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?