A Radical Resource-Based View of Sustainable Organizations:

An Exploratory Study Examining Conservation Agriculture for

Small-Scale Farms in Low-Income Countries

Bruno DyckProfessor in Asper School of Business

University of ManitobaWinnipeg, ManitobaCanada R3T 5V4

Tel. 204 474-8184Fax: 204 474-7545

E-mail: bdyck@ms.umanitoba.ca

1

A Radical Resource-Based View of Sustainable Organizations: An Exploratory Study

Examining Conservation Agriculture for Small-Scale Farms in Low-Income Countries

Abstract

Sustainable organization theory and practice has an emphasis on social and ecological value

creation that makes it distinct from primary the emphasis on financial value capture that

characterizes conventional organization theory and practice. Qualitative data from case studies

of sustainable organizations promoting Conservation Agriculture among small-scale farms in

low-income countries lend support to the proposition that a Radical Resource-Based View (RBV)

provides a more appropriate theoretical framework for sustainable organizations than is

provided by Conventional RBV. The study helps to distinguish between the four dimensions of

associated with general RBV theory, namely resources’ value, rarity, inimitability and non-

substitutability. Implications for sustainable organizations, RBV and management more

generally are discussed.

Keywords

sustainable organizations, Radical Resource-Based View, value capture vs value creation, small-

scale farms, Conservation Agriculture

We live in a world facing increasing social and environmental problems. Perhaps the most

pressing social concern is the growing disparity between rich and poor. Recent studies indicate

that 70 percent of the world lives in countries with worsening economic inequality in the past 30

years, and today the world’s richest 85 people own as much wealth at the poorest half of the

world combined (Fuentas-Nieva and Galasso, 2014). US President Obama has identified the

2

rising level of economic inequality as “the defining challenge of our time” (Hiltzik, 2013).

Perhaps the most pressing environmental concern is climate change associated with greenhouse

gas emission, with CO2 levels now at 399.85 parts per million (ppm), much higher than the 350

ppm that are considered the upper bounds of sustainability and especially striking because CO2

levels had not been greater than 300 ppm in the 650,000 years prior to 1950 (NASA, 2014).

Significant causes of climate change include automobile emissions (e.g., which accounts for 31

percent of CO2 emissions in USA), cattle-rearing and the methane gas it produces (which

generates more global warming greenhouse gases, in CO2 equivalents, than transportation), and

agricultural practices like tillage (there is about twice as much carbon stored in the earth’s soil

than in its atmosphere and plants combined, but the earth’s cultivated soils have lost about 60

percent of their original carbon stock, Schwartz, 2014; tilling land has been estimated to release

about one tonne of carbon per hectare per year; Joshi, 2011). These social and ecological issues

are particularly threatening for the world’s poorest people, who cannot afford any change for the

worse.

It should come as little surprise then that scholars are increasingly interested in

sustainable organizations, that is, organizations that address the pressing social and ecological

concerns that face humankind. Indeed, this may be the key challenge facing business scholars of

all stripes—marketing, accounting, finance, ethics and so—to reinvent their disciplines to

facilitate and encourage sustainable organizing that addresses social and ecological well-being.

This challenge is especially true because current business theory and practice has

embedded within it self-fulfilling prophecies that may have contributed to the social and

ecological crises facing the world (e.g., Porter and Kramer, 2011). For example, research shows

that business students become increasingly materialistic and individualistic as they go through

their programs of studies, focused on their own financial self-interests rather the overall well-

3

being of humankind (e.g., Dyck et al., 2011; Ferraro et al., 2005; Ghoshal, 2005; Krishnan,

2003). This in turn has negative implications for ecological well-being (McCarty and Shrum,

2001) and social well-being at the personal, corporate and societal levels (e.g., Kasser, 2003;

Giacalone and Thompson, 2006; Rees, 2002).

This study draws on literature in sustainable organizations and Radical RBV to examine

small-scale farms. In particular, we will focus on the promotion of sustainable practices among

the 500 million small-scale farms in the world’s low-income countries (Meyer, 2010), involving

about 40 percent of the world’s population (Nagayets, 2005). These are among the neediest

organizations in the world, given that the effects of climate change are expected to be particularly

harsh for this segment of the population, and that already 70 percent of the world’s chronically

malnourished people are small-scale farmers (Braul et al., 2011). Our study will focus on non-

governmental organizations (NGOs) involved in introducing Conservation Agriculture (CA) to

small-scale farmers in low-income countries, where research has shown that it enhances:

1) social well-being and overall quality of life (e.g., Hurni and Osman-Elasha, 2009;

Kiers et al., 2008; McIntyre et al., 2009; Milder et al., 2011; Stokstad, 2008);

2) ecological well-being by improving soil quality, partially by removing carbon from the

atmosphere and sequestering in the soil (e.g., Joshi, 2011; Stokstad, 2008); and

3) economic well-being by doubling productivity (Pretty et al., 2011), reducing poverty

more effectively that other non-agricultural kinds of GDP growth (de Schutter, 2011, p.

14), and reducing financial input costs and being easy to implement (“Everybody can

do it” -- Silici, et al, 2011, p. 143).

Despite their prevalence and importance, small-scale farms have not often studied in the

traditional business literature (for an exception, see Dyck 1994), although there are signs that this

may be changing (e.g., Vermeulen and Cotula, 2010; Vorley, Lundy, & MacGregor, 2009).

4

Indeed, because of their huge potential for creating shared socio-ecological and economic value,

an argument could be made that small-scale farms should become front-and-centre in the

literature, especially if we take counsel of scholars like Michael Porter and Michael Kramer

seriously:

“The purpose of the corporation must be redefined as creating shared value, not just profit per se. This will drive the next wave of innovation and productivity growth in the global economy. It will also reshape capitalism and its relationship to society” (Porter and Kramer, 2011, p. 64)

The paper will proceed as follows. First, we will review the literature to present our

understanding of sustainable organizations, underscoring how they are qualitatively different

from conventional organizations. We will then draw on the literature related to RBV theory, and

in particular we will respond to calls for the development of significantly modified RBV theory

appropriate for sustainable organizations. This will give rise to two propositions, the first

suggesting that Radical RBV theory is more appropriate for studying sustainable organizations

than is conventional RBV, and the second positing that variation of the four categories of RBV

resources (valuable, rare, inimitable, nonsubstitutable) are relevant for sustainable organizations.

Second, we will describe our research design and methods for examining sustainable

organizations among small-scale farmers in low-income countries. Third, we will provide an

empirical examination of whether Radical RBV indeed is more relevant for sustainable

organizing than Conventional RBV. Finally, we will discuss implications for sustainable

organizations, RBV, and management theory and practice going forward.

Literature Review

Sustainable organizations

As used here the term “sustainable organizations” describes organizations that have two

distinct characteristics: 1) they seek to improve social well-being, and 2) they seek to improve

5

ecological well-being. In short, sustainable organizations seek to enhance socio-ecological “value

creation.” There is some debate regarding the meaning of the term “value creation” that is

relevant and helps us to clarify our understanding of sustainable organizations. To start, our

approach differs from the familiar approach where “value creation” refers to the worth a product

or service has for customers, which emphasizes the use of value creation to create competitive

advantage and economic value for a firm (e.g., Husted, Allen and Kock, 2012). Rather, our

approach builds on that of Porter and Kramer (2011), who differentiate between two types of

“value creation:” 1) the traditional understanding that focuses on firm-specific financial

opportunities, and 2) a more holistic version that emphasizes community well-being (which they

call “shared value”):

“In recent years business increasingly has been viewed as a major cause of social, environmental, and economic problems. …

A big part of the problem lies with companies themselves, which remain trapped in an outdated approach to value creation that has emerged over the past few decades. They continue to view value creation narrowly, optimizing short-term financial performance in a bubble while missing the most important customer needs and ignoring the broader influences that determine their longer term success. How else could companies overlook the wellbeing of their customers, the depletion of natural resources vital to their businesses, the viability of key suppliers, or the economic distress of the communities in which they produce and sell?

The solution lies in the principle of shared value, which involves creating economic value in a way that also creates value for society by addressing its needs and challenges. Businesses must reconnect company success with social progress. Shared value … can give rise to the next major transformation of business thinking.” (Porter and Kramer, 2011, p. 64)

Paralleling their two approaches to “value creation” are two kinds of profits (e.g., “Not all profit

is equal--an idea that has been lost in the narrow, short-term focus of financial markets and in

much management thinking,” p. 75), and two types of competitive advantage (e.g., “the

competitive advantages that arise from creating shared value will often be more sustainable than

conventional [sources of competitive advantage]” p. 76).

6

Our understanding of “value creation” is perhaps closest to that of Santos (2012), who

uses the term in a holistic sense to capture the overall aggregate value—especially to people and

to the planet—associated with any instance of (sustainable) organizing. For Santos “value

creation” occurs and is measured at the societal or system level, in contrast to “value capture”

occurs at the level of the focal organization and describes its net financial gain (profit is the

traditional measure associated with value capture). Santos (2012, p. 338) notes that “maximizing

both value creation and value capture in the same organizational unit is difficult.” This tension

gives rise to two “ideal-types” of sustainable organizations: 1) “conventional sustainable

organizations” that seek to maximize financial value capture via promoting social and ecological

value creation in satisficing and self-serving ways (e.g., consistent with a traditional view), and 2)

“radical sustainable organizations” that seek to maximize holistic (social and ecological) value

creation while satisficing value capture to remain financially viable.

The focus in our paper will be on this second “ideal-type” of radical sustainable

organizations, which seek to maximize socio-ecological value creation while satisficing value

capture. Of course, in reality firms can be found all along a continuum between these two “ideal-

type” endpoints. Even so, this articulation of two ideal-types is useful for the purpose of theory

building, and for practitioners to understand where they lie along the continuum (and where they

would like to be). Their primary emphasis on socio-ecological value creation is what

distinguishes radical sustainable organizations from their conventional cousins.

Radical Sustainable Organizations and (Conventional) Resource Based View (RBV) Theory

There is some debate in the literature as to whether radical sustainable organizations

require qualitatively different underlying theory than conventional organizations. We suggest that

the argument calling for the development of alternative theory is strengthened considerably if one

7

views radical sustainable organizations as being primarily about holistic value creation (shared

value) rather than about value capture.

On this matter, our focus on Resource Based View (RBV) theory is of particular

relevance. Not only has RBV arguably become the dominant theory in strategy generally (Barney

et al., 2001, p. 625), it is also a dominant theory when it comes to management scholarship that

looks at social and ecological issues. For example, with regard to social well-being, RBV it is

clearly linked with champions in the “Base of the Pyramid” (BoP) movement (e.g., Conner and

Prahalad, 1996; Hart, 1995), which may be the most visible attempt within the management

scholarship to help the world’s poor (e.g., Hart, 2007; Prahalad, 2010). And with regard to

ecological well-being, there is a whole stream of research under the banner “Natural RBV” that

has been developed to address environmental issues, some of it associated with the BoP

movement (e.g., Hart and Dowell, 2011). Despite this impressive pedigree, we echo those who

suggest that an approach to radical sustainable organizations like ours requires RBV theory to be

significantly modified or augmented (e.g., Bell and Dyck, 2012; Hart and Dowell, 2011; Santos,

2012; Walske et al., 2011).

The vast majority of RBV research is designed to improve the ability of firms to capture

value (e.g., Husted et al., 2012). In particular, RBV suggests that the key to achieving sustainable

competitive advantage is to identify particular knowledge and physical “resources” (sometimes

called “capacities”) that, on their own or bundled together, have four characteristics – they are

valuable, rare, inimitable, and nonsubstituable (known as VRIN). The implications of RBV

theory for enhancing social and economic well-being may be most fully-developed in the BoP

literature. However critics argue that, because BoP theory is grounded in the “value capture”

economic paradigm, a firm’s emphasis on “value creation” to serve the poorest people in the

world will always take second place to its emphasis on its financial bottom-line (e.g., “pressures

8

to generate profit from BoP projects within a short time-horizon will take the driving seat,” Arora

and Romjin, 2012, p. 487). This approach strives to invite those living at the BoP as micro-

consumers into the global economy, but given that modern globalization has a track record of

widening the gap between rich and poor—within organizations, within countries, and between

countries (e.g., Rees, 2002)—it is unclear whether welcoming the poor into the globalized formal

economy is really in their interest. Critiques of the BoP approach, often providing empirical

evidence showing that BoP initiatives fail the poor, are becoming commonplace in the literature

(e.g., Arora and Romijn, 2012; Munir et al., 2010). One way to address these concerns is to use

RBV to help poor people use the valuable resources that they do have to capture value in the

global markets (e.g., by showing how the poor can generate income by patenting their

knowledge, bringing it to market, and/or collecting royalties or licensing; Shivarajan and

Srinivasan, 2013).

The implications of RBV theory for ecological well-being are most fully-developed in the

Natural RBV literature. Already twenty years ago Hart (1995) recognized that the original

formulation of RBV ignored the interaction between organizations and the natural environment,

and thus offered a “Natural Resource-Based View” of the firm. Again, it is noteworthy that

Natural NRBV theory, and much of the research it relates to, retains a primary focus on

enhancing value capture (e.g., Hart, 1995, p. 991; Hart and Dowell, 2011, p. 1467). From a

radical sustainable organizations perspective, this emphasis on “value capture” is a short-coming

of RBV theory, and may help to example why, in their recent review of the first 15 years of

research in Natural RBV, Hart and Dowell explicitly invite scholars to engage in empirical

research and to modify RBV theory regarding specifically the dimension of sustainable

development and the BoP:

9

“Despite corporate interest and a growing practitioner-oriented literature, however, there is a dearth of scholarly research on BoP. Indeed, there is a real opportunity for scholars to address this issue in a rigorous way in order to assess the degree to which our current theories are sufficient in understanding the BoP phenomenon and to what degree this issue requires us to augment existing theories or even develop entirely new ones.” (Hart and Dowell, 2011, pp. 1471-72; emphasis added here)

The present study examines and tests just such a new and augmented theory.

Radical Sustainable Organizations and Radical RBV

Important theoretical work has been done toward developing alternative RBV theory that

de-emphasizes value capture, but this theory has not undergone extensive empirical study. For

example, the arguments presented by Santos (2012, p. 346) suggest that scholars should research

organizations that focus on “sustainable solutions” rather than on “sustainable competitive

advantage,” and where holistic “value creation” is valued over financial “value capture.” He goes

on to counter conventional RBV assumptions when he argues that sustainable organizations seek

“to make themselves dispensable,” in contrast to conventional organizations who “try to become

indispensible.”

Walske, Scarlata and Zacharakis (2011) suggest that sustainable organizations may

enhance overall “value creation” by inviting and enabling other (competing) organizations to

participate in the associated “value capture.” The impact of organizational practices that enhance

socio-ecological value creation will be greater if other organizations can be encouraged to

implement them in their organizations as well.

“As such, instead of resources being rare, inimitable, and nonsubstitutable, [VRIN] the greatest social [and ecological] impact might be achieved if they are valuable, yet common, transferrable and substitutable (i.e., VCTS).” (Walske et al, 2011, p. 11, emphasis added here)

These arguments for an augmented form of RBV are most fully developed in Bell and

Dyck (2012), who contrast and compare what they call Radical RBV theory (based on virtue

ethics) with Conventional RBV theory (based on consequential utilitarianism). They arguments

10

suggest that Radical RBV will be more appropriate for radical sustainable organizations, that is,

for organizations where the firm’s profit-maximization (value capture) is less important than

achieving value creation that balances multiple forms of well-being (including financial, social,

ecological, spiritual, physical) for multiple stakeholders (including owners, employees,

customers, suppliers, competitors, neighbors, future generations). Table 1, which will guide the

current study, provides a summary of key components of their framework, incorporating the

VCTS language from Walske et al (2011) and the value creation vs value capture ideas from

Santos (2012).

-- insert Table 1 about here --

Taken together, our discussion points to at least two general propositions, which will be

examined in the remainder of the paper:

Proposition #1: The primary value of key resources associated with radical sustainable organizing will be more aligned with Radical RBV theory than with Conventional RBV theory.

Proposition #2: The rarity (common-ness), inimitability (transferability), and nonsubstitutability (substitutability) of key resources associated with radical sustainable organizing will be more aligned with Radical RBV theory than with Conventional RBV theory.

Research Design and Methods

As is appropriate for an exploratory study like ours, research sites were chosen where

radical sustainable organizing would be most transparently observable (e.g., Eisenhardt, 1989).

This meant finding organizations that sought to improve social and ecological well-being, with an

emphasis on value creation rather than on value capture. Following Santos’s (2012) counsel, we

selected sites with social and ecological problems that: i) have been neglected by others; ii)

involve positive externalities (i.e., where there is opportunity to increase the social and ecological

11

benefits); and iii) benefit a powerless segment of society. Our chosen sites are consistent with

these criteria, as well as being of considerable practical importance.

Our research examines organizations that are promoting Conservation Agriculture (CA)

practices among small-scale farmers in low-income countries. CA has three basic principles:

1) minimize the mechanical disturbance of the soil (e.g., CA promotes zero-tillage direct-seeding or planting technique, which enhances the soil and may help to reduce the effect of global CO2 emissions by 5 to 15 percent; Gomiero et al, 2008, p. 248);

2) provide permanent organic cover for the soil via using mulch or crop residues or cover cropping (e.g., CA enhances organic matter of soils via adding more roots, encourages helpful biological organisms, and improves water infiltration as it reduces water needs by 25 to 30 percent; Joshi, 2011); and

3) diversify and rotate the crops planted in the soil (e.g., after a season of growing corn, which leaches nitrogen from the soil, follow by having two growing seasons with a nitrogen-fixing leguminous crops, such as beans).

The literature is clear that, despite its demonstrated socio-ecological and economic

benefits, the challenge for getting CA implemented on small-scale farms is more organizational

than it is agronomic, and many experts are calling on organizational and management scholars to

weigh in (e.g., Degrande et al., 2012; de Schutter, 2010; Joshi, 2009, 2011; Lele and Trigo, 2010;

Meyer, 2010; Pretty et al., 2011; Silici et al., 2011). Implicitly, our study suggests that perhaps

one reason why management scholars have seemed hand-cuffed to respond to these challenge is

because they have been relying on conventional theories that prioritize “value capture,” rather

than theory that seeks to enhance “value creation.”

Data Collection

A multi-step process was used to collect case study data related to organizations that are

seeking to facilitate the implementation of CA practices on small-scale farms in low-income

countries.1 The data reported here are from two separate but related studies funded by the

Canadian Foodgrains Bank (CFGB), a charitable organization seeking to end hunger worldwide

12

(see http://www.foodgrainsbank.ca/). Both studies were designed to collect data on best practices

for facilitating CA among small-scale farms (Braul et al., 2011; Braul et al., 2010). In particular,

the research examined the key practices of community-based organizations that have strong

reputation in terms of facilitating practices associated with CA among small-scale farms (this is

consistent with the “call for indepth studies involving more [community-based] organisations to

increase our understanding of what factors affect performance of organisations in disseminating

agricultural innovations;” Degrande et al., 2012, p. 62).

The first study focused on six exemplary local non-government organizations (NGOs) in

Africa, and the second on five exemplary NGOs in Central America. Each study involved site

visits to these NGOs by a CFGB staff person and four staff representatives of North American

member agencies that CFGB works with. The six NGOs chosen to be studied in Africa (five in

Mozambique, and one in Malawi) were based on recommendations by CFBG member agencies,

and in most cases received CFGB funding. Of the world’s estimated 1.02 billion chronically-

malnourished people in 2009-10, an estimated 265 million lived in Sub-Saharan Africa (Pretty et

al., 2011, p. 6). GDP per capita in Malawi is $145, and Mozambique is $330, though the life

expectancy in Malawi is 48 years versus 43 in Mozambique. In Malawi 65 percent and in

Mozambique 69 percent of the population live in poverty (Ellis, 2005, p. 144; 1997 data).

The NGOs selected for the Central America study were recommended by a consultant

who had been hired to visit five different countries in Central and South America and tasked with

identifying exemplary organizations who work with small-scale farms in promoting CA. The

sample of five local NGOs for this study was drawn from the Honduras, which was identified as

hosting the most exemplary organizations in this area. None of the five local NGOs participating

in the Honduras study received CFGB funding.

13

“Honduras is the second largest and most mountainous country in Central American with a population of about 8.1 million, about half of whom live in rural areas. About 65% of the total population lives below the poverty line, with 42.2% of these living in extreme poverty. Poverty is particularly characteristic of rural areas, with an estimated 76% of the rural population living in poverty, and with 49% of the rural population in extreme poverty. Honduras ranks fourth in the world in terms of having the largest income gap between the wealthiest 10% and the poorest 10% of its population. … It has been estimated that there is an average top-soil loss greater than 300 tons per hectare per year on typical hill-side farms in Honduras. Due to soil management practices, about 40% of the land area is considered ‘degraded’ due to erosion. … As of 2001, 83% of Honduran farms were less than 5 hectares, with an average size of 1.4 hectares. The other 13% of farms average 209 hectares.” (Braul et al, 2011)

The site visits to each of the eleven local NGOs in the sample lasted one day. For each

site the researchers asked questions about the successes and failures of the NGOs, lessons

learned, key technological innovations, and outcomes for small-scale farms. The researchers took

careful notes, and debriefed after each site visit to distill their findings. Each site visit included

talking to leaders of the NGO as well as on-site visits to small-scale farms. The goal was to

understand the key success factors in promoting CA on small-scale farms. A report was written

for each local NGO site, and the final over-all reports for the two studies contained a list of 17

“general recommendations” that represented the key capacities required to facilitate CA on small-

scale farms (ten key capacities were listed the Honduras report, and seven in the

Malawi/Mozambique report). In total the two reports were about 17,000 words long (about 70

double-spaced pages).

It is important to note that none of the participants in the study were familiar with

Conventional RBV nor with Radical RBV, and that none of them knew that their data and

findings would be analyzed using an RBV lens. That is, participants were “blind” to this purpose

of their study. It is only after the data had been collected and final reports prepared that the lead

author had access to them.

Data Analysis

14

The data analysis focused on using RBV to examine each of the 17 key organizational

capacities presented in the two reports. In the language to RBV, the 17 findings represented the

key “resources” or “capacities” (we use these terms interchangeably) that CFGB had identified

for facilitating CA on small-scale farms in low-income countries. Each of these 17 was analyzed

according to the four dimensions of RBT: value, rarity (common-ness), inimitability

(transferability), and nonsubstitutability (substitutability).

To address the first proposition we analyzed whether the description of the value of the

key capacities in the reports was more consistent with Conventional RBV or with Radical RBV.

As explained in Bell and Dyck (2012), if a Conventional RBV lens were more appropriate, we

would have expected the reports to make frequent reference to the competitive advantages,

profits, and financial benefits that could be achieved. If a Radical lens were more appropriate, we

would expect the reports to emphasize benefits for the overall and holistic well-being of larger

community:

“Whereas Conventional RBT links the value of a resource to the financial performance of the firm, Radical RBT defines value in terms of the contribution of the resource to various forms wellbeing (including financial viability) for a variety of stakeholders. Radical RBT can be construed as focusing on value creation (for all stakeholders) rather than value appropriation (by the firm). In Conventional RBT, a resource is valuable precisely to the extent that the firm itself captures at least some of the economic rent created by the resource, and the rent the firm captures exceeds that realized from the next-best-use of the resource (the opportunity cost). Conversely, Radical RBT would recognize as valuable firm resources that may provide value to any of the firm’s stakeholders, not just its shareholders. Similarly, valuable resources do not necessarily produce only the best financial outcome for the firm.” (Bell and Dyck, 2012, p. 125; emphases in original)

To address the second proposition, each of the 17 key capacities was analyzed to

determine whether it placed primary emphasis on the resource’s rarity (i.e., resources that are

held by no/few other current or potential competitors), inimitability (i.e., resources that are costly

to develop or copy by other organizations) or its nonsubstitutability (i.e., resources that are not

15

easily/affordably replaced by other bundles of resources/capabilities held by other current and

potential competitors).

Findings

Proposition #1

Proposition #1: The primary value of key resources associated with radical sustainable organizing will be more aligned with Radical RBV theory than with Conventional RBV theory.

Our analysis lends support to the first proposition. Virtually all of the 17 key

organizational capacities identified in the reports were seen as valuable primarily because they

created value for the holistic well-being of small-scale farms and their local community, not

because the maximized financial value capture. This observation is illustrated by several simple

word counts. On the one hand, the documents contain few keywords associated Conventional

RBV. The reports had:

- zero mentions of the terms competitiveness/compete/competition;

- one mention of finance/financial (provided by an agency to pay for a cement lid);

- three mentions of the profit/s/able/ability (one mention of a non-profit organization,

and two mentions that “The exclusion of herbicides and chemical fertilizer use was

often cited as necessary to increase profit margins and reduce soil erosion”); and

- six mentions of money (one referring to savings from having a family garden, three

referring to the need for small-scale farmers to work off-the-farm, and two referring to

aid from external agencies, one of which “used the ‘passing on the gift’ wherever

possible so that external inputs could be passed on to others”).

16

On the other hand, consistent with hypothesis, the two reports make over 75 mentions of

community/communities. While some of these references simply refer to a geographic location,

the majority of mentions refer to enhancing social cohesion and overall well-being within the

community, building community capacity, and generally strengthening the local community as a

unit of analysis. This is finding entirely consistent with the assumptions underpinning sustainable

organizing in terms of value creation (Santos, 2012), the VCTS framework (Walkesh et al.,

2011), and Radical RBV (Bell and Dyck, 2012), but not expected in Conventional RBV (where

the unit of analysis is the firm that is engaged in value capture, not the community that benefits

from value creation). To suggest that resources are valuable because they primarily and directly

enhance the overall community is rather foreign to conventional theory, where the focus

primarily on the financial well-being of a focal firm, and the benefits of value creation tend to be

more indirect, via an invisible hand.

Consistent with these findings, a general content analysis of the 17 key resources suggests

that there is virtually no emphasis on achieving competitive advantage among farms or NGOs or

community members (one possible exception may be the mention of developing programs

targeted to young people, which may serve to provide them a competitive advantage over other

demographic groups). This is not to suggest that small-scale farmers are not interested in

increasing their farm income—they are interested and the reports describe the merits of

improving doing so (e.g., with off-farm sales)—but there is never any hint that this is achieved by

competing with neighboring farms. Far from it, the emphasis is on collaborating with neighbors

and other communities so that all may benefit from the value creation associated with CA.

More detailed analytical data are presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4, which will be presented

in the discussion of the second proposition. In those Tables, each of the 17 key resources are

analyzed in terms of their relative emphasis on social, ecological and/or economic well-being.

17

The results suggest that by far the greatest emphasis is on social well-being (which was the

primary focus in 11 of the 17 resources, though also evident in the remaining 6), followed by

ecological well-being (primary on 3 resources, evident in 1 other) and economic well-being

(primary on 2 resources, evident in 3 others). Two observations about the five references to

economic well-being are noteworthy. First, each one came from the category of “Non-

substitutable” resources, and thus were part of larger bundles of resources that would be difficult

or costly to replace (in contrast, both ecological and social resources were evident in each of the

rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable categories). In other words, the economic emphasis was

part of a larger, more holistic, understanding of valuable resources, never a focus unto itself.

Second, each reference to economic well-being referred to enhancing the well-being of small-

scale farmers and their communities, not to the well-being to the NGOs promoting the adoption

and development of CA. Thus, consistent with Shivarajan and Srinivasan (2013), any emphasis

on “value capture” is on behalf of the small-scale farmers (not, in this case, not for the NGO).

In sum, the data lend strong support to the proposition that the primary value of key

resources associated with radical sustainable organizing is more aligned with Radical RBV

theory (community, socio-ecological well-being) than with Conventional RBV theory

(competitive advantage, maximizing profits).

Proposition #2

Proposition #2: The rarity (common-ness), inimitability (transferability), and nonsubstitutability (substitutability) of key resources associated with radical sustainable organizing will be more aligned with Radical RBV theory than with Conventional RBV theory.

To examine the second proposition, we examined the 17 key resources identified in the

two reports in terms of RBV’s four main organizational resource components, namely their

VRIN/VCTS. The first of these, value, may be the easiest to analyze. By design of how the data

18

were collected, it can be said that each of the 17 key organizational capacities were perceived to

be valuable, because that was the basis on which they were identified and included in the reports.

As described in the findings for the first proposition, these resources were seen to be valuable for

reasons associated with Radical RBV (emphasis on community well-being, value creation) rather

than Conventional RBV (no emphasis on competitive advantage, value capture). The second

proposition focuses on whether, in addition to be valuable, the resources were also rare,

inimitable and/or nonsubstitutable.

As we shall see, while it is true that each of the (valuable) 17 resources shows some

evidence of being rare and inimitable and nonsubstitutable, more interesting is our finding that

the 17 resources can be divided relatively easily into one of these three sub-groups, where each

grouping can be seen to have a relative emphasis on one of these three components. Six of the 17

key resources placed relative emphasis rarity, five emphasized inimitability, and six

nonsubstitutability. First, the resources in the “rarity” grouping all describe well-established CA

practices that are currently infrequently found on small-scale farms, and the capacity to make

these practices more commonplace. Second, the resources in the “inimitability” grouping all

describe new CA practices that are going through the costly process of being developed, and the

capacity to ensure that these can be copied and implemented by other small-scale farmers as

appropriate. And third, the resources in the “nonsubstitutability” grouping describe the

development of new resources required for the future that go beyond the local community, and

the capacity to institutionalize this infrastructure to benefit all small-scale farmers. We will now

consider each of these three groupings in more detail.

Rarity: The capacity to get more small-scale farmers to implement well-established and

valuable CA practices that are currently rarely used. Of the total of 17 key resources or

organizational practices for improving the performance of small-scale farms, six place particular

19

emphasis on the RBV idea of “rarity.” Each of the six refer to existing CA practices that have

been proven to be effective in the field but which are relatively rarely used among small-scale

farms, and the capacity to make these more common. In other words, this list identifies the

capacities to implement and make more commonplace six core well-established CA-related

practices. Contrary to Conventional RBV, which would see rarity as an opportunity for hoarding

CA practices in order to maximize financial self-interests (value capture), the key resources in

this data set focus on sharing CA practices for the benefit of everyone (value creation). Table 2

lists each of the six key resources/capacities associated with rarity, followed by the wording and

excerpts from the two reports they are drawn from.

--- insert Table 2 about here ---

Inimitability: The capacity to make emerging (innovative, costly-to-develop) CA

practices widely available to all small-scale farmers. Of the 17 key resources or organizational

capacities for improving performance of small-scale farms, the five shown in Table 3 refer to

development and diffusion of new (and not yet proven) emerging practices that complement or

enhance existing (proven) CA technologies. Such innovative practices may be costly to develop

or copy by other organizations; sustainable NGOs have the capacity to make these inimitable

resources more transferable. For example, the CA-related practice of “planting stations”2 is

known to be effective in Africa; capacity is needed to determine whether and how best to

facilitate its transfer to small-scale farmers in Central America. The same is true for new (but not

yet proven) practices related to diversified family gardens. These capacities are also related to

facilitating farmer-led trials and nurturing a learning-orientation among small-scale farm

communities. From a Conventional RBV perspective, because such resources and knowledge are

costly to develop (and thus inimitable), they should be hoarded to gain competitive advantage.

However, for Radical RBV the opposite is true: their costliness is precisely the reason that they

20

should be disseminated broadly, and it is important to facilitate the diffusion of (costly-to-

develop) new knowledge that is being created in order to benefit as many small-scale farms as

possible.

--- insert Table 3 about here ---

Nonsubstitutability: The capacity to develop CA-sustaining infrastructure (i.e., bundles

of resources that would be difficult/costly to replace) to the benefit of small-scale farmers. The

remaining six of the 17 total items refer to the capacity to develop or enhance the infrastructure of

the larger community that enable CA-related practices to be sustained in the long-term (see Table

4). They involve valuable “meta-resources” that cannot be easily/affordably replaced by other

bundles of resources; sustainable NGOs seek to make these bundles available to all small-scale

farmers. These capacities, which involve activities that extend beyond the level of small-scale

farms and their immediate local community, include things like advocating for public policy

changes on behalf of small-scale farmers, developing capacity for communities to monitor and

evaluate systems related to their food security, and developing programming targeted especially

needy groups such as young people. As an example of the need for such larger infrastructure,

consider the following:

“The lack of opportunity and desperation of Honduran youth is reflected by the estimated 1 million youth who have immigrated to the USA (of a total population of 8.1 million), and the fact that of those who attempt to immigrate, an estimated 1% die in the process. As a response, two of the five organizations focused specifically on helping youth complete their education and become successful farmers. This demographic focus is generally not addressed in most food security programs, but merits the full attention and focus of food security programming” (Braul et al., 2011, p. 7).

Five of these 6 capacities are related to the economic dimension and focus small-scale farmers’

abilities to generate income from the larger marketplace and to be weaned off of external

financial supports (which may be needed for start-up). These capacities have a holistic function,

able to put together all the pieces of the larger puzzle to improve small-scale farming in low-

21

income countries. A hallmark of these resources is that they all involve the capacity to go beyond

the individual small-scale farms and often beyond the local community, and to connect issues

facing small-scale framers with public policy and the larger marketplace. The institutionalization

of CA requires a holistic, integrated effort where the community takes ownership.

--- insert Table 4 about here ---

Discussion

This is the first empirical study we are aware of that examines sustainable organizing

from a Radical vs Conventional RBV perspective. Our findings suggest that Radical RBV

provides useful theory to guide further research and practice in the area of radical sustainable

organizing. We hope that our exploratory study—which provides general support for the two

propositions we examined (and where some triangulation is evident, given the overlap between

the findings of the two data sources examined here)—will encourage further research in other

settings and using other methods, to further test and refine our understanding of Radical RBV and

sustainable organizations. We will now discuss the implications of our study for radical

sustainable organizations, RBV, and for management research generally.

Sustainable Organizations

Our study posited a definition of radical sustainable organizations that focused on holistic

socio-ecological “value creation” and placed “value capture” in a subservient role. This is

noteworthy given the fixation on “value capture” inherent in the larger literature and the self-

fulfilling prophecies this engenders. For example, it seems that value capture has become such a

powerful social norm that few people would admit to being abnormal, seeking instead to ‘justify’

even their acts of altruism/value creation using instrumental language (Ferraro et al., 2005, p. 14).

Of course, it may be that the organizations in our sample are a very small minority in the

world – after all, we did deliberately seek a setting where radical sustainable organizing would be

22

most transparently observable. Alternatively, it may be that there may be far more such

organizations than may be evident in the literature, but that scholars tend to fixate on businesses

that emphasize value capture (e.g., “There are currently over 40,000 NGOs operating to develop

sustained economic viability for developing countries,” Duke and Long, 2007, p. 1320).

In any case, it is noteworthy that the organizations examined here are working in a sector

that encompasses at least one-third of humankind, and are addressing some of the most important

social and ecological issues facing society today. For these reasons, and others, we suggest that

future research should continue to examine sustainable organizations that emphasizes socio-

ecological value creation more than self-interested financial value capture. Even if such

organizations are an anomaly, they have important implications both in terms of practice and

theory. This brings us to our second implication.

Richer Understanding of RBV’s VRIN/VCTS

Our use of RBV theory as a lens to examine sustainable organizing among small-scale

farms in low-income countries serves not only to provide empirical support for speculated

differences between Conventional and Radical RBV (proposition #1); it also provided a basis that

may to point to richer and more nuanced understanding of the VRIN/VCTS framework at the

core of RBT (proposition #2). In particular, our finding that the 17 key organizational resources

could be readily divided into three groupings—based on their emphasis on rarity, inimitability

and nonsubstitutability—provides a welcome opportunity to enrich the RBV paradigm generally,

especially in light of the observation that it is rare for empirical studies to examine the separate

VRIN characteristics at the conceptual level (e.g., Newbert, 2007; Talaja, 2012).

Our findings may help to develop more fully the three different types of valuable RBV

organizational resources. First, our findings support speculating that “rarity” may be especially

important for resources related to an organization’s fundamental core practices at the grassroots

23

level (literally so in the current study). These are the core hands-on technologies that are evident

in everyday actions in an organization. In our study it was about organizational practices that

served to manage the nature and quality of the soil on small-scale farms, and food security at the

farm level. In other settings it may be about an organization’s root technology/process/practice

that serves to transform an input into an output.

Second, our findings support speculating that “inimitability” may be especially important

for resources that are being newly-developed to improve performance. These resources are a

level of abstraction higher than the hands-on “rare” resources. In our study these were initiatives

or experiments to test and create “new” knowledge and new organizational practices. In other

settings it may be about the developing new technologies/processes/practices that complement a

firm’s core activities.

Third, our findings support speculating that “nonsubstitutability” may be especially

important for resources that are holistic by their nature, and linked to larger institutions. These

resources are at an even higher level of abstraction than “inimitable” resources. In our study these

were part of a community’s socio-economic agro-ecosystems. In other settings these may be

related to specific industry norms, organizational cultures, and national economic or trade

policies.

Moreover, taken together our findings further suggest that these three valuable VRIN

dimensions may be related temporally (RBV has been criticized for its lack of dynamism and for

its lack of understanding the processes that undergird it, e.g., Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010). It may

be that rare resources are the easiest to implement and manage in the short-term, nonsubstitutable

resources take the longest to develop, and inimitable resources represent the outcomes of learning

processes that enhance on-going long-term improvement and sustainability.

24

The implications of these findings for management and theory may be significant. In

particular, managing these different types of resources requires different kinds of management

skills and organizational systems and processes. These challenges are further compounded by the

temporal interplay among the different types of resources as, for example, inimitable resources

may over time become more familiar and more akin to rare resources. These observations about

the differences among the VRIN components, and how they may change over time, are important

topics for future research.

Time to Reconsider the Primacy of “Value Capture”?

Rather than see radical sustainable organizations and Radical RBV as “niche” ideas that

may have some merit in special situations, why not see them as the new “normal” for a world

craving attention to social and ecological well-being? Can we envision a world where managers

and organizations are more interested in “value creation” than in “value capture”? Is it just a

coincidence that our study, which is so embedded in the natural environment and ecological well-

being, has findings that are so different from the mainstream business literature and theory known

for its lack of emphasis on the natural environment (e.g., Etzion, 2007; Kurucz et al., 2013).

Rather than treat small-scale farms in low-income countries as a unique setting where

Radical RBV seems more appropriate than Conventional RBV, what might happen if theories

like Radical RBV were used as the default lens through which to analyze goods and services

producing organizations also in high-income countries? What if firms shared their VRIN/VCTS

“best practices” with others, rather than hoard them? Would it result in market breakdowns,

chaos, high prices and gouging the consumer? Or would it result in greater cooperation among

stakeholders, greater concern for the natural environment, decreased gaps between rich and poor,

and enhanced shared value and business legitimacy (Porter and Kramer, 2011)? It would

certainly give new meaning to the idea of “sustainable advantage.”

25

Bell and Dyck (2012) provide examples of radical sustainable organizations in high-

income countries that create truly win-win-win scenarios. Similar examples and theory are

evident in emerging research on topics like Benefit Corporations, the fourth sector, hybrid

organizations, humanistic management, social entrepreneurship and so on (e.g., André, 2012;

Battiliana et al., 2012; Davis, 2013; Gaffney, 2012; Von Kimakowitz et al., 2011). Taken

together, this suggests that more research is called for to determine when radical sustainable

organizations based on Radical RBV are workable and desirable. We believe that many will find

such a vision for business and society compelling.

26

Endnotes

1. Note also that, in addition to the data reported here, in order to become familiar with the

field, the lead author also travelled to several regions in the world to visit small-scale farms in

low-income countries where CA practices were being implemented. These visits also involved

larger CA farms, and development projects that involved providing improved access to running

potable water for small-scale farms. Project sites in South America (Bolivia, Paraguay, Brazil)

and Asia (China, DPRK) were visited. The lead author had visited agricultural projects in Africa

at an earlier time. Taken together, this provided the lead author with some first-hand

understanding of CA and small-scale farms in the far reaches of the world.

2. “Planting stations for perennial crops are made by digging holes up to one cubic meter

[usually about 4 liters] and filled with varying amounts of soil rich in organic matter that often

includes compost and manure” (Braul et al., 2011, p. 6).

27

REFERENCES

André, R. (2012). Assessing the accountability of the Benefit Corporation: Will this new gray sector organization enhance Corporate Social Responsibility? Journal of Business Ethics, 110(1), 133-150.

Arora, S. and Romijn, H. (2012). The empty rhetoric of poverty reduction at the base of the pyramid. Organization, 19(4), 481-505.

Barney, J.B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.

Barney, J. B., Wright, M., and Ketchen Jr., D. J. (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6), 625-641.

Battiliana, J., Lee, M., Walker, J., and Dorsey, C. (2012). In search of the hybrid ideal. Stanford Social Innovation Review 10(3), 50-55.

Braul, A., Doell, C., Galloway, W, Rumney, G., Wiens, D., and Woodring, C. (2011). CFGB inter-member food security delegation report (September 24 to October 2, 2011 in Honduras). Canadian Foodgrains Bank, Winnipeg, Canada.

Braul, A., Kenea, W., Plett, M., Soucy, B., and Wiens, D. (2010). CFGB inter-member food security delegation report (January 24 to February 3, 2010 in Malawi-Mozambique). Canadian Foodgrains Bank, Winnipeg, Canada. 

Conner, K.R., and Prahald, C.K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge versus opportunity. Organization Science, 7(5), 477-501.

Davis, G.F. (2013). After the corporation. Politics & Society, 41(2), 283-308.

Bell, G.G., and Dyck, B. (2012). Conventional Resource-Based Theory and its Radical alternative: A less materialist-individualist approach to strategy. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1), 121-130.

Degrande A., Franzel, S., Yeptiep, Y.S., Asaah, E., Tsobeng, A., and Tchoundjeu, Z. (2012). Effectiveness of grassroots organisations in the dissemination of agroforestry innovations. In M. Kaonga (Ed.) Agroforestry for biodiversity and ecosystem services—Science and Practice (pp. 141-164). Rijeka, Croatia: InTech.

De Schutter, O. (2010). Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development. United Nations, General Assembly, Human Rights Council Sixteenth session, Agenda item 3 A/HRC/16/49.

Duke, A. and Long, C. (2007). Trade from the ground up: A case study of a grass roots NGO using agricultural programs in developing countries. Management Decision, 45 (8), 1320-1330.

Dyck, B., Walker, K., Starke, F., and Uggerslev, K. (2011). Addressing concerns raised by critics of business schools by teaching multiple approaches to management. Business and Society Review, 116 (1), 1-27.

Dyck, B. (1994). Build in sustainable development, and they will come: A vegetable field of dreams. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 7(4), 47-63.

28

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theory from case research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550.

Ellis, F. (2005). Small farms, livelihood diversification, and rural-urban transitions: Strategic issues in Sub-Saharan Africa. Proceedings of The Future of Small Farms (pp. 135-159). Wye, UK.

Etzion, D. (2007). Research on organizations and the natural environment, 1992-present: A review. Journal of Management, 33(4), 637-664.

Ferraro, F., Pfeffer, J., and Sutton, R. I. (2005). Economic language and assumptions: How theories can become self-fulfilling. Academy of Management Review, 30, 8-24.

Fuentas-Nieva, R., and Galasso, N. (2014). Working for the few: Political capture and economic inequality. Oxfam International. Retrieved February 21, 2015, from http://www.oxfam.org/en/policy/working-for-the-few-economic-inequality.

Gaffney, R.J. (2012). Hype and hostility for hybrid companies: A fourth sector case study. Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law, 5(2), 329-345.

Ghoshal, S. (2005). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 4, 75-91.

Giacalone, R. A., and Thompson, K. R. (2006). Business ethics and social responsibility education: Shifting the worldview. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(3), 266–277.

Giller, K. E., Witter, E., Corbeels, M., and Tittonell, P. (2009). Conservation Agriculture and smallholder farming in Africa: the heretics’ view. Field Crops Research, 114(1), 23-34.

Gomiero, T., Paoletti, M.G., and Pimental, D. (2008). Energy and environmental issues in organic and conventional agriculture. Critical Review in Plant Sciences, 27(4), 239-254.

Hart, S.L. (1995). A natural resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, (20), 986-1014.

Hart, S. (2007). Capitalism at the crossroads: Aligning business, earth and humanity (2nd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.

Hart, S.L., and Dowell, G. (2011). Invited editorial: A Natural-Resource-Based View of the firm fifteen years after. Journal of Management, 37(5), 1464-1479.

Hiltzik, Michael (2013). Obama is right to put spotlight on economic inequality. Los Angeles Times, Dec 22. Retrieved February 21, 2015, from http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20131222,0,1294414.column#ixzz2oneEpXEr.

Hurni, H. and Osman-Elasha, B. (2009; coordinating lead authors). Context, conceptual framework, and sustainability indicators. In B.D. McIntyre, H.R. Herren, J. Wakhungu, and R.T. Watson (Eds.) Agriculture at the crossroads (pp. 1-56). IAASTD, Washington DC.

Husted, B. W., Allen, D. B., & Kock, N. (2012). Value creation through social strategy. Business & Society, 54(2), 147-186.

Joshi, P.K. (2009). Conservation Agriculture: A brief report. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 64(2), 293-297.

29

Joshi, P.K. (2011). Conservation Agriculture: An overview. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(1), 53-63.

Kasser, T. (2003). The high price of materialism. , Cambridge, Mass: Bradford Book, MIT Press.

Kiers, E.T., Leakey, R.R.B., Izac, A.-M., Heinemann, J.A., and Rosenthal, E. (2008). Agriculture at the crossroads. Science, 320 (April 18), 320-21.

Kraaijenbrink, J., Spender, J.C., and Groen, A.J. (2010). The Resource-Based View: A review and assessment of its critiques. Journal of Management, 36(1), 349-372.

Krishnan, V. R. (2003). Do business schools change students’ values along desirable lines? A longitudinal study. In A. F. Libertella, and S. M. Natale, (Eds.), Business education and training: A value-laden process, Vol. 8 (pp. 26-39). University Press of America, Lanham, MD.

Kurucz, E.C., Colbert, B. and Marcus, J. (2013). Sustainability as a provocation to rethink management education: Building a progressive educative practice. Management Learning.  Published online 28 June 2013 DOI: 10.1177/1350507613486421

Lele, U., and Trigo, E. (2010). Global agriculture has to change. Appropriate Technology, 37(20), 38-39.

McCarty, J. A., and Shrum, L. J. (2001). The influence of individualism, collectivism, and locus of control on environmental beliefs and behavior. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 20, 93–104.

McIntyre, B.D., Herren, H.R., Wakhungu, J., and Watson, R.T. (Eds.) (2009). Agriculture at the crossroads: International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Executive Summary of the Synthesis Report. Washington DC: IAASTD.

Meyer, R. (2010). Setting the frame: Challenges for small-scale farming in developing countries. In R. Meyer and D. Burger (Eds.), Low-Input intensification of developing countries’ agri-culture—opportunities and barriers: Proceedings of the KIT-Workshop (pp. 7-37). Karlsruhe.

Milder, J.C., Majanen, T., and Scherr, S.J. (2011). Performance and potential of conservation agriculture for climate change adaptation and mitigation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ecoagriculture Discussion Paper no. 6. Ecoagriculture Partners, Washington, DC.

Munir, K., Ansari, S., and Gregg, T. (2010). Beyond the hype: Taking business strategy to the “Bottom of the Pyramid”. The Globalization of Strategy Research, 27, 247-276.

Nagayets, O. (2005). Small farms: Current status and key trends. Future of small farms research workshop (pp. 355-367), Imperial College, London.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2014). Global Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet. Retrieved Februrary 21, 2015, from http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

Newbert, S. L. (2007). Empirical research on the resource-based view of the firm: an assessment and suggestions for future research. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 121-146.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62-77.

30

Prahalad, C.K. (2010). The fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits (revised and updated 5th anniversary edition). Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Pretty, J., Toulmin, C., and William, S. (2011). Sustainable intensification in African agriculture. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9(1), 5-24.

Rees, W.E. (2002). Globalization and sustainability: Conflict or convergence? Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, 22(4), 249-268.

Santos, F.M. (2012). A positive theory of social entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 355-351.

Schwartz, J.D. (2014). Soil as carbon storehouse: New weapon in climate fight? Envrionment360. Published March 4. Retrieved February 21, 2015, from http://e360.yale.edu/feature/soil_as_carbon_storehouse_new_weapon_in_climate_fight/2744/

Shivarajan, S., and Srinivasan, A. (2013). The poor as suppliers of intellectual property: A social network approach to sustainable poverty alleviation. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23(3), 381-406.

Silici, L., Ndabe, P., Friedrich, T. and Kassam, A. (2011). Harnessing sustainability, resilience and productivity through conservation agriculture: the case of likoti in Lesotha. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9(1): 137-144.

Stokstad, E. (2008). Dueling visions for a hungry world. Science, 319 (March 14): 1474-1476.

Talaja, A. (2012). Testing VRIN framework: Resource value and rareness as sources of competitive advantage and above average performance. Management: Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 17(2), 51-64.

Von Kimakowitz, E., Pirson, M., Spitzeck, H., Dierksmeier, C., and Amann, W. (Eds.) (2010). Humanistic Management in Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Vermeulen, S., & Cotula, L. (2010). Making the most of agricultural investment: A survey of business models that provide opportunities for smallholders. London/Rome/Bern: IFAO and IIED. ISBN: 978-1-84369-774-9

Vorley, B., Lundy, M., & MacGregor, J. (2009). Business models that are inclusive of small farmers. Agro-industries for Development, Wallingford, UK: CABI for FAO and UNIDO, 186-222.

Walske, J., Scarlata, M. and Zacharakis, A. (2013). Exploring theoretical fit of the Resource Based View and Human Capital Theory. In A. Zeyen, M. Beckmann, S. Mueller, J.G. Dees, D. Khanin, N. Krueger, P.J. Murphy, F. Santos, M. Scarlata, J. Walske and A. Zacharakis (co-authors), Social entrepreneurship and broader Theories: Shedding new light on the ‘bigger picture’ (pp. 97-9). Journal of Social Entrepreneurship, 4(1), 88-107.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984). A resource-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 171–180.

World Bank (2008). Agriculture for development. World Development Report, Washington, DC.

31

Table 1: Conventional versus Radical Resource-Based View (RBV) Theory*

Conventional RBV theory(conventional

organizations)

Radical RBV Theory(radical sustainable

organizations)Key underpinning assumptions

Emphasis on value capture.

Based on consequentialist utilitarianism.

Emphasis on value creation.

Based on virtue ethics.

Resources (e.g., organizational capacities, know-ledge, practices, ethics, physical and human traits)

Organizational assets that create financial value for a firm, and allow it to establish its sustainable competitive advantage.

Organizational assets that create (financial or other) value for a firm and its stakeholders, and allow it to enhance overall well-being (including contributing to social and ecological well-being).

Valuable A resource is valuable if it enables a firm to exploit opportunities to enhance its financial performance, and/or neutralize threats to its financial performance.

A resource is valuable if it enables an organization to exploit opportunities to enhance overall well-being, and/or neutralize threats to overall well-being.

Rare(vs Common)

If a (valuable) resource is held by no/few other current or potential competitors, then it may increase the firm’s opportunity to enhance its profits.

If a (valuable) resource is held by no/few other current or potential competitors/collaborators, then it may increase an organization’s need to responsibly share the resource with others.

Inimitable(vs Transferable)

If a (valuable) resource is costly to develop or copy by other firms, then it may increase the firm’s opportunity to enhance its profits.

If a (valuable) resource is costly to develop or copy by others, then it may increase the organization’s obligation to teach others.

Nonsubstitutable(vs Substitutable)

If a (valuable) resource cannot be easily/affordably replaced by other (bundles of) resources, then it may increase the firm’s opportunity to protect its shareholders’ financial interests.

If a (valuable) resource cannot be easily/affordably replaced, then it may increase the organization’s responsibility use its capacity to set up bundles of resources that enable stakeholders’ overall well-being.

* Table adapted from Bell and Dyck (2012)

32

Table 2: RareCommon Resources: The capacity to increase the adoption rate of valuable well-established CA practices that are infrequently used on small-scale farmsResource #1: Capacity to improve soil fertility by making more commonplace specific rarely-used agronomic practices associated with CA. (ecological, social) “Improving Soil Fertility [ecological] - Minimum and zero tillage, soil retention barriers, agro-forestry systems and green manure/cover crops (gm/cc) are [well-established] essential methods to improve soil fertility [ecological] and the food security [social] of smallholder farmers in Honduras and other Central American countries where corn/bean based production systems dominate” (Braul et al., 2011, item #2, p. 1).Resource #2: Capacity to conserve water and soils by making more commonplace specific rarely-used agronomic practices associated with CA. (ecological, social) “Enhancing the programming capacity to develop and implement projects which conserve water and soils must receive greater attention” [ecological] (Braul et al., 2010, item #3, p. 1; elaborated on p. 3: “[In particular the] CFGB network needs to build capacity at all levels on prioritizing and promoting key innovations which address water and soil fertility issues which limit crop production. Partners and project participants identified conservation agriculture systems and the introduction of legumes (both as a main crop and intercrop) as key interventions which are having the greatest impact on achieving food security [social]. These innovations are also key climate change adaptation activities” [ecological]).Resource #3 : Capacity to introduce a few key well-established interventions at the farm level to make more commonplace specific rarely-used agronomic practices associated with CA. (social) “To keep programs focused and manageable, food security projects should initially focus on only a few key [well-established] innovations that are shown to improve food security [social] at the household level” (Braul et al., 2010, item #5, p.1: elaborated on p. 3: Starting a program on a smaller achievable scale helps to establish a solid foundation. … Additional innovations should only be considered after the initial innovations are well established”).Resource #4. Capacity to introduce a few key well-established complementary [non-agricultural] interventions at the local community level in order to make more commonplace specific rarely-used agronomic practices associated with CA. (social) “Integrated food security programs play an important role in recognizing the diversity of factors affecting food security at the household level [social], but must also remain grounded in a few key [established] and complementary interventions” (Braul et al., 2010, item #6, p. 1; elaborated on pp. 3-4: “An example would be linking the promotion of legumes in cropping systems and the use of legumes in diets through recipe sharing activities with program participants [social].”Resource #5. Capacity to utilize well-established knowledge within existing networks to make more commonplace specific rarely-used agronomic practices associated with CA. (social) “Networking - The rich and vast amount of [well-established] knowledge and practical experience around agro-ecological systems that is already present in Honduras and likely other Latin American countries should be the source to model future food security programming in Latin America” [social] (Braul et al., 2011, item #9, p. 2).Resource #6 : Capacity to enhance food security by with rural programming that makes more commonplace specific rarely-used agronomic practices associated with CA. (social) “Programming in Central America–Food security programming by the CFGB network in Central America should be promoted in rural areas where high food insecurity exists” [social] (Braul et al., 2011, item #4, p. 1).

33

Table 3: InimitableTransferable: The capacity to make emerging (innovative or costly-to-develop) CA practices widely available to small-scale farmersResource #7. Capacity to enhance food security by identifying, describing and disseminating information about new innovative and unique agronomic practices associated with CA. (social) “The CFGB network needs to share the many unique and innovative technologies implemented by partners which are having a significant impact on enhancing food security” (Braul et al., 2010, item #1, p. 1; elaborated on p. 3: “Unfortunately, these technologies are not [yet] widely shared between partners and members. Identification, description and dissemination of these innovate farming practices to improve food security must therefore become a priority”).Resource #8: Capacity to perform research and disseminate findings to determine whether CA-related technologies that were developed (and found to be effective) in one geographic region are also helpful in another. (social, ecological) “Conservation Farming - Further investigation is required to determine how the [unproven-in-Central America] conservation farming system characterized by planting stations and mulch by CFGB partners in Africa may be applied in the Central American context” (Braul et al., 2011, item #8, p. 2: elaborated on p. 8:“The adoption of conservation farming (CF) by smallholder in southern Africa has resulted in significant improvements in food security [social] through the use of minimum tillage using planting stations, precision nutrient placement, rotations and mulching. Given the success of the CF model, a careful analysis of the applicability of this technology to hillside agriculture currently practiced in Honduras and other Central American countries is necessary”). Resource #9: Capacity to perform research and disseminate findings regarding the effectiveness of not-yet-well-established CA-related practices like diversified family gardens. (social) “Diversified Family Garden - The CFGB network should investigate the food security impacts [social] of the diversified family garden and incorporate the concept into food security projects” (Braul et al., 2011, item #3, p. 1; elaborated on p. 6: “The land immediately around the home of smallholder farmers is generally under-utilized for intensive food production. This area can become significantly more productive by establishing perennial plants such as cassava, papaya, pineapple, plantain, bananas, citrus, mango, and avocado in planting stations. Annual vegetables and root crops such as sweet potato, cabbage, lettuce, tomatoes, onions, and carrots can also be grown to diversify the diets … In the absence of supporting data, the CFGB network should investigate the link between the family garden concept and nutritional impact. Possible methods to improve the understanding and reporting around the impact of family gardens on nutrition include assisting partners in developing monitoring and evaluation systems to quantify these impacts or using evidence-based research data to draw supporting conclusions”).Resource #10: Capacity to promote the diffusion of innovative and emerging CA technologies via farmer-led trials, rather than via model farms. (social)“Farmer-Led Trials – Innovative production technologies to improve food security [social] are most effective when they are managed in farmer-led trials rather than on model farms” (Braul et al., 2011, item #10, p. 2).Resource #11: Capacity to foster participation, ownership, and a learning-orientation in the larger local community in order to secure the long-term success of CA on small-scale farms. (social) “Community participation and project ownership are key elements that improve the success and sustainability of projects and should be highlighted in proposal and reports” (Braul et al., 2010, item #2, p. 1; elaborated on p.3:“In particular, the formation of farmer research teams to discuss and experiment with new innovations must be promoted within the CFGB network” [social]).

34

Table 4: NonsubstitutableSubstitutable: The capacity to develop societal infrastructure (i.e., bundles of resources that would be difficult/costly to replace) to the benefit of all small-scale farmers Resource #12. Capacity to support and learn from newly-developing small-scale-farm related initiatives related to public policy. (social, economic) “The CFGB network needs to increase support to partners who are advocating for appropriate public policy changes that could ensure sustainable food security initiatives” (Braul et al., 2010, item #4, p.1; elaborated on p. 3:“The CFGB network needs to increase support to partners who are advocating for appropriate public policy changes that could ensure sustainable food security [social] initiatives such as policies that improve access to land, strengthen agricultural input and output markets [economic], increased technical support to small scale farmers, good governance [social], etc. Sharing of experiences by members and partners around this topic is recommended to enhance the understanding of how to more effectively implement and measure the impact of these types of programs”).Resource #13: Capacity to design, implement and test new small-scale-farm related programming that address specific concerns related to young people, with a view to disseminating the lessons learned. (social, economic) “Assisting Youth to Become Successful Farmers – Designing and implementing agriculture development programs for youth to help them establish economically viable farming operations [economic] is essential for sustainable rural development” [social] (Braul et al., 2011, item #6, p. 2).Resource #14: Capacity to design and implement new small-scale-farm related initiatives that address specific possibilities related to generating financial income, with a view to disseminating the lessons learned. (economic, social) “Income Generation – Food security programs should look beyond immediate subsistence food production systems by developing cash crops that diversify the production system and generate income [economic] in order to improve food security [social]. This focus will help make smallholder agriculture an attractive economic option for the future” [economic] (Braul et al., 2011, item #5; p.1; elaborated on p.11: “While food security programming has often focused on the production of staples for family consumption, it was clear during the field visits by the delegation that cash crops are very relevant to farmer food security and the long-term sustainability of rural livelihoods. All of the projects visited had some component of income generation integrated into their projects, most notably through the production of crops almost exclusively for cash income, [economic] such as coffee, cashew, lumber, fruit, vegetable production, honey, processed vegetable products, dairy, and the sale of excess basic grains. Of particular relevance was the relationship between higher education, cash production, and the ability of youth to achieve the means to support a new family off the land as an option of choice. [“A common impact, shared by farmers participating in these income generation projects, was eliminating the need to leave their community on an annual basis to seek work on coffee plantations or elsewhere to earn income to purchase food. Rather, they were able to achieve food security off the production from their farm operation.”] This is critical for a new generation of farmers to be created, instead of a continual flow of youth to urban areas and abroad, with the consequent social disintegration. [social] Similar programming should be considered for food security projects throughout the CFGB network”).Resource #15: Capacity to manage external inputs in a way that facilitates developing an infrastructure that can sustain CA over time. (economic, social)

35

“Input Incentives - To enhance project sustainability and increased community ownership [social], external input incentives [economic] in food security projects should be minimized or removed” (Braul et al, 2011, item #1, p.1; elaborated on p. 5: Within the CFGB network, the level of external inputs provided in food security projects is largely contextual [economic]. In situations where smallholder farmers without any assets are returning to regions they abandoned because of conflict, the use of external inputs (often seed and tools) is essential to begin rebuilding livelihoods. However, even in this situation, the importance of training that may involve improved agriculture practices and efficient use of local resources must be emphasized. When food security projects are implemented in regions where farmers have some assets, building the capacity of farmers to use local resources and develop management skills must be emphasized [social] over the provision of external inputs. If external inputs are used, the beneficiaries should be responsible for some or all of the costs. Ownership is proportional to investment. In addition, there must be an exit plan developed already at the beginning of a project when inputs are provided to assure that the approach is sustainable”).Resource #16. Capacity to institutionalize change by fostering the holistic implementation of a wide variety of integrated CA practices. (ecological, economic, social) “Agro-Ecological Production – To improve food security, projects should promote agro-ecological production systems that replace or reduce the use of fertilizers and herbicides and maintain long-term production through a holistic approach [ecological]. (Braul et al., 2011, item #7. p. 2; elaborated on p. 7: “All the organizations visited emphasized the use of agro-ecological systems of food production as the best approach to meet current household food consumption needs [social], produce food for surplus sales [economic] and assure long-term sustainable production levels [ecological]. Some of the key principles arising from the agro-ecological approach included protecting soils from erosion by maintaining a soil mulch cover at all times (especially important on steep soils), enriching the biological activity and inherent nutrients in soils with the addition of organic matter and compost often through planting stations, increasing plant diversity in fields through companion cropping (more than one crop grown simultaneously), using gm/cc [green manure/cover-crops] to enhance soil fertility and protect soils during the dry season, establishing leguminous trees and managing forest regeneration [ecological]. On average, smallholder farmers claimed that their yields approximately doubled using agro-ecological systems [economic, social]”).Resource #17. Capacity to develop systems and train community members to assess and subsequently enhance the adequacy of food security. (social) “Capacity building on developing strong monitoring and evaluation systems must be enhanced” (Braul et al., 2010, item #7, p. 1; elaborated on p. 4:“Building capacity in this area [i.e., monitoring and evaluating a community’s systems around food security] through workshops, mentoring and other training approaches is recommended to both improve the ability of partners to measure the impact of their food security program and simplify reporting [and thus facilitate future sustainable organizing]”).

36