Exam Summary Alliances - Nina Straatman, s2889560

1. Influence of personality traits and demographic factors on social entrepreneurship start-up

intentions. Article researches how personality traits and demographic factors influence social
entrepreneurship start-up intentions. It suggests that the time has come for entrepreneurs to focus on
TBL. The study focuses on five related aspects of social entrepreneurship (right side model).
Social Networks (SN)  social capital theory suggests that social capital exists in 3 dimensions
resulting from social networks: (1) structural, (2) relational, and (3) cognitive. Social networks can
help social entrepreneurs to reach the ‘bottom of the pyramid’ easier.
Social entrepreneurs often possess certain distinct personality characteristics which define their
behaviors/actions. Personality traits: predictable characteristics of individual behavior which assist in
explaining the differences of individual actions in similar situations. The big 5 personality traits (see
model): (1) Openness  individual intellectual curiosity and affinity towards novelty of new
experiences, (2) Extroversion  social, outgoing, positive, assertive attitudes, (3) Agreeableness 
ability to foster social consensus while upholding mutual understanding/trust, (4) Conscientiousness
 an individual’s meticulousness, conformance with rules/procedures, (5) Neuroticism  degree of
emotional stability of the individual.
Conclusions: Agreeableness positively influences all dimensions of social entrepreneurship, whereas
Openness exerts a positive influence on social vision, innovation and financial returns.
Conscientiousness was found to exert a positive influence on sustainability and financial returns.
Further, Neuroticism exerted a negative influence on the social network’s construction.
Discussion/implications: focus should be on social responsibility, student central learning, life-long
learning, character education, entrepreneurship
education, and sustainability education. Need to
integrate these traits among business students.
Social entrepreneurship requires the combination of
head knowledge and heart virtues that foster the
courage to become catalysts of change while
undertaking opportunities. Ambiguous definition of
social entrepreneurship  seems like they are using
the SE definition.

2. Social capital. This paper investigates how future research can utilize social capital perspectives
across levels of analysis and context to explain a wide variety of entrepreneurship phenomena. Social
capital = “the value embedded in the social relationships of individuals or collectives” or “the sum of
actual and potential resources embedded within, available through and derived from the network of
relationships possessed by individuals or social units. Two main perspectives on SC: (1) Bonding
perspective: SC results from strong, repeated social connections that result from norms of reciprocity
yielding trust. It’s a collective good & an intermediary between the webs of relationships and the
recognition of opportunities. (2) Bridging perspective: external connections of a focal actor lead to
nonredundant resources (i.e. SC) and, ultimately, to positive outcomes  an actor who generates
profits from being between others.
Problems with social capital in literature: social capital research often ignores the factors of processes
that lead to the development of relationships (the antecedents), or research is not correctly classified as
social capital research. Researchers have tended to ignore the negative implications of investing in
social relationships and the real possibility of costly, but unproductive (or even destructive) social
capital (e.g. criminal networks). Moreover, social capital has been classified to internal and/or external
ties. Internal ties refer to the relationships within the social structures of a collective, while external
ties are relationships that span boundaries to other individuals or collectives. However, very few
studies examine multi-level phenomena, failing to recognize that social capital can have different
antecedents. Relationships can also exist between the individual and collective level or within levels of
collectives.
Framework: Individual/collective antecedents  individual/collective relationships/networks 
individual/collective social capital  individual/collective entrepreneurial outcomes 
individual/collective performance outcomes.-

3. Current set-up sustainable supply chain management should have no future. Paper argues that while
the increase in acceptance and activity around sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) is
welcome and lead to a greater understanding of sustainability, our present knowledge is not sufficient
to create truly sustainable supply chains. Previous research has focused on the synergistic and familiar
(forgets about the social/environmental) while overlooking trade-offs and radical innovation. These
theoretical issues are compounded by measures that do not truly capture a supply chain’s impacts and
methods that are better at looking backwards than forwards. A truly SSC does no net harm to natural
or social systems while still producing a profit over an extended period of time; a truly sustainable
supply chain could, customers willing, continue to do business forever. At this point, unsustainable
SC’s are still the norm. What should research focus on? 5 main issues: (1) harm reduction is not harm
elimination. (2) a limited stakeholder view – the primacy of profits. (3) a focus on the familiar. (4) the
limits of empiricism as most of us presently practice it. (5) measuring supply chain impacts. New
proposed areas of research: (1) Changes in norms – evolutionary/revolutionary change, start looking
from different perspectives as a researcher, do qualitative research, look more at
outliers/start-ups/NGO’s, multidisciplinary/transdisciplinary look at stakeholders, look at other
research fields (not just SCM). Noneconomic stakeholders must be represented in SCM research and
economic stakeholders must be represented in other areas of research, so that all supply chain impacts
are treated as equally important. (2) Measurement. Current problems: focus on a limited number of
stakeholders/outcomes, measures that are artificially limited to negative impact, and measures that do
not account for the entire chain. In order to make research more leading than reactive: focus on
participatory/action research, simulation models.

4. Defining sustainable supply chain management. This paper identifies/analyzes the published
definitions of green supply chain management (GSCM) and sustainable supply chain management
(SSCM). Key characteristics business sustainability: economic, environmental, social, stakeholder,
volunteer, resilience, long-term focus. Key characteristics supply chain management: flow,
coordination, stakeholder, relationship, value, efficiency and performance focus. New definition of
SSCM proposed (including all characteristics): “The creation of coordinated supply chains through
the voluntary integration of economic, environmental, and social considerations with key inter-
organizational business systems designed to efficiently and effectively manage the material,
information, and capital flows associated with the procurement, production, and distribution of
products or services in order to meet stakeholder requirements and improve the profitability,
competitiveness, and resilience of the organization over the short- and long-term.” A separate
definition of GSCM is not explicitly offered, given that SSCM is an extension of GSCM. GSCM
would be similar but excludes economic/social considerations.
 5. Sustainable value co-creation in business
networks. Paper examines how BtoB companies
embrace the concept of sustainability to co-
create value. Value co-creation: actions by both
the service provider and the customer. Service is
co-produced in direct firm/supplier-customer
interactions and customer experiences are
prevailing  relevant in today’s service-
dominant logic (SDL). Two-stage process: (1)
suppliers co-create value with their customer’s
customers or end users by analyzing or co-
creating sustainability awareness. End-user =
central. (2) by integrating this behavioral
knowledge, suppliers co-create with their direct
customers, either a sustainable hybrid offering (a
service bundled with a product) or an extended sustainable service. Such a service proposition enables
suppliers’ direct customers to increase performance (sustainability is at the core of value creation) or
to integrate sustainability into their supply chain (sustainability is an incremental element of value
creation). Sustainable marketing should not be considered only from the perspective of “end-consumer
centricity” but also within the network of vertical business relationships. In order to make
sustainable/green marketing (balancing profit and the environment) work, participation of customers
is crucial (they should recognize sustainable superiority). It often relies on a segment of customers
willing to pay a premium for a green product or service. Upstream companies are prone to focus on
their own customers rather than on end-customers (no direct contact). Green supply chain management
requires collaboration/networking. Two levels of interaction: (1) Supplier network level: product
improvement/redesign. (2) Customer network: being part of product functionality. Sustainable value
co-creation leads to value being created at the end of the supply chain or to increased sustainable value
created along the supply chain.

6. Theoretical framework that helps explain governance patterns in global value chains. Three
variables that play a large role are determined: (1) complexity of transactions  transaction costs. (2)
ability to codify transactions. (3) capabilities in the supply base. As a result, five types of global value
chain governance were developed. Lead firms can increase complexity when they place new demands
on the value chain, or reduce complexity by, for example, introducing technical and process
standards. Institutions can introduce certifications. Model: small line = price exchange. Large =
information & control (more coordination required). Modular firm: each partner managed tacit
information within its own firm boundaries. Market = cost of switching to new partners low. Modular
= products made to a customer’s specifications. Relational = complex interactions buyers/sellers,
mutual dependence, high levels of asset specifity (often family, reputation ties). Captive = small
suppliers dependent on a much larger buyer, high switching costs  captive. Hierarchy = vertical
integration. It is important not to ignore the actors at both ends of the value chain.
7. Defining supply chain management. Three types of supply chain complexity: direct supply chain,
extended supply chain and ultimate supply chain. Currently three different categories of SCM
definitions: (1) A management philosophy: a systems approach to viewing the supply chain as a
whole, creating a unified whole etc.  this category is more supply chain orientation (recognition)
than SCM. (2) Implementation of a management philosophy: requires integrated behavior, mutually
sharing information, mutually sharing risks and rewards, cooperation, the same goals and the same
focus on serving customers, integration of processes. (3) Set of management processes: here, a process
approach is necessary to implement SCM  company is organized around these processes. New
definition SCM: the systemic, strategic coordination of the traditional business functions and the
tactics across these business functions within a particular company and across businesses within the
supply chain, for the purposes of improving the long-term performance of the individual companies
and the supply chain as a whole. All traditional business components should be included
(interfunctional coordination).

8. Sustainable development consists of four elements: (1) economic perspective. (2) ecological
perspective. (3) social perspective. (4) institutional perspective. These are interrelated and the whole is
greater than the sum of its parts, it needs to be an integrated whole  systems theory. Holarchic
approach: a hierarchically organized structure made of holons (totalities which, at the same time, are
parts of greater wholes). Four levels: micro level (e.g. enterprises, consumers), meso level (e.g.
institutions and their networks), macro level (e.g. fiscal, monetary, distribution conditions), meta level
(e.g. social aims). From this analytical approach, we can move to a practical approach  multi-
stakeholder dialogues. Important is a level playing field for all participants. Some frameworks exist to
help in the various steps of holding these dialogues (initiation, mapping key issues and actors,
preparation, conducting the dialogue, follow-up, level-playing field).

9. Trustworthiness within the organization and the frequency of communication. The paper
investigated the communication among managers. General findings: The effect of both trustor and
trustee characteristics on the level of perceived trustworthiness, is moderated by the frequency of
communication by the two parties. As communication frequency increases, the trustor’s general
attitudinal predisposition towards peers becomes less important as a determinant of his/her evaluation
of trustworthiness of other managers within the organization. In contrast, as communication frequency
increases, the trustor’s and trustee’s contexts within the organization become more important
determinants of perceived trustworthiness.
This paper proposes 8 hypotheses. The first one says something about the trustor (person who is
trusting someone), whereas the second is about the trustee (person that’s being trusted). Summarized:
- It was expected that in low-communication contexts, there would be a positive association
between a trustor’s (H1) attitudinal predisposition towards peers/(H3) own organizational
tenure/(H5) decision-making autonomy/(H7) bonus intensity and his/her perception of a trustee’s
trustworthiness. They expected this effect to be less strong in high-communication contexts.
- It was expected that in high-communication contexts, there would be a positive association
between the trustee’s (H2) attitudinal predisposition towards peers/(H4) own organizational
tenure/(H6) decision-making autonomy/(H8) bonus intensity and the trustor’s perception of the
trustee’s trustworthiness. They expected this effect to be less strong in high-communication
contexts.
Trustor side: H1 was supported, H5 not. H3 and H7 partially supported (effects of trustor’s bonus
intensity/tenure were significant and had the expected signs, but the effect of communication was
significant in the opposite direction  so in high-communication contexts, a trustor’s bonus
intensity/tenure had a positive effect on his/her perception of trustee trustworthiness.
Trustee side: H2 and H6 not supported, H4 and H8 supported.
Discussion: As communication increases, the general disposition towards peers loses relevance and
instead the specific linkages of the trustor and the trustee to the organizational network become more
important as drivers of perceived trustworthiness.So, basically for both trustor and trustee, the relation
between the variables and the trustor/s perception of a trustee’s trustworthiness was positive and
stronger than for low-communication contexts  the context within the organization of both players
becomes more relevant. Why? Probably because when communication is low, the trustor may not
know how his/her own interests and context within the organization contrast with those of the trustee,
and thus, not be able to assess the peer’s trustworthiness beyond his/her own general attitude towards
his/her peers. Despite these results, it does not seem correct to negate the effect of individuals on their
personal characteristics in the perceived trustworthiness of their peers, nor disregard the impact of
organizational instruments.