You are on page 1of 46


Philip H. Mirvis Research Fellow Global Network on Corporate Citizenship 28 Water Street Ipswich, MA 01938 (978) 356-8742 &

Christopher G. Worley Senior Research Scientist Center for Effective Organizations Marshall School of Business University of Southern California 3415 S. Figueroa Street, #200 Los Angeles, CA 90089 (213) 740-9814

ABSTRACT Purpose This chapter introduces the volumes theme by considering how the forces of globalization and complexity are leading organizations to reshape and redesign themselves, how meeting the challenges of sustainable effectiveness and shared value require multi-organization networks and partnerships, and how networks and partnerships develop, function, and can produce both private benefits and public goods.

Design/methodology/approach We apply findings from social and political evolution frameworks, partnership and collaboration research, and design for sustainability concepts to induce the likely conditions required for sustainable effectiveness from a network perspective.

Findings Successful partnerships and collaborations in service of sustainable effectiveness will require individual organizations to change their objective function and build new and varied internal and external capabilities.

Originality/value The chapter sets the stage for the volumes contributions

Paper category: General Review

Keywords: Sustainability; corporate social responsibility (CSR); multiparty networks; multisector partnerships, transorganizational development

Where globalization means, as it so often does, that the rich and powerful now have new means to further enrich and empower themselves at the cost of the poorer and weaker, we have a responsibility to protest in the name of universal freedom. Nelson Mandela Several technological and political forces have converged, and that has produced a global, web-enabled playing field that allows for multiple forms of collaboration without regard to geography or distance - or soon, even language. Thomas Friedman Exercising leadership in cross-sector or multi-stakeholder contexts requires a higher level of both inner and interpersonal skills to deal effectively with the diversity of worldviews, values, assumptions, languages and experiences. Alain Gauthier It is the long history of humankind (and animal kind, too) those who learned to collaborate and improvise most effectively have prevailed. Charles Darwin 1 A headline in a January 16, 2013 Irish Times (Healy, 2013) article reads, Food Watchdog Uncovers Contamination. Investigations by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland found horse DNA and horse meat in supplies of beef from a processing plant that made burgers, lasagna, and other products. One report described a typical multiplayer scenario (see Exhibit 1). A French food producer, in response to a customer order or in anticipation of demand, orders a variety of beef products from one of its subsidiaries in Luxembourg. The Luxembourg factory orders the meat from a French processor who then sources it through a subcontractor in Cyprus. The Cyprus subcontractor uses a trader in the Netherlands to order the meat from an abattoir (slaughterhouse) in Romania. The meat is delivered to the French food producer who then manufactures the products and distributes them to retailers. [Insert Exhibit 1] Somewhere along this network chain, horsemeat was mixed in with beef. Over the next month, businesses, government agencies, and the media began their own investigations. By late February, the horse meat scandal involved EU regulators and national governments,
Mandela speech at National Civil Rights Museum, November 2000.; Daniel Pink interview with Thomas Friedman.; Gauthier, A. (2008). Developing Generative Change Leaders Across Sectors: An Exploration of Integral Approaches. Integral Leadership Review.; and attributed to Darwin, C. R. The Origin of Species (Vol. XI, pp. 190914). The Harvard Classics. New York: P.F. Collier & Son;, 2001.

supermarkets, food producers, retailers, and other businesses along the supply chain, and was making its way into other parts of the world. Plants were closed, government agencies reeled under accusations of negligence, executives explained how their already rigorous standards were being strengthened, criminal investigations were started, the media was having a field day, and the public was outraged. Some of the blame was laid at the feet of EU lawmakers for a 2012 regulatory change that forbid the use of cheaper "de-sinewed meat" (from cows and other cud-chewing animals) in beef processing which raised cost pressures along the supply chain. Others faulted a 2006 rule change that no longer required daily plant inspections and provided advanced notice of inspectors visits. Businesses in the supply chain also took a beating. Rayner (2013), author of the upcoming book, A Greedy Man in a Hungry World, notes that The price pressures on the supermarkets, desperate not to lose market share, are huge. Along the same lines, Prescott (2013) opines that the almighty dominance of supermarkets and their relentless obsession to drive down the cost of goods has provided motivation to cut corners. And finally, there is the most interesting culprit: all of us. While the public supports the idea of sustainable agriculture, we all-too-eagerly respond to marketing messages that promise us greater variety, higher quality, and lower prices in goods-and-services. But at what costs and for whom? Of course we rue the exploitation of cheap labor, environmental degradation, and social disruption wrought by global supply chains that lead businesses on a race to the bottom when it comes to ethical conduct. And when we learn of swollen profit margins, outsized executive bonuses, and evidence of cheating or corruption, we shake our fingers at business and say shame on you for being so greedy. But seldom do we frame this as a systemic matter and locate consumers (ourselves!) at the nexus of social, ecological, and human waste.

Shifting the balance in this arena requires more transparency, accountability, and responsibility by all concerned, including and especially consumers. This could lead to higher food costs, smaller profit margins, and tougher penalties for bad behavior. But it could also motivate innovation, promote a sense of shared responsibility among network players, and stimulate a race to the top in terms of food safety, security, and value-formoney. That is what sustainability calls for: seeing the big picture, engaging complex webs connecting institutions, interests, and actors (including ourselves), and devising new and more effective ways of organizing for a better future (Ehrenfeld, 2008; Elkington, 2013)

On Networks & Partnerships The horsemeat scandal is not some isolated incident. It is emblematic of what can go wrong when multiple organizations interactwhether in a supply chain, service delivery network, or distribution system, or as part of an industry coalition, private-public partnership, or business-NGO alliance. Witness charges that Anheuser-Busch began diluting its beer after its merger with InBev, continued finger-pointing among oil rig operators BP, Halliburton, and Transocean over who was most-at-fault in the Gulf oil spill, the lingering effects of cronyism between the Wall Street banks, credit agencies (e.g., the Pimps of Wall Street), and regulators (e.g., the SEC and See No Evil, Hear No Evil Department of Justice), as well as various scandals involving the United Way, the Bishops Estate, and China Charities Aid Foundation for Children. At the same time, there is a growing body of evidence on what can go right when multiple organizations interact effectively: Consider health care networks that improve services and reduce costs, innovation clusters that give new dynamism to cities and regions, and the widespread adoption of collaborative practices like open sourcing, user-driven design, stakeholder consultation, and the like. Partnering across organizations is increasing

in areas of social-and-environmental sustainability. There are, for example, multibusiness and multisector initiatives regarding climate change (alliances for carbon trading and energy conservation), natural resources (partnerships around sustainable fish, water, agriculture, and food), human rights (codes for supply-chain management and fair labor practices), and access to medicines, health care, and education. Looking at sustainability through the lens of networks and partnerships is the theme of this third volume in the series on Organizing for Sustainable Effectiveness. We introduce this theme by considering in this introduction: 1) how globalization and complexity lead organizations to reshape and redesign themselves and extend beyond their fence-lines to connect to other organizations; 2) how meeting challenges of sustainable effectiveness and shared value require multi-organization networks and partnerships; and 3) how networks and partnerships develop, function, and can produce both private benefits and public goods. Consider each of these themes in brief: Globalization and Complexity. Applying a network lens means looking at a system as a whole and the global context within which individuals and organizations are making decisions and taking action. The horsemeat story is not just a business, industry, government, or consumer problem; it involves a complex network of interests driven by consumers looking for bargains, investors looking to maximize their returns, managers facing daunting competition, and regulators diminished in their authority, funding, and reach. The feed to farm to food processing supply chain is global today and operators large and small compete intensively and sometimes, as this case shows, by cheating. Where are the strong, reciprocal ties in this network versus the weak, anything-goes links? Where are governance and regulation built in and where are they missing? Mark Price, the chief executive of Waitrose, one of the UKs leading food retailers, said this about the horsemeat scandal, If the question is 'Who can sell the cheapest stuff? Im

afraid it is inevitable that there will be a slackening of product specifications He then adds that that if consumers want to know that their food is safe and genuine, they cannot view it as a cheap commodity (Quinn, Lewis, & Sawer, 2013). This systemic look is central to the case studies and analyses in this volume. Sustainable Effectiveness. Sustainable effectiveness represents top performance in economic, social, and environmental terms (Lawler & Worley, 2011). Shifting from an organizational to network framing means examining the interests of each of the parties, their purposes for working together, and the specific ends sought and attained. When, as in this case, any part of a system attempts to maximize its own gains at the expense of others, a vicious cycle of self-dealing can be triggered and, in the end, everyone can lose. On a larger tableau, this raises questions about whether aggressive economic growth, a single-minded devotion to efficiency, and the pursuit of profit maximization can co-exist with sustainability in our social and ecological conditions.

Examples of systems gone awry because of exploitation, profiteering, and collusion are all too common. But there are many examples, too, of companies enlisting their suppliers, business partners, customers, and end consumers to activate a virtuous cycle of responsible and profitable conduct (Googins, Mirvis, & Rochlin, 2007). The business case for doing so is indisputable: Surveys by Cone Inc. (2012) show that the publicas consumers, investors, and employeestakes a punitive view of bad corporate behavior and great majorities want to do their business with companies with a good reputation for sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR). In addition, there is a growing worldwide move toward healthy and sustainable consumption; the size of the LOHAS (Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability) market will grow to $845 billion by 2015.

Working Together Better. Finally, the network perspective invites us to inquire into what it takes for organizations to work together to contribute to both economic progress and a more sustainable world. Self-interest, competition, profit-maximizing, and the like are facts of life in commerce today and can, under the right conditions, contribute to innovation, sensible cost-cutting, and wealth creation. But collective interests, cooperation, and profit-optimization may be better means to more sustainable ends when it comes to the successful operation of multi-organization networks and partnerships. Each organization in the warped beef product supply chain was trying to do what was best for itself, then someone decided what was best for me should come at the expense of what was good for all of us. The cases in this volume provide insight and instruction about what it takes to develop capabilities of partnership and collaboration to pursue a common good.

Globalization and Complexity Globalization creates economic policies where the transnationals lord over us, and the result is misery and unemployment. Evo Morales Technology causes problems as well as solves problems. Nobody has figured out a way to ensure that, as of tomorrow, technology won't create problems. Technology simply means increased power, which is why we have the global problems we face today. Jared Diamond We must ensure that the global market is embedded in broadly shared values and practices that reflect global social needs, and that all the world's people share the benefits of globalization. Kofi Annan Globalization is forcing companies to do things in new ways. Bill Gates 2

The globalization of modern commerceduring a period of time that has seen the growth of the internet and cellular phones, the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and rise of

Tim Padgett interview with Evo Morales,9171,1198906,00.html#ixzz2NRl7jS9e Pat Joseph interview with Jared Diamond Kofi Annan Bill Gates

Sub-Saharan Africa, plus the emergence of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) as economic powerhouses has unleashed the mobility of technology, capital, communication, ideas, and people. Today, almost any product or service can be designed, made, transported, and bought anywhere in the world. Information crosses borders quickly-distributed by multi-media channels and amplified by social media chatterand people can connect effortlessly to networks of friends, co-workers, colleagues and customers spanning the globe. All of this has led to the unprecedented expanse of knowledge and relationships and to unparalleled economic growth. Globalization: Blessing or Curse? There are, however, different stories about the fruits of globalization and who benefits from it (Korten, 1995; Friedman, 2006). New manufacturing and technology workers in China or India mostly say globalization is good. It has brought them capital, access to lucrative international markets, and a wireless connection to the world. Their nations are more prosperous as a result. Multinational corporations (MNCs), their shareholders, and many who work for them have made dramatic gains. Access to new markets and cheaper inputs create impressive profit margins and greater returns on capital and knowledge. Globalization has driven real price decreases for many consumer products and made branded goods more available around the world. And talent markets in Bangalore, Beijing, and Sao Paulo are just as heated up as in New York, London, and Tokyo. Yet the same benefits have not accrued to everyone and there is increasing concern over globalizations social and ecological consequences (Cooperrider & Dutton, 1999; Chua, 2003; Perkins, 2004; Stiglitz, 2012). Many developing countries lack sufficient governance, infrastructure, and human capital to find a niche in the competitive global system. Poor farmers have been pitted against one another in export markets and must compete with cheaper (often subsidized) imports from richer nations. Small-scale manufacturers have been driven out of business. Meanwhile, the prospects for youth the world over have fallen behind

the rapid pace of change, creating an atmosphere of instability and discontent that affects everyone. Consider a sampling of issues that globalization raises: The inequality gap is widening. In the last decades, the gap between the average percapita GDP in the twenty richest and poorest countries has doubled; and, despite some recent improvement, over 3.6 billion people still live on less than $2 per day (World Bank, 2013). In the U.S., the top one-percent accounts for 25% of the nations income and 40% of the wealth, up from 12% and 33% a quarter century ago (Stiglitz, 2011). Eco-productivity and natural systems are in serious decline. One in four mammal species are at risk, mainly due to human activity; fish stocks are eroding; the worlds wetlands and forest cover are declining markedly; and desertification puts some 135 million people worldwide at risk of being driven from their lands (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2006). Costs of mitigating the effects of climate change are estimated to be $140 to $175 billion a year over the next 20 years (with associated financing needs of $265 to $565 billion). Outsourcing and offshoring have displaced workers in developed nations. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, 10 million U.S. jobs have been sent overseas since 2001. And while this creates jobs in poorer countries, it is estimated that 150 million internal migrants in China work in sweatshops, absent state benefits or protection, and that 250 million children, ages 14 or younger, work in factories, many in deplorable conditions. Health threats reach across the spectrum. Close to half of all people in developing countries suffer at any given time from health problems caused by water and sanitation deficits. Two million die annually from infectious diarrhea, 90% of them children. Europeans and Americans, who constitute just 28% of world population, account for 42% of deaths from cardiovascular diseases and cancersdiseases often triggered by smoking, 10

sedentary lifestyles, and eating foods rich in salt, sugar, and fat. Obesity is growing into a pandemic in the U.S. as well as in China and India. Western monoculture is spreading throughout the world. Some argue that globalization is good for countries and cultures, citing examples of how music, art, political thought, technology, and other artifacts of culture have crossed boundaries and enriched peoples experiences (Cowen, 2002; Bhagwati, 2004). Meanwhile, the Chinese government is trying diligently to preserve its cultural and political underpinnings amidst a rapid influx of western goods and services, and many other developing nations face pressures to move to a Western capitalism model despite questions as to whether it is appropriate for their cultures (International Forum on Globalization, 2002). Moreover, businesses implement global strategies based on an economic logic of standardization and efficiency that offers little practical incentive to account for cultural or governmental differences. Insecurity in the world is intensifying and widespread. The Arab Spring, bailouts of organizations too big to fail, an extended drug war in Mexico, and the Occupy movement remind us of the instability and dangers of an interconnected world. On the economic front, the spread of global capitalism has yielded many benefits, but contributes to short-term thinking and unintended consequences. The financial markets fixation on rapid returns (along with the motivations and incentives of executives that work in them) were proximate causes of the 2009-2010 recession (Chan, 2011). Toyotas errant drive to become the biggest automaker and BPs aggressive profit pursuits resulted in loss of life, property, and reputations. And, as the rich get richer, Stiglitz (2011) warns, The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. Business Challenges. Significant movements of goods, services, technology, human resources, and capital across international borders have changed the business environment as


we know it. This has largely been a boon for MNCs and the private sector overall. Increases in productivity due to innovation and specialization have improved competitiveness and efficiency; greater market opportunities worldwide have raised revenues and expanded the scope of business activity; and access to cheaper sources of labor and raw materials lowers costs. These advantages have raised the power position of business, often beyond national governments. The private sector is now the power leader of today, but it has a role that is not without complexity and challenge. Consider just a sampling of the sort of operating challenges a business faces today: Increasing competitive pressures on a global scale are forcing companies to continuously cut costs; Globally integrated production requires complex management and monitoring of supply chains; Operating around the world increases the number and variety of stakeholders to manage; Increased competition and consumption are depleting stocks of natural resources; Public services in health, education, and welfare are strapped for funds and require more cost-sharing and engagement of the private sector; Heightened expectations from consumers, employees, regulators, and the public at large means that businesses must not only operate more responsibly but also take responsibility for addressing social, economic, and environmental issues in society. On a macro scale, the integration of the global marketplace has intensified economic interdependence among organizations and nations. While this opens up trade, it also means that economic problems in one part of the world spread rapidly to others. The United States 2007-2008 fiscal crisis evolved quickly into a global recession sending the EU into a financial tail spin and impacting the economies of almost every region of the globe. Differences between countries cultural, political, and religious practices have rendered 12

global markets uncertain and sometimes conflictive. Persistent tensions in the Middle East have made nations and their businesses more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, diplomatic and military conflicts, and disruptions in energy supply. And while globalization expands access to natural resources, it also makes the planet more susceptible to abuse by organizations with shoddy environmental practices and by governments with loose environmental regulations. Capitalizing on Complexity. It is clear that the world is becoming smaller and more tightly interconnected economically, socially, and ecologically. What does this mean for leaders in business and in society? The great majority of some 1500 top executives surveyed by IBM (2010) find their operating environments to be more volatile and uncertain than ever before. IBMs report about the challenges of global integration comes to two conclusions: 1) The worlds private and public sector leaders believe that a rapid escalation of complexity is the biggest challenge confronting them. They expect it to continue indeed, to accelerate in the coming years. 2) They are equally clear that their enterprises today are not equipped to cope effectively with this complexity in the global environment (pg. 3). So how are leaders responding to a competitive and economic environment unlike anything that has come before? The IBM study finds that those who are capitalizing on complexity are redesigning their organizations to make them more flexible and fluid and reconfiguring themselves through new relationships with other businesses, NGOs, and governments. For the past two decades, scholars have been mapping a landscape where companies routinely reshape and resize themselves, regularly buy and sell off businesses, outsource nonstrategic functions, and partner with other institutions to do their work (Tushman & OReilly, 1996; Galbraith, 2001; Saltz & Mirvis, 2002). Handy (1989), as one early example, described a federalist organization design featuring three layers of activity from core to non-


core tasks. These layers would be populated, respectively, by core full-time personnel, independent contractors and partners, and contingent workers. The underlying logic is that this enables an organization to reconfigure its human systems quickly and efficiently in response to environmental demands, such as new market openings, competitors responses, and supply chain costs and reach, while preserving its core competencies. Many firms have since adopted the extended enterprise concept where they work with partners throughout their global supply chain and contract with other firms to handle transportation, warehousing, procurement, public relations, and even information technology while focusing their capital investments and attentions of the valued-added components of their business. More generally, what has come to be called the post-bureaucratic structurewhether depicted as a boundaryless organization, flexible firm, or virtual corporationfeatures less vertical hierarchy, more lateral interaction, and constant exchange between the firm and its environment at every level and in every part of the organization (Volberda, 1999; Galbraith, 2005). Specialists in organization design contend that these features give a firm sufficient variety in structure and skill to better sense and react flexibly to complexity in its markets and operating environments (Trist, 1983; Cohen & March, 1986). Globalization has expanded the scale and scope of these new designs. Intel, as one example, developed the global factory concept with a worldwide supply chain of plants, transportation and distribution systems, R&D facilities, and sales organizations that depends on tight integration. And while each of the facilities is required to meet strict operational requirements that facilitate integration, they are also encouraged to take advantage of local cultural customs. IBM, in turn, has developed an enterprise model where it reconfigures businesses to deliver greater value by rethinking what is done in house versus through collaboration. This has led the company to undertake hundreds of acquisitions the past decade, develop a global supply chain network involving thousands of business partners,


establish corporate centers of excellence in different regions of the world, and devise new business models where it sells to and services an ecosystem of diverse customers to create smarter cities and a smarter planet. In the face of increasing complexity, these organizations and others that thrive on the global stage have been built to change (Lawler & Worley, 2006). Their rapid redesign capabilities give them agility and adaptability (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1998; Haeckel, 1999) and their networks and partnerships yield what Huxham (1996) and others call a collaborative advantage. The case studies in this volume show how a variety of organizations--large and small, public and private, commercial and communalhave redesigned themselves and forged partnerships for this purpose. We wonder, however, whether these new designs and collaborations will lead to sustainable effectiveness. No responsible leader or citizen can take comfort in the idea that the horsemeat scandal and beggar-thy-neighbor stratagems employed are inevitable in our competitive capitalist system. In other times, a national government or coalition of nations were able to take control of these kinds of situations and respond with new policies and remedies. But no such force exists today to regulate and remedy the undesirable social, economic, and environmental consequences of global capitalism. There are, however, some animating ideas, market forces, and developments in the political-economy that point the way to a more sustainable version of competitive capitalism. There are some forward thinking business leaders, too, that have a more inclusive and longer-term view of effectiveness where, as one CEO puts it: commercial success is no longer a matter of company-to-customer relationships; it also involves the success of relationships with governments, NGOs, academic institutions, and other companies.


Sustainable Effectiveness and Shared Prosperity As long as you have a system that is based on the rationale that if you are making money you are thereby making a contribution to society, these financial rogue practices will continue. David Korten People 'over-produce' pollution because they are not paying for the costs of dealing with it. Ha-Joon Chang I'm a capitalist. I believe in capitalism. But capitalism only works if you have safety nets to deal with people who are naturally left behind and brutalized by it. Thomas Friedman A shared value approach reconnects company success with social progress. Michael Porter 3

The driving force of modern globalization--the model that defeated Soviet-style Communism and shapes management education around the world; that opened up global trade, capital, and labor markets and spurred unprecedented business growth, and that remains the envy of nations and economies around the worldhas been termed the Anglo-American (or neoliberal) version of capitalism (Albert, 1993; Harvey, 2005). The good parts of globalization can be traced to its tripartite objectives: profit, efficiency, and growth. Many contend, however, that the race to globalize commerce has not been balanced by sufficient attention to its bad economic, social, and environmental consequences (Chua, 2003; Korten, 2006; Friedman, 2010). Short-term profit taking, for example, can distort markets and discourage longer-term investment. In a fast changing environment, an overzealous pursuit of efficiency slows organization change and threatens longer-term effectiveness (Van Alstyne, 1997). And economists and social scientists agree that while some growth improves the quality of life, there are growth rates and trajectories that outpace sustainable living and threaten the biosphere (Beddoe et al., 2009). On this latter point, evidence points to many governmental policies, tax incentives, organizational practices, and
Alexander Drake interview with David Korten Ha-Joon Chang, 23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism Thomas Friedman Michael Porter


reward systems that promote the irrational use of natural capital (Hawken, Lovins, & Lovins, 2008). Responsible Capitalism? The ideals of capitalism are that free markets make free men (Friedman, 1974, pg. 3) and that human well-being is best advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade (Harvey, 2005, pg. 3). In theory, the Anglo-American model is not only concerned with maximizing a firms economic performance, it contains the logic for upholding and even enhancing the quality of social and environmental conditions in which a firm exists. For example, sustainability should enter into market decisions through either resource scarcity or consumer demands. Dwindling supplies or more costly extraction of fossil fuels should shift input costs up and drive the search for alternative fuels; and consumer demand for more ecologically friendly or socially relevant outputs should incent organizations to shift their products/services. But it does not always work that way in practice. Various market conditions (e.g., asymmetric information flows, mobility barriers, government tax policies), market failures (e.g., decreasing marginal costs, unaccounted for environmental and social externalities, sticky assets), and consumer contradictions (e.g., we say we want sustainability but are not willing to pay more for it) can warp free markets and produce unsustainable consumption. Organization balance sheets account for the costs of acquiring resources (e.g., oil, gas, minerals) provided by the ecology but do not fully account for services provided to maintain ecosystems (e.g., cleaning the air, water, and habitat or keeping the peace in the Mideast). And excessive CEO pay and executive bonuses and growing gaps between the haves-andhave-nots resist market corrections. Sustainable Effectiveness. These issues are fueling a movement to reform the orthodoxies of Anglo-American capitalism and redefine profit, efficiency, and growth in the


logic and language of sustainable effectiveness. Proponents of a new order do not argue about whether businesses should make a profit but are concerned rather about how they make their profits, how much profit they make, and at what costs to the commonweal. They contend that the concentration of wealth, environmental damage, and social injustices that have been incurred in the name of maximizing shareholder return warrant a rethinking of value creation in the economy. Three developments in the political-economy add impetus and direction to calls for a new definition of value creation. First is the growing acceptance of stakeholder theory which proposes that corporations bear responsibilities not only to their financial shareholders, but also to employees, customers, suppliers, business partners, communities, and others who are touched by corporate behavior (Freeman, 1984; Parmar et al., 2013). These are people, groups, and interests that have a stake in a company, may care about its success or how a company treats them, or be concerned about the impact a company has on others, society, and nature. The great majority of business leaders today acknowledge responsibilities to multiple stakeholders (Economist Intelligence Unit, 2008). Second, growing social movements concerning consumer protection, investor rights, employee well-being, and the health of the planet embody economic power and carry with them the possibility of regulation and legal remedy for harms. In the most societies, the interests of the public and private sector are not fully aligned and businesses are wary of and opposed to regulation and oversight over their affairs in these domains. Accordingly, there is a strong preference in business to make adaptations to these social movements voluntary rather than regulatory. In this respect, there is a strong business case for companies to adopt more socially responsible and sustainable practices (Bonini, Koller, & Mirvis, 2009). Finally, growing legions of NGOs that represent varied stakeholders are operating at the nexus of business and society (Hawken, 2007). Over two hundred thousand new citizen


groups have been formed around the world since the mid-1980s and global NGOs have been rising in numbers, scale, and scope. Amnesty International, for example, has nearly two million members in every country where multinational corporations do business and the World Wildlife Fund has over five million. Both of these groups, as well as Oxfam, Greenpeace, and thousands more, have forced companies to account for their economic, social, and environmental inaction or misdeeds. Shared Prosperity. Proposals for new variants of capitalism and new models of responsible conduct are many and varied including, for instance, calls for a more conscious capitalism (Mackey & Sisodia, 2013) that transcends profit maximization and calls for deeper engagement of employees, customers, and communities, for natural capitalism (Hawken et al., 2008) that emphasizes the economic value of nature and speaks to its restoration and renewal, and for a more community-based capitalism which is based in local living economies and emphasizes social sustainability (Hess, 2009). While there are those who call for reduced economic growth and restraints on consumption, the unifying feature of most calls for reform is their focus on shared prosperity. Consider three examples of shared prosperity ideas already making their way into practice. Albert (1993) describes Rhine capitalism as a highly successful synthesis of AngloAmerican capitalism and social democracy. In contrast to the traditional model, Rhine capitalism proposes that the interests of shareholders and management should be reconciled with the interests of labor and other stakeholders, that markets should be guided to balance the rights of private capital vs. the longer-term, social needs of a functioning economy, and that information sharing and consensus building among stakeholder allows coordinated action in pursuit of long-term economic and social goals. Furthermore, by relying on banks to fuel and guide investment rather than stock market capital, the model seeks to smooth out the volatility of market forces.


Worley and Lawler (2010) propose a policy framework of responsible progress that is more rooted in traditional economic criteria of efficiency, risk-and-return, innovation, and full employment (Scherer, 1980). Grounding responsible progress in this traditional economic logic, they contend that creating social and ecological value should have equal standing with creating economic value. Recognizing and addressing the achievement of economic, social, and ecological outcomes as part of the responsible progress criteria creates a larger number of available and socially acceptable solutions to challenges of economic development (Nattrass & Altomare, 1999). Responsible progress calls for businesses, governments, NGOs, and other stakeholders to jointly optimize (as opposed to maximize) economic development, technological innovation, cultural diversity, and ecological health to achieve sustainable effectiveness.

Porter and Kramer (2011) offer the concept of shared valuewhere processes, products, and services are key to interests of both business and society. The underlying rationale for shared value is that the competitiveness of a company and the health of the communities surrounding it are mutually dependent. If organizations, governments, and civil society interests could recognize and capitalize on this dependency, the next wave of global growth could be initiated. Shared value can be created by reconceiving products and markets, redefining productivity in the value chain, and enabling local cluster development. Redefining products and markets to meet social as well as economic needs would create new opportunities for growth and innovation. Similarly, innovation in the supply chain could radically improve efficiency and redress environmental damage. Finally, a more local orientation could increase resiliency and lower volatility in the system (Poire & Sabel, 1984). How are these theories translating into practice? A number of contemporary practices

embody and build on the Rhine capitalism model. Stakeholder engagement and consultation,


as noted, are becoming the norm for big business. In terms of market coordination, Matten & Moon (2008) report that corporate responsibility policies and practices in Europe are embedded in institutional frameworks and norms, are often codified, and define proper obligations of corporate actors in collective rather than individual terms. As an example, the EU and majority of OECD countries have adopted standards about public reporting by businesses and the Nordic countries have legislation requiring disclosures by companies about their performance in select environmental, social, and governance areas. As the name implies, however, Rhine-style capitalism features far more in Europe than in the U.S. and rest of the world where notions of responsible progress in a market mode have more traction. John Elkingtons (1997) idea that business performance be directed toward a triple bottom lineeconomic, social, and environmentalfits this ethos. Its logic has been embraced by many companies globally and is evident in their strategizing, planning, and reporting. In China, by comparison, market-based commerce operates under the dominion and direction of a state that must balance aspirations for economic growth against environmental degradation and social cleavages. The former Premier of China summed the Chinese version of joint optimization in this way: Companies should be responsible to society and consciously accept supervision by society. (Gefei, Weiyang, & Fushun, 2009). Finally, there is no doubt that a turn to shared value opens up new avenues for value creation. At once it can join a companys interest in creating new markets at the base-of-thepyramid with expanding its offerings for green and ethical consumers. When these threads are joined into business models, it can unleash employees energy and turbo-charge innovation in a company. And, it can also create real value for society. However, as Mirvis and Googins (2012) note, shared value as such does not do very much to reconnect business to society, reduce mistrust, or redress the rich-poor gap and other social divides. The corporation remains at the center of this Copernican universe, and the other planets


(governments, NGOs, other stakeholders) merely align around its gravitational profitmaximizing pull. Beyond producing shared value, Mirvis and Googins recommend that companies work toward shared values (adding an 's' to value) with their stakeholders. This speaks not only to joint-optimization but also to power-equalization. A framework of shared values requires that corporate aspirations for profits and efficiency be considered alongside social progress and equityThis takes business out of the center of the universe and produces a solar system of interdependent and interacting sectors where cooperation is the mode of working and social harmony and sustainability are the measures of success. Shared Responsibility. To close this discussion of political economy, consider the question of who creates the value that produces shared prosperity. In the U.S. and many market-driven societies, there has historically been a clear division of responsibility among the public, private, and civil society sectors. The job of business has been to produce products and services for markets, to create jobs, to earn and distribute profits, and to pay taxes. Governments role has been to establish and enforce regulations, set tax policy, and provide a safety net for those whose needs are not served by the market. And the roles of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have been to fill-in-the-gaps and address other social and cultural needs. 4 There are today, however, signs of sector bending or blurring (Dees & Anderson, 2003) such that traditional divisions of responsibility between the business, government, and NGOs are being reconfigured. The wealth and power of business has increased dramatically over the past decades. Meanwhile, government in the U.S., UK, and other OECD nations has retracted through privatization of its services and reductions in expenditures in social welfare

In its neo-classic economic formulation, the market is the preferred form of organization and governmental intervention emerges from a market failure whenever a sufficiently large segment of the polity demands responsiveness from the state. NGO activity, in turn, arises from both market and government failure whereby private interests organize to address the unmet needs of smaller segments of the public.


as a percentage of GDP. This combination of increasing business power and shrinking government largesse has led to calls for corporations to take on greater responsibilities for the commonwealdomestically and in their overseas operationsand to use their capabilities to also serve the public interest (Visser, 2011). In turn, NGOs have taken on three overlapping and sometimes contradictory functions versus business and government: 1) as an advocate for those disadvantaged by the market and disenfranchised by government; 2) as a watchdog over the behavior of the other two sectors; and, increasingly, 3) as their partner in policy making and service delivery. Thus what was once a reasonably clear division of responsibilities between the sectors with regard to societys economic progress, social welfare, and environmental protection now features overlap and interdependencies (see Figures 2 and 3). While this can create sectoral ambiguity and conflict, it also opens up possibilities for actors and interests in government, business and civil society to assume shared responsibility (Mirvis, Googins, DeJongh, Quinn, & van Velsor, 2010) and work together for the benefit of each party and the common good.

[Insert Figures 2 and 3 here]

Working Together Better Being responsible does not mean doing it all ourselves. Responsibility is a form of sharing, a way of recognising that were all in this together. Sole responsibility is an oxymoron. Wayne Visser. A company cannot execute its strategy alone. Adam Werbach. Any business that wants to profoundly alter its operating environment, any government that seeks to undertake fundamental reform, and any people who want to improve the world must partner with others from outside their sector. Steve Waddell.


Multi-stakeholder and cross-sector approaches to problem-solving offer one of our greatest hopes for meeting, together, the challenges of the twenty first century. Jane Nelson. 5

Multi-organization networks and partnerships enable organizations to perform tasks and achieve goals that are too costly or complicated for a single organization to do on its own. There is a vast multidisciplinary literature on why organizations participate in multi-party networks and partnerships that draws from organizational economics, theories about agency, stakeholders, and resource dependence-and-exchange, as well as social network, communication, and institutional theories (see reviews by Gulati & Gargiulo, 1999; Monge & Contractor, 2001; Zeng & Chen, 2003; Borgatti, & Foster, 2003; Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, & Tsai, 2004; Provan, Fish, & Sydow, 2007; Parmigiani and Rivera-Santos, 2011; Austin, & Seitanidi, 2012a, 2012b). While even a cursory review of these theories is beyond the intent and scope of this volume, select chapters in this volume demonstrate how multi-organization arrangements can: Increase trust and reduce transaction costs between parties; Spread the costs and risks of investment and innovation; Increase communication flows and produce joint learning; Combine resources and diverse expertise to address complex problems; Help common interests to enlarge and conflicting parties to cooperate; Open new market opportunities and produce socio-technical and cultural innovations; Forge relationships that transcend the perspective of a single organization and address multiple stakeholders interests.

Factoring in Sustainability. In research as to why actors and interests participate in networks and partnerships, main motivations compress to 1) increased revenue and/or growth
Quotes from Wayne Visser; Werbach; Steve Waddell; Nelson, J. (2002). Building Partnerships: Cooperation between the United Nations system and the private sector. (Monograph). New York: United Nations Publications.


opportunities, 2) reduced risks and/or costs, and 3) organization-specific motives relating to innovation, knowledge transfer and use, and gains in reputation and legitimacy, as well as competitive positioning (Powell, 1990; Oliver, 1990; Alter & Hage, 1993; Huxham, 1996). Naturally, variants of these material motives feature in nearly every chapter. Our interests in this volume, however, also concern motivations for sustainability which can include the motivations listed above but introduce three other considerations in the formation, goal setting, and operation of multi-organizational arrangements. First, stakeholder theory, as articulated by Freeman (1984) and extended by Freeman et al., (2010), proposes that an organization has fiduciary and normative responsibilities to stakeholders, including those who can affect or are affected by an organizations activities. This more expansive view of responsibilities and inclusive view of stakeholders raises questions about stakeholder democracy (Matten & Crane, 2005) and how multiple stakeholders interests and voices are best represented in organizational arrangements. Networks and partnerships can be prime vehicles for incorporating multiple stakeholders, directly or indirectly, in a cooperative ventures goals, decisions, and results. Several of the case studies here address how stakeholders are selected and enlisted into a multi-organizational network or partnership or, if not directly engaged, how their interests are represented by proxies. Second, incorporating criteria of sustainable effectiveness and shared value turns attention to how the mission of a network or partnership is defined, and to how multiple and sometimes conflicting goals are adjudicated and managed. On the conceptual aspects, Freeman (1994) proposes that organizations are bound by the doctrine of fair contracts and serve the interests of all stakeholders who, in turn, have the right to participate in the governance of a firm. On the side of reciprocity, he then argues that this creates a collective interest whereby stakeholders individually and collectively have a stake in the continued existence and prosperity of other members including a firm. On the practical side, various


chapters herein consider how power relations and governance can be embedded in different multi-organization forms (e.g., hierarchical, heterarchical, or shared governance); how trust is developed and reinforced (e.g, contracts, co-investment, or norms of reciprocity); and how work gets done (e.g., coordination, cooperation, or integration). Third, several of the chapters here examine networks and partnerships aimed at the sustainability of societies and the planet. Here we find the worlds biggest problems and both common and competing interests across sectors and industries over how to address them. Complex and interdependent economic, social, and environmental problems call for complex solutions. Organizations from different industries and sectors bring unique and essential assets to the work of social change (Waddell, 2005). Yet the literatures on organization design, capabilities, and management practices are primarily addressed to competitiveness and to the economic effectiveness of a single firm (Porter, 1980; Teece, Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). What organization designs, capabilities, and practices are most germane to cooperative ventures and to their success in terms of the triple bottom line (Gray, 1985; Huxham & Vangen, 2000; Worley, Feyerherm, & Knudsen, 2010; Gulati, Puranam, & Tushman, 2012)? Types of Collaboration and Partnership. Multi-organization networks and partnerships come in different shapes and sizes. Consider, first, horizontal networks and collaborations that link organizations side-by-side. In the commercial space, this includes mergers, strategic alliances, and joint ventures of firms in the same industry, and intramarket networks of interests involved in, say, buying groups, selling groups or as users of a class of products or services. An intermarket network represents a horizontal alliance among organizations in different sectors and markets. This is best exemplified by Japanese keiretsu, Korean chaebols, and Mexican grupos where businesses and governments collaborate to coordinate economic relations and policy and by the Rhine models of capitalism practiced in


northern Europe. By their composition and comparatively equal power relations, intermarket networks are more disposed to spread the wealth among participants and pursue ends of sustainable effectiveness and shared value. There are examples, too, of industry groups formed to produce private benefits for their members and public goods. For instance, the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) is a collaborative effort that includes BP, Chevron Texaco, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Rio Tinto, Total, and other major oil and gas providers. EITI specifically aims to reduce the embezzlement of oil and natural resource revenues and allow others to monitor and influence governmental spending priorities by promoting the transparent reporting of payments. Several of the cases in this volume cover private-public collaborations contained within a single industry (e.g., healthcare, education). Here, too, conditions are prime for joint-optimization although very much contingent on the success of the parties in working together (Gray & Hay, 1986; Huxham & Vangen, 2004; 2005). On this point, Savage et al. (2010) write, collaborative advantage can be offset by collaborative inertia, the lack of progress among partners. Collaborative inertia presumably is generated by numerous obstacles to collaboration that range from the lack of trust to multiple and divergent aims to different organizational cultures among the partners, to the inability to effectively handle the conflicts associated with these issues, power differences, and other factors. (p. 24). A vertical network is composed of multiple organizations--both within and across sectors--that coordinate or cooperate to move resources from raw materials to end consumer. Vertical market networks, too, can address both business and sustainability issues. Nike, for example, has its shoes manufactured in different supplier plants around the world and then organizes their distribution through retail outlets. But Nike also collaborates with footwear, apparel, and fabric companies to inspect and ensure the safety and health of workers in their


supply chains, partners with the United Nations on its global human rights agenda, and shares its Materials Sustainability Index with members (including competitors) of the Sustainable Apparel Coalition. Other examples of vertical networks and partnerships key to sustainable effectiveness include: Fair Trade. Alliances among food and beverage industries provide for a viable wage and work environment for growers of coffee, chocolates and tea and ensure consumers of the bona-fides of organics. Responsible Care. A coalition of chemical, utility, and energy industries provides standards for the safe manufacture and handling of potentially dangerous materials. Green Grid and Green IT Initiatives. Technology, data management, and energy companies join together to set standards to reduce energy waste and work together make greener products. Natural Resource Supply Chains. Alliances in farming, fisheries, and forestry protect resource stocks and certify sustainable products for consumers. The increasing appeal of vertical market cooperation can be seen in the extent to which former watchdog groups, such as Oxfam, Greenpeace, and the World Wildlife Fund, and NGOs, like the International Youth Foundation, ApproTEC, the Rainforest Alliance, and the United Nations Development Programme, are all partnering with businesses to offer technical expertise and public legitimacy to co-create social innovations. What is behind this sector blending? First, traditions of checkbook philanthropy are giving way to the active engagement of companies in social problems. The public all over the world says that the best way for companies to make a positive contribution to society is by working to solve a specific social problem, rather than donating monies to charity (although both rank below their primary contribution of developing safer and healthier products and services). This perception is 28

activated by companies in the form of policies that support volunteering and corporatecommunity partnerships that identify important initiatives. Second, in this era where companies focus on their core competencies and outsource whole functions, few firms choose to dedicate extensive resources and staff to community relations and the fieldwork. On this count, studies find NGOs to be far more knowledgeable about social needs and more effective at planning social action than businesses (Austin, Leonard, Reficco, & Wei-Skillern, 2005). Third, there is evidence that partnering with NGOs is itself a source of legitimacy for companies in society. GlobeScan (2001-2012) surveys find that 85 percent of the public says that a key indication that a company is socially responsible is that it works directly with a charity group or NGO. Furthermore, a growing segment of the public reports that a key indication that a company is socially responsible is that it works directly with a charity group or NGO. Here are some notable business/NGO partnerships: Community ServiceHome Depot and KaBOOM! have partnered in the creation of play spaces for low-income and disaster-affected neighborhoods. EducationWith its Catalyst Initiative, Hewlett Packard established a network of leading educators, education institutions, and key stakeholders in selected countries to develop explore innovative approaches to STEM education. Social JusticeState Farm has teamed up with the Neighborhood Housing Service to increase the availability of insurance services for low income communities. Digital DivideNokia has partnered with the Grameen Foundation to bring affordable telecommunication services to poor villages in developing countries. Sustainable DevelopmentChiquita and the Rainforest Alliance have partnered to certify that Chiquitas plantations promote environmental and social sustainability.


Finally, an issue or opportunity network is a temporary constellation of organizations, often across sectors and markets, brought together to pursue a single purpose. If the purpose is accomplished, the network can disband. Firms, NGOs, and governments have, for example, worked together to combat trade in blood diamonds and to address corrupt business practices in developing countries; multibusiness efforts build national health and legal systems in African states, and facilitate post-conflict reconciliation among peoples in Northern Ireland, South Africa, the Balkans, and Afghanistan; and business and civil society partners promote peace through simple-but-difficult measures like creating jobs for youth growing up in lands ripe for conflict and terrorism. Other examples of issue-driven networks include Chinas Low Carbon City Initiative which brought together business, labor, government, education, finance, community organizations, and economic development agencies to identify exemplary efforts related to energy efficiency, public awareness, and low carbon development; UPS sharing its carbon calculator with the Dave Matthews Band to help reduce the carbon footprint of their tours; and Starbucks hosting its competitors at a Cup Summit to explore ways to reduce waste and promote recycling of coffee cups. Subsequently, initiatives were launched among these companies with the Foodservice Packaging Association to increase the recyclability of cups and with waste management firms to increase volume and thereby make recycling more economically viable. Making Collaboration Work. There are many rosters of best practices in managing multi-organizational networks and partnershipsdrawn from practical experience (Googins & Rochlin, 2000; Waddell, 2003; World Economic Forum, 2005; GEMI, 2008; Werbach, 2009) and from comparative research (Gray, 1989; Zhang and Huxham, 2009; Austin & Seitanidi, 2012b). Key findings from the literature on effective multi-party


management that are explored and in some instances modified or extended in case studies in this volume concern the importance of: Establishing fit between parties in terms of mission, culture, market perspective, and commitment-to-cause (Berger, Cunningham, & Drumwright, 2004); Harmonizing stakeholder interests and goal differences (Prins, 2010; Huxham & Vangen, 2000); Building and maintaining trust among parties (Vangen & Huxham, 2003; Savage et al., 2010) Tailoring collaboration strategies (coordination, cooperation, integration, transformation) to the network type and structure (Hillebrand & Biemans, 2003; Peloza & Falkenberg, 2009); Continually adjusting messaging (internally and externally) to promote a shared mission and collective agency (Koschmann, Kuhn, & Pfarrer, 2012); and Ensuring mutual accountability and agreed-to governance mechanisms (Carson, Madho, & Wu, 2006; Brown, 2007; Grossman, Lobnig, & Scala, 2012). There is also a literature on the stages of development of multi-party collaborations (Mirvis & Googins, 2006; Austin & Seitanidi, 2012a). Obviously certain of these practices are more pivotal when a collaboration is formed, as relationships develop, as joint efforts are launched, and when conflicts inevitable arise in the co-production of goods and services. Finally, there are classic and contemporary pieces on promoting change and improvement in partnerships in the organizational development literature (Cummings, 1984; Boje & Hillon, 2008). Grays (1989) volume on collaboration, for example, highlights a host of processual interventions relevant to partnering including enlistment of stakeholders, trust-building regimens, structured problem-definition exercises, and, as the parties work together, establishment of ground-rules, joint problem solving, and process facilitation, often aided by a third-party (see also Weisbord, 1992). Several of the cases here examine factors that can speed up (and stall) the development of collaborations over time and some speak explicitly to partnership-building interventions.


CONCLUSION The most often used phrases in the many meetings I attended [were] the need to create coalitions of the willing and a recognition that all issues are interconnected and cannot be viewed in silos - Jo Confino, Chair of Guardian Sustainable Business writing at the close of the Rio +20 Conference in June 2012 6

This introductory chapter has described three themes that frame the issues to be addressed in this volume. First, globalization and threatening political, economic, social, and environmental conditions in the world have created significantly more complexity for leaders in business, government, and the private, nongovernmental (NGO) sector. Second, this complexity requires a different objective function in the production of goods and services. Instead of the pursuit of unsustainable growth and maximization of singular goals, such as a profits or shareholder wealth, attention is turning to shared goals and responsibilities to the requisite interdependency of the sectors to achieve sustainable effectiveness. Finally, multistakeholder and cross-sector partnerships are emerging in response to this new world order. New forms of collaboration mark the extended enterprise--from supply chain to customers and clientsas well as multi-business and multi-sector ventures. Understanding these changing conditions and their impact on organizing and leadership requires a closer look at how networks and partnerships form and evolve, and careful consideration of new leadership responsibilities, roles, and practices. This volume on Organizing for sustainability: Building Networks & Partnerships illustrates some of the needed models and methods. A 2012 survey of nearly 800 sustainability professionals in business, government, NGOs, academe, and the media in over seventy countries concluded: Post-Rio +20, experts overwhelmingly believe companies should collaborate with multiple actors, including governments, to advance sustainability most effectively Globescan/Sustainability (2012). Yet the survey found a huge gap between the importance of partnering for sustainability for



companies versus its likely adoption in practice (58% versus 30%). Key perceived barriers to collaboration included the absence of shared goals, a lack of executive leadership, and simply not having had much experience to draw upon when entering this arena. The organizations studied in this volume are not grains in a pile of sand (Ramo, 2009) -- they have strategic intent and purpose in joining forces with others to address economic, social, and environmental challenges. As early adopters of a new collaborative form of organization and management, they teach us about how to work together and set an example for other organizations in their industry, sector, nation, and worldwide. Not every case herein is a success story and even the goods ones have to be seen as works-in-progress. We salute these organizations and the contributors to this volume for in the American baseball adage stepping up to the plate.


REFERENCES Albert, M. (1993). Capitalism vs. Capitalism. London: Whurr. Alter, C., & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations Working Together. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Austin, J., Leonard, H., Reficco, E., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2005). Social Entrepreneurship: It's For Corporations, Too. In A. Nicholls (Ed.), Social Entrepreneurship: New Paradigms of Sustainable Social Change. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Austin, J.E., & Seitanidi, M.M. (2012a). Collaborative Value Creation: A Review of Partnering Between Nonprofits and Businesses: Part I. Value Creation Spectrum and Collaboration Stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(5), 726-758. Austin, J. E., & Seitanidi, M.M. (2012b). Collaborative Value Creation: A Review of Partnering Between Nonprofits and Businesses. Part 2: Partnership Processes and Outcomes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 929-968. Beddoe, R., Costanza, R., Farley, J., Garza, E., Kent, J., Kubiszewski, I., Martinez, L., Mccowen, T., Murphy, K., Myers, N., Ogden, Z., Stapleton, K., & Woodward, J. (2009). Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: The evolutionary redesign of worldviews, institutions, and technologies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(8), 24839. Berger, I., Cunningham, P., & Drumwright, M.E. (2004). Social Alliances: Company/Nonprofit Collaboration. California Management Review, 47(1), 58-90. Bhagwati, J. (2004). In Defense of Globalization. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Boje, D. & Hillon, M. (2008). Transorganizational Development. In T. Cummings (Ed.), Handbook of Organization Development (pp. 651-63). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bonini, S., Koller, T.M., and Mirvis, P.H. (2009). Valuing social responsibility. McKinsey on Finance, 32, 11-18.


Borgatti, S.P., & Foster, P.C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991-1013. Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H.R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 795-817. Brown, L.D. (2007). Multiparty social action and mutual accountability, in A. Ebrahim and E. Weisband (Eds), Global accountability and moral community. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, S., & Eisenhardt, K. (1998). Competing on the edge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Carson, S. J., Madho, A., & Wu, T. (2006). Uncertainty, opportunism, and governance: The effects of volatility and ambiguity on formal and relational contracting. Academy of Management Journal, 49(5), 1058. Chan, S. (2011). Financial Crisis was Avoidable, Inquiry Finds. New York Times. Retrieved from Chua, A. (2003) World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability. New York: Random House. Cohen, M.D., & March, J.G. (1986). Leadership and Ambiguity. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Cone, Inc., (2012). 2012 Cone Communications Corporate Social Return Trend Tracker. Retrieved from Cooperrider, D., & Dutton, J. (Eds.) (1999). Organizational Dimensions of Global Change: No Limits to Cooperation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cowen, T. (2002). Creative Destruction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.


Cummings, T. (1984). Transorganizational development. In B. Staw & L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in Organization Behavior (vol. 6, pp. 367-422). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Dees, J.G., & Anderson, B.B. (2003). Sector-bending: Blurring lines between nonprofit and for-profit. Society, 40(4), 16-27. Economist Intelligence Unit. (2008). Sustainability Across Borders. London: The Economist. Ehrenfeld, J. R. (2008). Sustainability by Design: A Subversive Strategy for Transforming Our Consumer Culture. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple-Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. London: Capstone/John Wiley. Elkington, J. (2013). Breakthrough: Business Leaders, Market Revolutions. London: Volans. Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman. Freeman, R.E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409-422. Freeman, R.E., Wicks, A.C., Harrison, J., Parmar, B., & DeColle, S. (2010). Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art. New York: Cambridge University Press. Friedman, M. (1974). Free Markets for Free Men; Selected Papers No. 45. Chicago, IL: Graduate School of Business, University of Chicago. Friedman, T. (2000). Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York: Anchor Books. Friedman, T. (2006). The World is Flat. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Galbraith, J.R. (2001). Designing organizations: An executive guide to strategy, structure, and process. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Galbraith, J.R. (2005). Designing the customer-centric organization: A guide to strategy, structure, and process. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gauthier, A. (2008). Developing Generative Change Leaders Across Sectors: An Exploration of Integral Approaches. Integral Leadership Review. Retrieved from

36 Gefei, Y., Weiyang, L., & Fushun, W. (2009). Stages of CSR development in China. Corporate Social Responsibility in China (1st ed, pp. 142). Beijing: Enterprise Management Publishing House. GEMI (2008). Guide to Successful Corporate-NGO Partnerships. Washington, DC: Global Environmental Management Initiative (GEMI) and Environmental Defense Fund. GlobeScan. (2001-2012) Corporate Social Responsibility Monitor. Globescan/Sustainability. (2012). Collaborating for a Sustainable Future: A GlobeScan/SustainAbility Survey. Retrieved from Googins, B.K., & Rochlin, S.A. (2000). Creating the partnership society: Understanding the rhetoric and reality of cross-sectoral partnerships. Business and Society Review, 105(1), 127-144. Googins, B., Mirvis, P., & Rochlin, S. (2007). Beyond good company: Next generation corporate citizenship. New York, NY: Palgrave. Gray, B. (1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human Relations, 38, 91136. Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Gray, B., & Hay, T. (1986). Political limits to interorganizational consensus and change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 22(2), 95-112. Grossman, R., Lobnig, H., & Scala, K. (2012). Facilitating Collaboration in Public Management. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.


Gulati, R., & Gargiulo, M. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from? American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439-1493. Gulati, R., Puranam, P., & Tushman, M. (2012). Meta-organization design: Rethinking design in interorganizational and community contexts. Strategic Management Journal, 33, 571-586. Haeckel, S. (1999). Adaptive enterprise: Creating and leading sense-and-respond organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Handy, C. (1989). The age of unreason. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Hawken, P. (2007). Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming. New York: Viking Penguin. Hawken, P., Lovins, A., & Lovins, L. (2008). Natural capitalism: Creating the next industrial revolution. Boston, MA: Back Bay Books. Healy, A. (2013). Food watchdog uncovers contamination. Irish Times. Retrieved from Hess, D.J. (2009). Localist Movements in a Global Economy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Hillebrand, B., & Biemans, W.G. (2003). The relationship between internal and external cooperation: Literature review and propositions. Journal of Business Research, 56, 735743. Huxham, C. (Ed.) (1996). Creating Collaborative Advantage. London: Sage. Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2000). Ambiguity, complexity and dynamics in the membership of collaboration. Human Relations, 53(6), 771-806. Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2004). Doing things collaboratively: Realizing the advantage or succumbing to inertia? Organizational Dynamics, 33(2), 190.


Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage. London: Routledge. IBM. (2010). Capitalizing on Complexity: Insights from the IBM 2010 Global CEO Study. IBM: Institute for Business Value. International Forum on Globalization. (2002). Alternatives to Economic Globalization. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Korten, D. (1995). When Corporations Rule the World. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press. Korten, D. (2006). The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press. Koschmann, M.A., Kuhn, T.R., & Pfarrer, M.D. (2012). A Communicative Framework of Value in Cross-Sector Partnerships. Academy Of Management Review, 37, 332-354. Lawler, E.E., & Worley, C. (2006). Built to change: How to achieve sustained organizational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lawler, E.E., & Worley, C. (2011). Management reset: Organizing for sustainable effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mackey, J., & Sisodia, R. (2013). Conscious Capitalism. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). What is stakeholder democracy? Perspectives and issues. Business Ethics: A European Review, 14(1), 6-13. Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). Implicit and explicit CSR: a conceptual framework for a comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. The Academy of Management Review, 33(2), 404-424. Mirvis, P. H., & Googins, B. (2006). Stages of Corporate Citizenship: A Developmental Framework. California Management Review 48(2), 104126.


Mirvis, P. H., Googins, B., DeJongh, D., Quinn, L., & van Velsor, E. (2010). Responsible leadership emerging: Individual, organizational and collective frontiers. University of Pretoria, South Africa, Centre for Responsible Leadership. Mirvis, P. H. & Googins, B. (2012). Share Value or Shared Values? [Blog], Global Network for Corporate Citizenship. Retrieved from Monge, P. R., & Contractor, N. S. (2001). Emergence of communication networks. In F.M. Jablin & L.L. Putnam (Eds.), New handbook of organizational communication (pp. 440502). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Nattrass, B.F., & Altomare, M. (1999). The Natural Step for Business: Wealth, Ecology, and the Evolutionary Corporation. Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society Publishers. Nelson, J. (2002). Building Partnerships: Cooperation between the United Nations system and the private sector. (Monograph). New York: United Nations Publications. Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of Interorganizational Relationship: Integration and Future Directions. Academy of Management Review, 15, 241-65. Parmar, B., Freeman, R., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Purnell, L., & de Colle, S. (2013). Stakeholder theory: State of the art. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403445. Parmigiani, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2011). Clearing a Path Through the Forest: A MetaReview of Interorganizational Relationships. Journal of Management, 37(4), 11081136. Peloza, J., & Falkenberg, L. (2009). The role of collaboration in achieving corporate social responsibility objectives. California Management Review, 51(3), 95-113. Perkins, J. (2004). Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.


Poire, M., & Sabel, C. (1984). The second industrial divide. New York: Basic Books. Porter, M. E. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: The Free Press. Porter, M., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62-77. Powell, W.W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. In B.M. Staw & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (vol. 12, pp. 295336). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Prescott, J. (2013). Horse meat scandal: Supermarkets have become the Del Boys of retailers and weve all been fooled by horses!. Mirror. Retrieved from Prins, S. (2010). From competition to collaboration: Critical challenges and dynamics in multiparty collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46(3), 281-312. Provan, K., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. (2007). Interorganizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management, 33(3), 479-516. Quinn, J., Lewis, J., & Sawer, P. (2013). Horse meat scandal: Shoppers who buy 'cheapest food' at risk. The Telegraph. Retrieved from Ramo, J. (2009). The Age of the Unthinkable. New York: Little Brown. Rayner, J. (2013). As the horsemeat scandal shows, thuggish supermarkets are endangering our food supply. The Guardian. Retrieved from


Saltz, J.L., & Mirvis, P.H. (2002). Organizational adaptability: Rethinking the resizing process. In K. DeMeuse and M.L. Marks (Eds.), Resizing the organization: Managing layoffs, divestitures, and closings--Maximizing gain while minimizing pain. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pages 347-368. Savage, G.T., Bunn, M.D., Gray, B., Xiao, Q., Wang, S., Wilson, E.J., & Williams, E.S. (2010). Stakeholder Collaboration: Implications for Stakeholder Theory and Practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(1), 21-26 Scherer, F. M. (1980). Industrial market structure and economic performance. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Stiglitz, J. (2011). Of the 1%, By the 1%, for the 1%. Vanity Fair. Retrieved from Stiglitz, J. (2012). The Price of Inequality. New York: W.W. Norton. Teece, D., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management, Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509-534. Trist, E. (1983). Referent organizations and the development of inter-organizational domains. Human Relations, 36(3), 269-285. Tushman, M.L., & OReilly, C.A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-29. Van Alstyne, M. (1997). The state of network organizations: A survey in three frameworks. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 7, 83-151. Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Nurturing Collaborative Relations: Building Trust in Interorganizational Collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(1), 531. Visser, W. (2011). The Age of Responsibility: CSR 2.0 and the New DNA of Business. New York, NY: Wiley.


Volberda, H. (1999). Building the flexible firm. New York: Oxford University Press. Waddell, S. (2005). Societal Learning and Change: How Governments, Business and Civil Society are Creating Solutions to Complex Multi-Stakeholder Problems. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing. Waddell, S. (2003). Global Action Networks: A Global Invention for Business to Make Globalization Work for All. Journal of Corporate Citizenship. 12, 27-42. Weisbord, M. (Ed.). (1992). Discovering Common Ground: How Future Search Conferences Bring People Together to Achieve Breakthrough, Innovation, Empowerment, Shared Vision, and Collaborative Action. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Werbach, A. (2009). A Strategy for Sustainability: A Business Manifesto. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. World Bank. (2013). Poverty Overview. Retrieved from World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (2006). From Challenge to Opportunity: The Role of Business in Tomorrows Society. Retrieved from World Economic Forum. (2005). Partnering for Success: Business Perspectives on Multistakeholder Partnerships. Switzerland: World Economic Forum, IBLF, Harvard University. Worley, C.G., & Lawler, E.E. (2010), Built to Change Organizations and Responsible Progress: Twin Pillars of Sustainable Success. In W.A. Pasmore, A.B. (Rami) Shani, & R.W. Woodman (Eds.), Research in Organizational Change and Development (pp. 149). United Kingdom: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.


Worley, C., Feyerherm, A., & Knudsen, D. (2010). Building a collaboration capability for sustainability: How Gap Inc. is creating and leveraging a strategic asset. Organizational Dynamics. 39(4), 325-334. Zeng, M,. & Chen, X-P. (2003). Achieving cooperation in multiparty alliances: a social dilemma approach to partnership management. Academy of Management Review, 28(4), 587605. Zhang, Y., & Huxham, C. (2009). Identity construction and trust building in developing international collaborations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 45(2), 186211.


Exhibit 1: The Meat Processing Network


Figure 2

Public Sector Set laws Supply social services Redistribute wealth Social Welfare Public Policy

Pay taxes Obey Laws Provide employment & benefits Philanthropy

Private Sector

NGOs Civil Society Fill in cracks in social services

Figure 2. Social Contract 20th Century

Figure 3

Pay taxes, Obey laws Employ people Help solve social challenges act responsibly

Public Sector Competitive Context Social Welfare Public Policy NGOs Civil Society

Deregulation, downsizing. Contract social services, redistribute wealth

Private Sector

Be a partner in social service delivery Be accountable

Figure 3. Social Contract 21st Century