisations stated
that the primary function was that of regional business growth, some further clarifying that a driver was not
environmental reasons per se, but rather supporting sustainable development through business (Pers.com.,
Thorsell, 2012; Pers.com., Strömgren, 2012). AfM elaborated on this by emphasising that companies are not
environmentally friendly for nothing, even though the individuals may hold strong values, but they need to be profitable. Their approach to making sustainability profitable was to encourage innovation by encouraging
competition. The increased technological sophistication would then force companies to innovate to stay
competitive.
An important aspect of the cooperation between several sectors of society (often university, state and private
sector), was knowledge sharing through projects and help in product development (Pers.com., Bayard, 2012;
Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012). This is seen as highly important to innovation, as it brings research closer to
companies, and companies can share in the research network at universities (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012).
However, the importance of sharing knowledge over company borders was also emphasised, as well as its
desired outcome of emergent solutions (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012). To variying degrees, all organisations
provided member companies with the opportunity to get to know one another, with the desired outcome that they
find new business opportunities together.
26
International expansion and an international outlook overall was important to all organisations, albeit in varied
forms. AfM described the difficulty that small companies faced in trying to find international companies. The
large network that a public organisation possesses through the international cooperation of the municipality
provides the companies with a starting ground for expansion abroad.
The quote shows one of the main problems that the member companies in all the regional green technology
networks face, and the reason for which they require aid. In the same way SSSE described their ability to monitor the environment in the world and domestically and provide services that small companies find it
difficult to prioritise (Pers.com., Bayard, 2012). Strömgren went on to emphasise the motive of the organisation
to increase diversity in the business climate in the region by supporting small companies to increase employment
and support sustainable development.
5.3 Dynamics of cooperation This section looks at what the cooperative alliances, that is the relationship between the network and the
businesses, looks like in reality from the different perspectives.
5.3.1 Private organisations
One company that was contacted, Ekofasad AB, initially responded to the interview request by stating that the
person in charge of the network collaboration had left and they were therefore unable to answer any questions on
why they joined. When queried about whether this meant that they were no longer in the network, it emerged
that the key person for the collaboration leaving had led to a confusion of the collaboration status as well as the
use of the network. The company lacked further drive to be a part of the collaboration, and even believed the
collaboration to be too time consuming if a real use was to be gained from it (Pers.com, Edlund, 2012).
Eco-Quality Consulting joined the network of his own initiative, having previously been in a similar network
elsewhere. He found that there were a number of problems that were seen as detrimental to the relationship. One was a lack of trust on the part of the network partners, expressed as an unwillingness of the participants to share
information for mutual benefit. There was a limited understanding for environmental issues on the part of some
other member companies. The network was mainly deemed focused on helping companies producing tangible
products, rather than services. The perceived strong focus on regional enhancement was not something the
respondent found personally meaningful (Pers.com., Josefsson, 2012).
A further benefit that Eco-Quality Consulting had expected and wanted is that of information sharing between
companies. However, he found that the companies involved were unwilling to share information and exchange
ideas. The interviewee expressed thoughts of leaving the network due to not seeing any direct benefits in being a
part of it; it had not led to any new business opportunities, and was mostly just a nice way of meeting people.
5.3.2 Public organisations Sustainable Småland reported that in their initial type of organisation, where much of the responsibility and
initiative laid with the network, companies did not get involved in business opportunities to the desired level. For
instance, the interviewee (reported that after an international business opportunity had been found, researched
and preliminarily discussed with the potential customer, the company backed out in favour of other
”Sen erbjuder vi också företagen hjälp och stöd för att öka sin export och matcha den globala efterfrågan,
vilken ju är enorm. Men den matchar inte att den större delen av Sveriges cleantechföretag är småföretag
med under 10 anställda. Och då krävs det en del support och stöd.” – Maria Strömgren, Affärsdriven
Miljöutveckling, 2012
”Then we also offer the companies help and support to increase their exports and match global demand,
which is huge. But it doesn’t match the fact that the majority of Sweden’s clean-tech companies are very
small with less than 10 employees. So a lot of support and help is needed.”
27
opportunities. The network established that this type of problem was the result of a lack of trust through
companies and network not knowing one another (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012), as the quote below shows:
As a result, the network Sustainable Småland had been reorganised into a design that incorporated more
information sharing and a small amount of members. They emphasised the importance of the companies
knowing one another well before adding more members, as the element of trust is seen as essential to the
functional collaboration. Additionally, they attempted to simplify the structure of the network and to let the
companies do what the companies do best themselves.
Sustainable Småland stated that they had decided to not only involve green technology companies, as other
companies could provide services that benefited the spread of green technology. For instance, a large international company allowed the testing of products in their facilities, with an aim to adopt more effective
green technology. Thus, if implemented, this non-green company would, the interviewee put it, be able to
expand the market for the concerned companies markedly.
SSSE described their position in the partnership as one of a coordinator or node for national and international
actors and the companies. Contacting companies in the network is done through them, and they also have the
role of sifting through applications to visit. This is in order to improve matching of companies and visitors. They
also do research to find the contacts and background information needed by companies. Additionally, they work
as an intermediary for the municipality and companies, in the cases that the municipality receives a query about a
certain type of technology that can be provided by a regional company. The network then coordinates and helps
the companies to follow up on the business opportunity. Companies, in their network, have a multiple function as companies to be aided, as well as consultants in studies and cooperative partners in projects. For example, the
interviewee stated that in their experience, it was better if one company took the responsibility of project
leadership.
SSSE stated that they are usually the initiator of a relationship, since they “have more overview” (Pers.com.,
Bayard, 2012). Companies that become part of the network become shareholders. However, companies can ask
to join themselves, as the quote below shows:
The quote shows the problems encountered when there is a misunderstanding or disparity in motives and goals
between the company and the organisation. The interviewee points out that companies may not join for the
‘right’ reasons, that is, for reasons that the organisation can fulfil.
Another problem reported by SSSE was that of information sharing. Much of the work that the organisation does
is based on and dependent on the right information being supplied by the companies:
”Det kanske är något företag som tycker att ’det här var ett jättespännande nätverk. Här kan jag lära känna
många.’ Men de tror då att nu ska vi marknadsföra dem och sälja in dem, men det är inte riktigt så vi kan
göra.” – Ann-Christine Bayard, SSSE, 2012
”There might be a company that thinks that ’this is a really exciting network, I can get to know a lot of
people here.’ But then they think we are going to market them and sell them in, but that’s not really
something we can do.”
“Man insåg rätt så snart att föreningen inte kände sina medlemmar tillräckligt väl och att medlemmarna inte kände varandra tillräckligt väl. Så det var väl ett förtroendeglapp, kan man väl säga, mellan medlemmar
och medlemmar och medlemmar och förening.” – Johan Thorsell, Sustainable Småland, 2012
”We soon realised that the network didn’t know its members sufficiently well, and that the members didn’t
know one another sufficiently well. So one could say there was a lack of trust between members and
members and the network.”
28
The exchange of up-to-date information is here described as an important criteria for making the organisations
function well, but also one that the companies cannot always meet. Bayard interprets this as a lack of time on the
part of the companies.
Similarly to the other organisations, AfM bases much of their work on creating meeting places for the companies
to find business opportunities with external companies. Their involvement in development projects in Sweden
and contacts to similar projects abroad creates new platforms for the companies connected with them.
Participation is not member-based, but companies pay to participate in some activities, such as demonstrating
products to a delegation or participating in a trip abroad to demonstrate technology. The network retains its contacts in the business world by yearly charting the environmental technology companies in the region and
visiting both old and new companies.
5.4 Goals
5.4.1 Private organisations Eco-Quality Consulting initially joined the network to receive new business opportunities and possibilities to
develop his business (Pers.com., Josefsson, 2012). Additionally, he had anticipated a sharing of information and
experiences between the companies involved. However, he found that the network was aimed more at companies
with tangible products and that the things offered did not fit with his needs. Further, he found that there was an unwillingness to divulge information between members, and that the ‘think-tank’that he had anticipated was not
evident. As such, he stated that he for now had no goals with his continuing membership, but was rather waiting
to see if the situation changed for the better.
5.4.2 Public organisations
The public organisations had many common goals, the most evident being the improvement of their region’s
image and regional competitiveness (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012; Pers.com, Bayard, 2012; Pers.com, Strömgren,
2012). Supporting companies in the environmental technology field was seen as a way of improving the business
climate in the region and thus making the region more attractive as a whole.
For the organisation Sustainable Sweden Southeast, a further goal was to become a ‘one-stop shop’ to the region’s environmental technology companies (Pers.com., Bayard, 2012). The idea is that people or companies
interested in a particular technology or solution would contact them as a node, who could then find the
appropriate companies for their solution.
Sustainable Småland emphasise their business focus as a goal: that their primary goal is to make business
(Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012). However, they are also looking to improve the systems thinking in the region; that
is, making the industry more connected with one another as well as with the state. This was an issue that came up
in interviews with all the organisations; that to some extent the goal was not so much an outcome as a desire for
a new process to come into being. For Sustainable Småland, this desire was to have industry more involved in
the environmental technology development and discussion in the region and for them to receive more benefit
from study visits.
Affärsdriven Miljötuveckling stated as their aims that they desired a fine-tuned company climate with many
industry sectors and many small companies (Pers.com., Strömgren, 2012). Their ultimate expectation was to
increase employment, to create a diversified company climate and to further sustainable development.
“Det är viktigt att vi får info, för då har vi mycket lättare för att jobba mot ett bra slutresultat. Och det är väl kanske där som många gånger företagen inte hinner med.” Ann-Christin Bayard, SSSE, 2012
”It is important that we get information, because then we have a much easier time producing a good result.
And in this, the companies may sometimes fall behind.”
29
6 Analysis and discussion This chapter evaluates the research questions described in chapter one using the theoretical framework and the
results from the empirical study. Using the CMA model and partnership theory, the results will be analysed and
discussed from the perspective of the literature reviewed in chapter 3. The research questions from chapter 1
were as follows:
- Why are organisations and companies interested in cooperating?
- What are the perceived goals of the cooperation?
- Are the interests and motives of the various parties conflicting or compatible? - What are the benefits of cooperation for the state and for private actors?
These questions will be used to analyse the results and, using the CMA framework, the results and analysis will
be presented.
6.1 Motivations for collaboration
Using the CMA framework (see chapter 3) to analyse what may drive private organisations, it is evident that one
of the main motivations for many companies is economic self-interest, or perhaps rather the need to be economically sustainable. This is supported in this study, amongst others, by Strömberg (Pers.com., 2012), who
stated that companies were not environmentally friendly for the sake of it, but as a part of gaining competitive
advantage. Josefsson (Pers.com., 2012) also agreed with this, arguing that even with strong environmental
values, companies have to make a profit to survive. The literature studied for the thesis also unanimously support
businesses having to make a profit in order to be sustainable (see Brundtland, 1987; Levitt, 1958; Lamarche &
Rubinstein, 2012; Cronin et al., 2011). It can be surmised from this that in order to ensure that companies are
eager collaborators, they have to be convinced that there is an economic benefit for them in being involved.
One way of facilitating the increase or assurance of profits is through increased market exposure; that is, finding
new customers and new markets. This increase in market exposure was dealt with in all the networks and both
the networks and the company interviewed stated new business opportunities as a reason for joining (Pers.com., Josefsson, 2012; Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012; Pers.com., Strömberg, 2012; Pers.com., Bayard, 2012). In many
organisations, there were also examples of collaborative working in projects for a customer. This can be seen as
providing a competitive advantage to the companies, as the companies essentially achieve economies of scale in
the sharing of resources and information (see Bovaird, 2004). Assuming that the project succeeds, collaborative
projects may also build rapport and trust amongst the companies as they become familiar with one another (see
Gray, 2007). There may also be an increase in the feeling of good-will towards the network if they are
considered to be doing something of benefit to the companies. Indeed, Thorsell (Pers.com., 2012) stated that
companies became more eager to collaborate when there was a good matching between study visits and
company orientation. Also, the possibility in some organisations to partake in demonstration projects opened up
the possibility for product differentiation (see Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012), further strengthening the business
development in the network.
Austin’s CMA model (2007) mentions a factor of employee enrichment that sees employees becoming more
motivated in their work. With the usual small size of environmental technology companies and many networks
(see Pers.com., Strömberg, 2012; Pers.com., Bayard, 2012), most employees could be expected to already be on
board with ideas presented by the company to a greater extent than at larger companies. Thus, it can perhaps also
be surmised, though there is not direct evidence for this, that the ‘employee enrichment’ factor in Austin’s model
(2007) may rather encompass finding motivated individuals to work with through networks than motivating
already existing employees. However, the function of finding motivated collaborators and maintaining
motivation is seen to be of considerable importance for networks, to the extent that network structure has in the
past been altered to increase the level of collaborator commitment (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012). This conclusion
is supported by Gray and Wood (1991), who emphasise the importance in reducing free-riders in partnerships.
Additionally, Selsky and Parker (2005) point out the importance of mutual commitment in public-private partnerships. This will be discussed further in section 6.2.1.
The interviews held with the networks emphasised additional points of interest for the companies that fall within
the competitive advantage function: access to suppliers, customers, information, development opportunities and
investors (Pers.com., Thosell, 2012; Pers.com., Strömberg, 2012; Pers.com., Bayard, 2012). Supporting this,
Eco-Quality Consulting, with whom an interview was conducted, gave the reason for joining as the desire to
30
extend business opportunities and to develop the business as well as gaining contacts. The ability of the networks
to provide the companies with a platform where they are able to show their products (Pers.com., Strömgren,
2012; Pers.com., Bayard, 2012) or even be part of demonstration projects (Pers.com, Thorsell, 2012), means that
they receive an exposure that they might not otherwise get. Demonstration projects are also a way of sharing
knowledge between companies in an environment that may, due to its necessary higher level of commitment and
perceived mutual interest, figure a higher level of trust. Additionally, one could argue that the companies gain
considerable legitimacy in the eyes of potential customers from being part of a demonstration project, or being
asked to present, by a state organisation. The legitimacy argument is one that is often connected with
partnerships concerning NGOs and companies, where the partnership lends credibility to a company project (see
Glasbergen & Groenenberg, 2001). Assuming that the state as a whole enjoys a relatively high level of trust, it is
suggested that this argument can be stretched to show a legitimacy-lending characteristic in public networks.
Public organisations have to take into account a large range of sustainability issues, as they deal with society,
business and the environment, thus encompassing all three pillars of sustainability (see Brundtland, 1987). This
mix of responsibilities leads to a high complexity in the motivations for their involvement in the partnerships.
Although their goal is to help businesses, they also have to consider the region and society as a whole, rather
than focusing on single companies. This focus on the region could be seen in all interviews (including the
interview with the company), with SSSE emphasising that the network could not market companies individually,
but rather as part of the regional context (Pers.com., Bayard, 2012). The regional focus of the networks and their
strive for economic and social sustainability in the region can be seen as part of their traditional tasks of
government in assuring the well-being of their inhabitants as mentioned by van Huijstee et al. (2007). Van
Huijstee et al. (2007) see the traditional role of the state as being largely separated from business and competition, something that is also implied in PPP literature (see Bovaird, 2004). However, it also seems as
though the networks are also operating on a basis of competitive advantage. Sustainable Småland emphasised the
need for the region, much like companies, to be ’cutting edge’ (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012). This need by regions
to be seen as innovative and ’ahead of the game’ carries similarities with the motivations of the companies
(Pers.com., Strömgren, 2012), and is supported by academics such as Porter (1990). This innovative drive could
be labelled a form of regional competitive advantage. It may serve to increase the social and economic
sustainability by increasing the amount of companies in the region (economic sustainability) and lowering
unemployment (social and economic sustainability).
6.1.1 Compatibility of motives, attitudes and goals As discussed, public and private organisations alike have a strong focus on business opportunities. Additionally,
public organisations seek to strengthen the region by supporting companies and encouraging the establishment of
further companies, as well as international expansion. Although it was expected that ideals would play a part in
both the motivations of public and private organisations, it was found that for both, the results suggests a
stronger economic motive, with an underlying ideal. However, the networks also had a strong focus on regional
excellence and a sense of regional competition, in wanting to be ‘cutting edge’ (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012). This
focus on the region as an entity could be seen as a problem if the companies feel that there is an overdue focus
on the region, as was the case with Eco-Quality Consulting (Pers.com., Josefsson, 2012), rather than on the
companies. It is not certain that companies would be able to see the benefit of a competitive region if they
themselves did not directly benefit from it.
6.2 Advantages of partnerships
In order to understand the benefits that companies and networks perceive in partnerships, the literature presented in chapter 2 is used to analyse the data. The theory chapter showed a number of important advantages that
partnerships bring to organisations and companies. These were: access to financial resources (van Huijstee et al.,
2007); knowledge sharing (van Huijstee et al., 2007; Reinicke & Deng, 2000); increased legitimacy (Glasbergen
& Groenenberg, 2001); cluster benefits (Porter, 1990); creating involvement in issue (Andonova, 2010);
cooperation and using common resources (Cronin et al., 2011).
Access to financial resources is a benefit that is important especially to the companies, as van Huijstee et al.
point out (2007). Due to their small size, they may be in need of extra funds to cover some activities. For
example, they can get help in applying for state funding and get information where funding is to be had
(Pers.com., Bayard, 2012), or they can meet with investors at specially set up meetings (Pers.com., Strömgren,
2012). This is also one of the advantages pointed out by Bovaird (2004), as providing economies of scope. This
31
term also includes the opportunity to exploit the competencies and capabilities in the partner organisation.
Connected to this is the ability of the networks to introduce the companies to new business opportunities, which
is one of the main tasks of the networks (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012; Pers.com., Bayard, 2012; Pers.com.,
Strömgren, 2012). Although none of the networks talked of financial resources as a main focus, it could be
argued that many of the services provided by the networks indirectly function as access to financial resources.
For example, the networks have, as Ann-Christin Bayard from SSSE pointed out (Pers.com., 2012), a better
overview of the systems and can therefore be of great help in applying for funding. Thus, by utilising the
capabilities in the network, the companies get access to other actors and resources. Secondly, by participating in
demonstration projects and product development, activities that were present in all networks, the companies gain
access to funds (albeit shared). Through such projects they also attain a certain level of economies-of-scale as
they make common cause with complementing companies. It also opens for possibilities in sharing resources. Further, a cluster-like structure as that described and detailed by Porter (1990) may develop as the regional
network becomes better at catering to the needs of the businesses.
Another benefit related to economies of scale and scope is that of knowledge sharing between partners (van
Huijstee et al., 2007; Reinicke & Deng, 2000). Sustainable Småland showed a different approach to knowledge
sharing by holding regular meetings where company information was shared, which could be seen as increasing
both the knowledge of each other’s activities. They saw this as improving the chance of emergent business
solutions as well as promoting a closer relationship between members (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012). Sustainable
Småland and Sustainable Sweden Southeast both placed emphasis on the collaboration between the three sectors
of public, private and academia, where the latter was seen as a large source of knowledge (Pers.com., Thorsell,
2012; Pers.com., Bayard, 2012). The sharing of knowledge across sector boundaries and the opening up of public debate is by some seen as the optimal way in which to respond to new societal concerns and to promote
sustainable development (Giguere, 2001). It can also be argued that, in involving companies and experts of
relevant fields, the state is improving its ability to make informed policies (Hemmati, 2002). Thus, in enabling
knowledge sharing, the networks can be seen to benefit both the state and the business interests.
As has been mentioned in section 6.1, it can be argued that the companies in the networks enjoy an increase in
legitimacy through their collaboration with the state, based on the study by Glasbergen and Groenenberg (2001).
Since the role of many of the networks is also to show delegations around, it could be argued that from the
visitor’s point of view, a company indirectly receives a stamp of approval from the state in being chosen as part
of a municipal tour. Although this is naturally an informal approval (the visitor cannot claim to have received a
guarantee from the municipality), it could nevertheless have a strong effect on the image of the company.
The final advantageous factor brought forward by the literature review is the creation of involvement in a certain
issue (Andonova, 2010), which could in this case be seen as the sustainability issue. Interestingly, this was a
factor that was not entirely visible in the results, although it is supported by other authors (see Hemmati, 2002).
Although all networks spoke of the importance of sustainability and ’greening’ the economy, it often seemed to
be secondary to the business requirements. Due to the limited scope of the study, it is not possible to say whether
the lack of discussion of the issue in the interviews was due to lack of interest in the subject or quite simply
because it was not deemed to be of interest to the interviewer. The respondent from Affärdriven Miljöutveckling
pointed out that companies are not environmentally friendly without thought of profit, even though the people in
the companies may have a commitment to sustainability (Pers.com., Strömgren, 2012). Similarly, it could be
argued that perhaps the networks do not see it as their task to push an environmental agenda so much as
indirectly aiding it by supporting the companies that benefit the environment.
6.2.1 Common success factors
The success of a partnership can depend on a great variety of factors that can have a great bearing on the
motivation of the actors in a partnership. However, there are som that have frequently been mentioned in
literature as highly relevant. These are: the careful choice of goals and partners (Glasbergen, 2011; Tholke, 2003;
Korf, 2005; Glasbergen & Groenenberg, 2001); respect and trust (Hemmati, 2002; Tholke, 2003; Gray, 2007); transparency (Brinkerhoff, 2002); support from politicians and media (van Huijstee et al., 2007; CSD
Partnerships Fair Secretariat, 2004).
One factor discussed by many authors is the careful choice of partners, which should not only include selecting
companies of the focus sector, but also companies that will be committed to the relationship and will be active
members (Glasbergen, 2011; Tholke, 2003; Korf, 2005; Glasbergen & Groenenberg, 2001). An interesting factor
in the function of the networks was that all could be seen to have some way of increasing the involvement of the
companies. SSSE had a network structure where companies became part owners of the organisation. This creates
32
a high barrier to entry and exit, so that companies have to make a major commitment before joining, and it is
troublesome to leave (Porter, 2008). With a high barrier to entry companies may have to spend a considerable
amount of effort and resources in joining the network, and as such it can be argued that it may reduce the number
of free-riders and passive members. Thus, the partnership already at the start takes a more active form, where
”participants must make a resource commitment that is more than merely monetary” (Seitanidi & Crane, 2009).
Affärsdriven Miljöutveckling on the other hand, the Gothenburg network, charges a fee for some activities
(Pers.com., Strömberg, 2012). This may be to cover costs, but it may be ventured that the people attending the
event are more likely to have a high interest in participating in the event if they are made to pay to attend.
Additionally, Affärdriven Miljöutveckling do not have a regular membership service, but rather works with
companies on a project basis, making the relevance of the collaboration for the companies very high (Pers.com.,
Strömberg, 2012). This can also be argued as a method to reduce the risk of passive members. Finally, Sustainable Småland decided to have only nine members, due to the importance they place on the companies
knowing and trusting one another (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012). This personal level of relationship means that
accountability within the network becomes more important, again likley making it more difficult for companies
to be passive members. Another aim for the network was to find emergent solutions (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012),
which is also likely to be easier to attain if companies are willing to exchange sensitive information with one
another, something that Eco-Quality Consulting found was not the case in his network (Pers.com., Josefsson,
2012). Hemmati (2002) argues that participation creates ownership, and that by taking part in initial
communications people are more likely to take ownership of the decisions that emerge. If this is extended into
the context of the study, it can be argued that the mechanisms put in place by the networks to increase active
collaboration increases commitment in the long term as the companies establish an emotional (as Hemmati
suggests) bond to the network. This in itself may increase the probability of the network’s long-term survival, as the companies engage with the fate of the network.
The high level of commitment on the part of companies was seen to play a large part in encouraging the trust of
the network in knowing that the companies would fulfil their part of the collaboration (Pers.com., Bayard, 2012;
Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012). There were also clear indications that the trust the companies had for the networks
increased when the matching of needs and services improved in the network Sustainable Småland (Pers.com.,
Thorsell, 2012). The results showed that individual involvement was seen to play a part for companies, as the
commitment to the collaboration was dependent on the values and commitment of one single person (Pers.com.,
Edlund, 2012; Pers.com., Josefsson, 2012). In the case of Eco-Quality Consulting and the manager Sven
Josefsson, this came about as there was only one employee. However, it could be argued that the small number
of employees in most of the companies involved may increase the likelihood of partnership vulnerability, as a
larger company will have a greater capacity to find someone else to fulfil the role. This supports the idea that individual values are a key part to collaboration for small private companies (Austin, 2007). Additionally, it also
shows a decided vulnerability when it comes to partnership stability if the collaboration has been embarked on
by one individual in a company. In a study of this scale, it is difficult to ascertain whether these issues are
prevalent in a large amount of companies, as many would have to be investigated. Further, many of the less
active companies may not feel that they are qualified to speak about collaborations that they have little interest
in. Nevertheless, it is interesting to point out that in many cases, the companies might rely on one single person
that is providing the drive for the collaboration, and that this is not a factor mentioned in the literature studied.
The reason for the lack of mention might however be due to most partnership literature looking at larger
companies.
Both the networks Sustainable Småland and SSSE particularly indicated the importance in matching study visits to the needs and products of the companies, so that business opportunities could be properly utilised. The
information from Sustainable Småland indicates that the effect of not matching study visits is that companies see
no benefit in receiving visits, making them wary of further commitments (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012).
Affärsdriven Miljöutveckling also placed great emphasis on company-customer matching by providing platforms
for relevant customers to meet with potential clients (Pers.com., Strömberg, 2012). The lack of matching of
needs and services proved to be a point that lowered the commitment of Eco-Quality Consulting (Pers.com.,
Josefsson, 2012). Thus, in order to increase the level of trust in the networks (trust that they will be a committed
partner) was a strong element in all organisations, as has been argued earlier in this section with regards to
commitment-enhancing methods. That there is an apparent mutual benefit to the relationship can thus be seen as
a very important factor in the level of commitment and trust.
Furthermore, the careful choice of goals is danger connected to the problem of outcome insecurity and can in many ways affect the levels of trust and commitment (Glasbergen, 2011; Tholke, 2003; Korf, 2005; Glasbergen
& Groenenberg, 2001). If the companies feel that the goals decided upon are not relevant to them or are even
unrealistic, it will be difficult to convince companies that it is worth their time. This can be seen in the interview
33
with Eco-Quality Consulting, where the network focus on regional growth was not one that was shared with the
company, with the resulting loss of commitment and trust (Pers.com., Josefsson, 2012). However, the results
also showed that the networks interviewed have gone to great lengths in order to make the services provided fit
with the needs and wants of the companies, as was shown earlier in this section. Especially in the case of
Sustainable Småland, the personal nature of the network due to the small size, the results seemed to show a high
compatibilty between state and commercial goals, perhaps due to the strong focus on the businesses (Pers.com.,
Thorsell, 2012). It is interesting to note that goals (at least those disclosed) were often of a kind that is difficult to
measure, such as making the region more attractive (Pers.com., Strömberg, 2012). However, although clear goals
are beneficial to a partnership, many authors agree that goals may also include synergistic effects (Brinkerhoff,
2002) and social goals (Gray & Wood, 1991).
Finally, the collaboration can gain more legitimacy as a result of attention from media and politicians (van
Huijstee et al., 2007; CSD Partnership Fair Secretariat, 2003). To some extent, it can be surmised that the
networks, due to being closely attached to public bodies, enjoy a higher level of legitimacy as a result of their
state affiliation. This affiliation may also increase the level of trust, providing that the level of trust for the state
is already high.
6.3 The Collaboration-Motivation-Action framework
This section forms and amends the framework by Austin (2007) detailed in section 3.5 using the data from the
empirical study and the analytical material from this chapter (chapter 6). For the networks, the framework (Table
10) will be reshaped to better fit the particular challenges faced by state networks, with inspiration from the framework Austin developed for NGOs. This consists of the addition of a capabilities factor that will be detailed
in this section.
The table below (table 9) shows the CMA framework detailed in chapter four, with the changes brought about by
the empirical results for companies (added factors in italics).
Table 9. Company collaboration-motivation-action framework (adapted from Austin 2007, p. 50-53).
Motivational
categories
Compliance-
driven
Risk-driven Values-driven Business-
opportunity-
driven
Behavioural
forces
Legal obligation External threats Core beliefs
Individual
involvement
Economic self-
interest
Management orientation
Preserving status quo
Averting negative consequences
Validating institutional
integrity
Capturing economic gains
Action focal
points
Politics
Legislation
Regulation
Reputation
protection
Employee loyalty
Information
acquisition
Network building
Finding investors
Philantropy
Corporate social
responsibility
Reputation
enhancement
Resource access
Consumer
patronage
Product
differentiation
Market expansion
Employee
enrichment
Supply
development
Competitive
advantage
Participation in public and
demonstration
projects
The study has not strong found evidence for a compliance-driven motivation (see Austin, 2007) for joining
networks from the part of small companies. However, they are affected by legal obligations in having to follow
regulations set in place for businesses. One interviewee (Pers.com., Josefsson, 2012) stated that he had received
34
support in setting up his company. Thus, it could be surmised that an important function that the networks can
fulfil can include advice on what regulations need to be followed (e.g. tax, licences).
Risk, as was described in section 3.5, can take a variety of different forms of external threats. Threats can
include, amongst other things, threats to the company reputation (Glasbergen, 2011; Austin, 2007; Roberts,
2003), a difficulty in retaining employees (Austin, 2007) and a need to improve competitive advantage
(Glasbergen, 2011). In order to avert these negative consequences, the company can choose a number of action
focal points to strengthen the position of the company. For Eco-Quality Consulting, the possibility to network
the and share information was one of the strong points of attraction with the networks (Pers.com., Josefsson,
2012). The networks themselves also recognised the value in involving universities in the networks, due to their
ability to provide high quality information and academic networks (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012; Pers.com., Bayard, 2012). All networks also reported meetings between associated companies leading to new business
opportunities outside the network and new products within (Pers.com., Bayard, 2012; Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012;
Pers.com., Strömgren, 2012). Concerning access to resources, van Huijstee et al. (2007) point out the important
factor of access to financial resources. In the networks, access was given to investors through the help in
applying for government funding (Pers.com., Josefsson, 2012; Pers.com., Bayard, 2012) as well as investor
meetings set up by the network (Pers.com., Strömberg, 2012).
The results suggested that in the case of network participation, small companies might rely on the drive and
involvement of one single individual to keep the collaboration going (see section 5.3.1 and 6.2). However,
evidence also suggested that personal values were a strong reason for entering into the network (Pers.com.,
Josefsson, 2012). This was also anticipated in the case of public organisations, as the setting up of organisations is not mandatory, albeit encouraged by organisations such as EUCETSA and formerly SWENTEC. For
companies, it was anticipated that the interest would be in validating institutional integrity and making use of
facilities through public organisations as suggested by literature (see Bovaird, 2004; Austin, 2007). The results
showed that there was evidence of values-driven motivations for both networks (see Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012;
Pers.com., Bayard, 2012; Pers.com., Strömberg) and for companies (Pers.com., Josefsson, 2012), but that these
seemed to be secondary to business motivations.
The thesis has shown that initial interest in collaboration and motivation for joining is likely to come from a
large amount of sources (see section 6.1). The CMA framework presented (Austin, 2007) suggested a mixture of
compliance, risk, values and business opportunity as motivating companies. Much of the interview data also
suggested that there is a greater – at least expressed – interest in joining networks for the business opportunities
it provides (see Pers.com., Strömberg, 2012). As part of gaining a competitive advantage, it is argued in section 6.2 that a source of competitive advantage for the companies are the public projects and demonstration projects
that the companies have an opportunity to be a part of. This is due to the increased legitimacy and increased
customer exposure that the companies are able to gain through the collaboration with a public body (see van
Huijstee et al., 2007; CSD Partnership Fair Secretariat, 2003).
The table below (table 10) shows the Collaboration-Motivation-Action framework amended with the empirical
results.
35
Table 10. Public collaboration-motivation-action framework (adapted from Austin 2007, p. 50-53).
Similarly to the company framework, the public CMA framework contains a category of compliance. The reason
for this is the political background described in section 1 and the research background (section 4). As has been
discussed in these sections, the drive for public-private participation is highly international, with support coming
from the EU (through EUCETSA) as well as international conferences on sustainable development. As such, it
has to be taken into account that the setting up of these networks is part of a national Swedish drive of state support for environmental technology. However, unlike the company framework, the management orientation of
the network does not arguably seek to maintain a status quo in following legislation, but should rather be seen to
strive for goals on a network level. Evidence of the strive for fulfilling goals is visible in statements from
Sustainable Småland, who emphasised the importance of regional ‘cutting edge’ and increasing the level of
green technology in the region (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012). Additionally, it is shown by Affärdriven
Miljöutveckling, who spoke of economic and social sustainability in increasing entrepreneurship in the region
and lowering unemployment (Pers.com., Strömberg, 2012).
Previously in the thesis it has been showed that external threats can lead to a greater willingness to embark on
collaborative efforts. Similarly to companies, regions can face competitive situations (Porter, 1990). The idea
that the region itself is responding to a competitive situation is supported by statements from the networks. For
example, SSSE stated that an important goal was to support and showcase the strength of the region in the field of environmental technology. Similarly, the importance of being seen to be innovative was emphasised by
Sustainable Småland (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012). It could also be argued that it is important from a political
perspective that the partnership is seen to be effective and that outcomes are met, for which it is important to
attract partners of high commitment and expertise. Additionally, in the utilisation of company expertise in public
projects, the network gains access to resources from other sectors. This can lead to benefits in supporting
decisions, as well as improving the chances of successful policy implementation by making the public identify
with the outcome and decisions (Hemmati, 2002). There may also be personal values affecting the relationship
between companies and a representative of the network.
Although there was evidence for some value-driven motivations in the networks (Pers.com., Bayard, 2012;
Pers.com, Thorsell, 2012; Pers.com, Strömberg, 2012), networks also seemed to agree that the main goal of the partnership was to increase business opportunities. However, it has been shown in this thesis that there are
values inherent in the political decision to focus on partnerships, which is supported by statements by the
networks in that they want to ensure a high level of sustainability in their communities (Pers.com., Bayard, 2012;
Pers.com, Thorsell, 2012; Pers.com., Strömberg, 2012). The evidence suggests that the management orientation
for achieving these political causes is to set goals, such as setting goals to increase diversity in the business
Motivational categories
Compliance-driven
Risk-driven Values-driven Capabilities-driven
Behavioural forces Political
obligation
Regulation
External threats Political cause
(Personal beliefs)
Organizational
effectiveness
Management orientation
Goals Averting negative
consequences
Goals
Optimizing resources
Action focal points Politics
Legislation Regulation
Reputation
protection Outcomes
Resource access
(including
information and
expertise)
Attracting high-
quality partners
Corporate
sustainability Outcomes
Personnel skills
Organizational capacity
Building efficient
systems
36
sector by supporting small companies (Pers.com., Strömberg, 2012). The action focal points are to increase the
levels of corporate sustainability, by supporting environmentally friendly companies and helping them become
economically sustainable, as well as working towards the chosen outcomes (e.g. of more environmental
technology SMEs).
A new motivational category has been added on the basis of Austin’s (2007) CMA framework for NGOs, being
reinforced by the evidence from the study. Sustainable Småland and Affärsdriven Miljöutveckling (Pers.com.,
Thorsell, 2012; Pers.com., Strömberg, 2012) both emphasised a capability or organisational effectiveness in a
certain field as the reason for the setting up of the organisation. For Sustainable Småland, this was a skill in
providing good study visits to view environmental technology companies in the region. For Affärsdriven
Miljöutveckling it was a study having established a regional strength in environmental technology, something that was also implied by SSSE (Pers.com., Bayard, 2012). The setting up of the organisation thus served the
purpose of optimising the resources contained in the state bodies and companies, as argued by Austin (2007) and
reinforced by Bovaird (2004). Sustainable Småland emphasised the need to build an effective systems thinking
(Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012), where the network can function as a multi-faceted solution to a wide range of
problems.
37
7 Conclusions This final chapter looks back at the research questions from chapter one and discusses the conclusions that can
be drawn from the results, analysis and conclusion. It also discusses further research questions where complete
conclusions cannot be drawn.
The research questions described in the first chapter of this thesis are as follows:
- Why are organisations and companies interested in cooperating?
- What are the perceived goals of the cooperation? - Are the interests and motives of the various parties conflicting or compatible?
- What are the benefits of cooperation for the state and for private actors?
It has been found that initial motivations for collaborating involves many factors. However, it has also been clear
that perhaps the strongest motivation is economic. This has been supported by both interview data from the
private sector (Pers.com., Josefsson, 2012) as well as the public sector (Pers.com, Strömgren, 2012). Further, the
conclusion that economic interests are a strong driver is supported by academics who contend that profit is one
of the most basic requirements for businesses to survive (Levitt, 1958: Lamarche & Rubinstein, 2012). Similarly,
it is of high importance for public bodies to ensure economic sustainability in the region (Brundtland, 1987).
Additionally, the networks, in order to be attractive to the companies, have to focus on providing for the needs of
the companies, meaning that they too must have an economic focus. It was seen that if there was perceived to be a stronger focus on the region than the economic interests of the companies, the businesses could lose interest in
the collaboration (Pers.com., Josefsson, 2012). On the other hand, it was seen that ensuring that the network
activities were of high relevance to the companies increased commitment (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012). Thus,
whilst the ultimate goals of the businesses and the networks may not have been identical, they did seem
compatible if the network had a strong business relevance.
The study has showed that there are many perceived advantages to working within a network of companies.
Firstly, working in projects together with other companies they achieve economies of scale as they are able to
provide solutions together that they could not provide on their own (see Pers.com., Strömberg, 2012). Secondly,
they are able to share information and knowledge with partners and public actors. This information can then lead
to insights of new emergent solutions that can be developed between companies (Pers.com., Thorsell, 2012).
Thirdly, it has been argued that companies enjoy a higher level of legitimacy through the collaboration and association with public actors, which in itself may lead to business opportunities. This idea is supported by the
study on NGOs and companies by Glasbergen and Groenenberg (2001). Fourthly, companies gain access to
financial resources through the mediation by the networks (Pers.com., Bayard, 2012; Pers.com., Strömberg,
2012). Finally, public actors are able to achieve political sustainability goals through creating involvement in the
issue through business partners (Andonova, 2010). It is suggested that the networks aim to increase sustainable
development by supporting the companies that benefit the environment.
7.1 Suggestions for future research
Although the literature review covered problems in partnerships in order to understand the mechanisms of
partnership better, it has not been possible to explore these problems at length in the study. In order to produce a
reliable picture of the problems encountered by partners, it would be advisable to concentrate the study on one
network and their members to build up a full picture with many perspectives in one context. Studying many
networks may give an overview, but it can only produce images in short time-frame, which may not produce a reliable and complete image of the cause and effect of a problem. Additionally, the study has only provided an
overview of motivations, rather than an in-depth study of the particular interactions. As a suggestion for further
research, a study conducted with one or two networks and their partners could be conducted over a longer period
of time to study interactions.
38
Bibliography
Literature and publications
Alvesson, M. and D. Karreman (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse
analysis. Human Relations, 53(9), pp. 1125-1149.
Andonova, L. (2010). Public-private partnerships for the earth: Politics and patterns of hybrid authority in the
multilateral system. Global Environmental Politics, 10(2), pp. 25-+.
Ansett, S. (2005). Dancing the cultural tango: A partnership practitioner's dilemma. Partnership Matters:
Current Issues in Cross-sector Collaboration., 3, pp. 3.
Aupperle, K.E., A.B. Carrol and J.D. Hatfield. (1985). An empirical examination of the relationship between
corporate social responsibility and profitability. Academy of Management Review, 28(2), pp. 446-463.
Austin, J. (2007). Sustainability through partnering: conceptualizing partnerships between businesses and
NGOs. In: Glasbergen P, Biermann F, Mol APJ. (eds.) Partnerships, Governance and Sustainable development. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, pp. 49-67.
Bitzer, V., M. Francken and P. Glasbergen (2008). Intersectoral partnerships for a sustainable coffee chain:
Really addressing sustainability or just picking (coffee) cherries? Global Environmental Change-Human and
Policy Dimensions, 18(2), pp. 271-284.
Biermann, F., M. Chan, A. Mert and P. Pattberg. (2007). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: does the promise hold? In: Glasbergen P, Biermann F, Mol APJ. (eds.) Partnerships, Governance
and Sustainable development. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, pp. 239-260.
Bovaird, T. (2004). Public-private partnerships: From contested concepts to prevalent practice. Int. Rev. Adm.
Sci., 70(2), pp. 199-215.
Brinkerhoff, J. (2007). Partnership as a means to good governance: towards an evaluation framework. In:
Glasbergen P, Biermann F, Mol APJ. (eds.) Partnerships, Governance and Sustainable development. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, pp. 68-89.
Brown, H., M. de Jong and D. Levy (2009). Building institutions based on information disclosure: Lessons from
GRI's sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(6), pp. 571-580.
Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: Rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. European Environment, 16(5), pp. 290-306.
Cashore, B. (2002). Legitimacy and the privatization of environmental governance: How non-state market-
driven (nsmd) governance systems gain rule-making authority. Governance-an International Journal of Policy
and Administration, 15(4), pp. 503-529.
Cowe R. (2004). Business NGO partnerships: What’s the payback? In: Embelton D (ed). Ethical Corporation Magazine. Available online: http://earthmind.net/ngo/docs/partnerships-payback.PDF
Cronin, J., J. Smith, M. Gleim, E. Ramirez and J. Martinez (2011). Green marketing strategies: An examination
of stakeholders and the opportunities they present. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), pp. 158-
174.
CSD Partnerships Fair Secretariat. (2004). Secretariat’s note: Highlights from the interactive discussion sessions.
Published Conference Notes. 14 – 30 April 2004. New York. Available online:
http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd12/PFInteractiveHighlights.pdf
Domberger, S., S. Farago and P. Fernandez (1997). Public and private sector partnering: A re-appraisal. Public
Administration, 75(4), pp. 777-787.
Eisenhardt, K. (1989). Building theories from case-study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), pp. 532-550.
39
Fraser, E.D.G., A.J. Dougill, W.E. Mabee, M. Reed and P. McAlpine. (2006). Bottom up and top down: Analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a pathway to community
empowerment and sustainable environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 78(2), pp.
114-127.
Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic management : A stakeholder approach. Boston [Mass.] ; London, Pitman.
Freeman, R.E., J.S. Harrison, A.C. Wicks, B. Parmar, S. de Colle. (2010). Stakeholder Theory: the state of the
art. Cambridge: Cambride University Press.
Gao S. and J. Zhan. (2006). Stakeholder engagement, social auditing and corporate sustainability. Business
Process Management Journal, 12(6), pp. 722-740.
Glasbergen, P. (2011). Understanding partnerships for sustainable development analytically: The ladder of
partnership activity as a methodological tool. Environmental Policy and Governance, 21(1), pp. 1-13.
Glasbergen, P. (2007). Setting the scene: the partnership paradigm in the making. In: Glasbergen P, Biermann F,
Mol APJ. (eds.) Partnerships, Governance and Sustainable development. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, pp. 1-25.
Glasbergen, P. and R. Groenenberg. (2001). Environmental partnerships in sustainable energy. European
Environment, 11(1), pp. 1-13.
Gray, B. (2007). The process of partnership construction: anticipating obstacles and enhancing the likelihood of
successful partnership for sustainable development. In: Glasbergen P, Biermann F, Mol APJ. (eds.)
Partnerships, Governance and Sustainable development. Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, pp. 29-48.
Gray, B and C. Wood. (1991). Collaborative alliances: Moving from practice to theory. The Journal of Applied
Behavioral Science, 27(1), pp. 3-22.
Gray, D. (2004). Doing research in the real world. London: Sage.
Hanna, P. (2012). Using internet technologies (such as Skype) as a research medium: a research note. Qualitative
Research, 12(2), pp. 239-242.
Hannan, M.T. and J. Freeman. (1977). The population ecology of organizations. The American Journal of
Sociology, 82(5), pp. 929-964.
Hardy, C., N. Phillips and T.B. Lawrence. (2003). Resources, knowledge and influence: The organizational
effects of interorganizational collaboration. J. Manage. Stud., 40(2), pp. 321-347.
Hartman C.L., and E.R Stafford. (1997). Green alliances: building new business with environmental groups.
Long Range Plan, 30(2), pp. 184-196.
Hemmati, M. (2002). Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability: Beyond deadlock and
conflict. London: Earthscan.
Henriques, I. and P, Sadorsky. (1999). The relationship between environmental commitment and managerial
perceptions of stakeholder importance. The Academy of Managment Journal, 42(1), pp. 87-99.
Horrigan, B. (2010). Corporate social responsibility in the 21st century: debates, models and practices across
government, law and business. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Jick, T.D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 24(4), pp. 602-611.
Korf, E. (2005). Flexibility in institution-building: a condition for partnership success? Partnership matters:
Current issues in cross-sector collaboration, 3, pp. 33-36.
Lamarche, T. and M. Rubinstein. (2012). Dynamics of corporate social responsibility: towards a new
‘conception of control’? Journal of Institutional Economics, 8(2), pp. 161-185.
Lafrance, J., J. LaFrance and M. Lehmann. (2005). Corporate awakening - why (some) corporations embrace
public-private partnerships. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(4), pp. 216-229.
40
Lantz, A. (1993). Intervjumetodik: Den professionellt genomförda intervjun. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Lee, S. Y. and R. D. Klassen. (2008). Drivers and enablers that foster environmental management capabilities in
small and medium sized suppliers and supply chains. Production and Operations Management, 17(6), pp. 573–
586.
Levitt, T. (1958). The dangers of social responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 36(5), pp. 41-50.
Macdonald, S. and T. Chrisp. (2005). Acknowledging the purpose of partnership. J Bus Ethics, 59(4), pp. 307-
317.
Mathur, L. K., and I. Mathur. (2000). An analysis of the wealth effects of green marketing strategies. Journal of Business Research, 50(2), pp. 193–200.
McClintock, C.C., D. Brannon and S. Maynard-Moody. (1979). Applying the logic of sample surveys to
qualitative case studies: The case cluster method. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), pp. 612-629.
Meadows, D.H., D.L. Meadows, J. Randers and W.W. Behrens. (1972). The Limits to Growth. New York: Universe Books.
Miller, C. (1995). In-depth interviewing by telephone: some practical considerations. Evaluation and Research
in Education, 9(1), pp. 29-38.
Miller, G.T. and S. Spoolman (2009). Living in the environment : Concepts, connections, and solutions, 16. ed. Belmont, CA, Brooks/Cole.
Mintzberg, H., J. Jorgensen, D. Dougherty and F. Westley. (1996). Some surprising things about collaboration—
knowing how people connect makes it work better. Organizational Dynamics, 25(1), pp. 60-71.
Mintzberg, H. and J.A. Waters. (1982). Tracking strategy in an entrepreneurial firm. The Academy of Management Journal, 25(3), pp. 465-499.
Minu, H., D. With Contributions From Felix and M. Jasmin Enayati And Jan (2002). Multi- stakeholder
processes for governance and sustainability: Beyond deadlock and conflict. United Kingdom: Earthscan.
Mitchell, R.K., B.R. Agle and D.J. Wood. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), pp. 853-886.
Murray A., K. Haynes and J. Hudson. (2010). Collaborating to achieve corporate social responsibility and
sustainability? Possibilities and Problems. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 1(2), pp.
161-177.
Mendleson N. and M. Polonsky. (1995). Using strategic alliances to develop credible green marketing. Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 12(2), pp. 4-18.
Moss Kanter, R. (2000). Collaborative advantage - the art of alliances. Harv. Bus. Rev., 72(4), pp. 96-108.
Nijhof A. and T. de Bruijn. (2007). Hakan Partnerships for corporate social responsibility; a review of concepts
and strategic options. Management Decision, 46(1), pp. 152-167.
Parket, I.R. and H. Eilbirt. (1975). Social responsibility: the underlying factor. Business Horizons, 18(4), pp. 5-
11.
Porter, M.E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. London, Macmillan.
Porter, M.E. (2008). The five competitive forces that shape strategy. Harvard Business Review, 86(1), pp.78-93.
Reinicke, W. and F. Deng. (2000). Critical choices the united nations, networks, and the future of global
governance. Ottawa, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
Roberts, S. (2003). Supply Chain Specific? Understanding the Patchy Success of Ethical Sourcing Initiatives. Journal of Business Ethics, 44(2/3), pp. 159-170.
41
Rotter J., Özbek N. and Mark-Herbert C. (200x). Private-public partnerships: corporate responsibility strategy in
food retail. International Journal of Business Excellence.
Schein, E.H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership, 3. ed. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Seitanidi, M.M. and A. Crane. (2009). Implementing CSR through partnerships: Understanding the selection,
design and institutionalisation of nonprofit-business partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 85, pp. 413-429.
Selsky, J.W. and B. Parker. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31, pp. 849 – 873.
Straughan, R.D., Roberts, J.A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: a look at green consumer
behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing,16(6), pp.558 – 575.
Strauss, A.L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Storey, D.J. (1994). Understanding the small business sector. London: Thomson Learning.
Sturges, J. and K, Hanrahan. (2004). Comparing Telephone and Face-to-Face Qualitative Interviewing: a
Research Note. Qualitative Research, 4(1), pp. 107-118.
SWENTEC (Swedish Environmental Technology Council). (2012). Handlingsplan för svensk miljöteknik.
Accessed on 17/01/2012. Available at: http://www.sou.gov.se/pdf/2010/Handlingsplan_sidvis_low.pdf
Tholke, M. (2003). Collaboration for a change: A practitioner’s guide to environmental nonprofit-industry
partnerships. Erb Environmental Managment Institute, Green Business Network.
Ullmann, A.A. (1985). Data in search of a theory: a critical examination of the relationships among social
performance, social disclosure, and economic performance of U.S. firms. The Academy of Management Review,
10(3), pp. 540-557.
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). (2005). Talk the walk: Advancing sustainable lifestyles
through marketing and communications. Accessed on 07/02/2012. Available at:
http://www.unglobalcompact.org/
Vance, S. (1975). Are socially responsible firms good investment risks? Management Review, 64(8), pp. 18-24.
Van Huijstee, M.M., M. Francken and P. Leroy (2007). Partnerships for sustainable development: A review of
current literature. Environmental Sciences, 4(2), pp. 75-89.
Welpe, I.M., M. Spörrle; D. Grichnik, T. Michl, D.B. Audretsch. (2012). Emotions and opportunities: The
Interplay of opportunity evaluation, fear, joy, and anger as antecedent of entrepreneurial exploitation. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 36(1), pp. 69-96.
Yin, R. (2011). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York: Guilford Press.
Yoshimura, M. and K. Yoshikawa. (1998). Synergy effects of sharing knowledge during cooperative product
design. Concurrent Eng.-Res. Appl., 6(1), pp. 7-14.
Internet
Affärsdriven Miljöutveckling. (2012). Startsida Affärsdriven Miljöutveckling. Accessed on 12/07/2012.
Available at: http://www.businessregion.se/huvudmeny/affarsomraden/affarsdrivenmiljoutveckling.577.html
ASSET. (2007). Föreningen Svensk Miljöteknik. Accessed on 20/01/2012. Available at:
http://www.miljoteknik.org/hem.html
Business Region Göteborg AB. (2012). Om oss. Accessed on 12/05/2012. Available at:
http://www.businessregion.se/huvudmeny/omoss.4.42d895c410678a3d6138000340.html
EUCETSA. (2011). The European Environmental technology Supplier’s Association. Accessed on 20/01/2012.
Availabe at: http://www.eucetsa.com/
42
Green Business Region. (2012). Om Green Business Region. Accessed on 18/1/2012. Available at:
http://www.greenbusinessregion.se/sv/om-oss/793
Kompetensspridning i Umeå AB. (2012). Kompetensspridning i Umeå AB. Accessed on 11/05/2012. Available
at:
http://www.umea.se/umeakommun/kommunochpolitik/kommunensorganisation/bolag/kompetensspridningiume
aab.4.2ec28df4125d2ef852080005736.html
Sustainable Sweden Southeast AB. (2012). Om oss. Accessed on 12/05/2012. Available at:
http://www.sustainablesweden.se/Om+oss/se/7/
Sustainable Småland. (2012). Om oss. Accessed on 12/05/2012. Available at:
http://www.sustainablesmaland.se/om-smtc
Personal Communication
Telephone Interviews Sven Josefsson Eco-Quality Consulting AB 02/08/12
Ann-Christin Bayard Sustainable Sweden Southeast AB 14/08/12
Johan Thorsell Sustainable Småland 09/08/12
Maria Strömgren Affärsdriven Miljöutveckling 10/08/12
E-mail conversation Jon Edlund Ekofasad AB 30/07/12
43
Appendix I
1 Interview guide
1.1 Guide to questions for companies
- Varför gick ert företag med i nätverket?
- Vem var det som inledde kontakten? Ni eller organisationen?
- I vilken tidsskala ser ert företag på samarbetet i nätverket? Permanent/långsiktigt eller hjälp i detta stadie?
- Finns det kontakt mellan de olika medlemsföretagen, eller är kontakten endast med organisationen?
- Vilka tjänster erbjuder organisationen?
- Vad är formen för samarbetet? Kontrakt?
- Vad tycker ni är den viktigaste funktionen som organisationen har?
- Vad förväntar ni er ska komma ut ur samarbetet?
- Vad ser ni som det viktigaste ni tar med er in i samarbetet?
- Vad tar organisationen med sig som ni annars inte skulle ha?
- Why did your company join the network/partnership?
- Who initiated the cooperation?
- In what time scale do the partners see their cooperation? (Long-term or short-term)
- What services are offered by the organisation?
- What is the form of agreement? Contract?
- What do the companies see as the primary function of the cooperation/organisation?
- What is expected to come out of the cooperation?
- Is there cooperation/contact between different companies, or only vertically?
- What do you see as the most important thing that you bring into the partnership?
- What does the partner bring in that you could not get otherwise?
1.2 Guide to questions for public organisations
- Vad erbjuder er organisation företag som går med?
- Vem inleder samarbetet? Kontaktar ni företag, eller kontaktar de er?
- Vad är samarbetets form (formellt, informellt)?
- Ser ni partnerskapet långsiktigt eller kortsiktigt?
- Kommunicerar eller samarbetar de olika medlemsföretagen med varandra, eller bara med er?
- Vad ser ni som organisation som er viktigaste funktion?
- Vad vill ni att er organisation ska åstadkomma?
- Vad ser ni som det viktigaste ni bidrar med i samarbetet med företag?
- Vad bidrar företagen med som ni inte annars skulle ha?
- What does your organisation offer companies? (services, advice, etc)
- Who initiates the cooperation?
- Is the partnership formal (contract) or informal?
- In what time scale do the partners see their cooperation? (Long-term or short-term)
- Is there cooperation/contact between different companies, or only vertically?
- What does the organisation see as its primary function?
- What is expected to come out of it?
- What do you see as the most important thing that you bring into the partnership?
- What does the partner bring in that you could not get otherwise?