Examensarbete i Hållbar Utveckling 92
Public Private Participation
A case-study of public-private participation to promote environmental technology development by SMEs in Sweden
Public Private Participation
A case-study of public-private participation to promote environmental technology
development by SMEs in Sweden
Victoria Bothma
Victoria Bothma
Uppsala University, Department of Earth Sciences Master Thesis E, in Sustainable Development, 30 credits
Printed at Department of Earth Sciences,
Master’s Thesis
Examensarbete i Hållbar Utveckling 92
Public Private Participation
A case-study of public-private participation to promote environmental technology development by SMEs in Sweden
Victoria Bothma
Content
1 INTRODUCTION... 1
1.1PROBLEM BACKGROUND... 1
1.2PROBLEM ... 2
1.3AIM AND DELIMITATIONS ... 2
1.4OUTLINE ... 3
2 METHOD ... 5
2.1LITERATURE REVIEW ... 5
2.2THEORY ... 5
2.3CHOICE OF SECTOR ... 5
2.4CHOICE OF UNITS OF ANALYSIS ... 6
2.5EMPIRICAL STUDY ... 6
2.5.1 Case study ... 6
2.5.2 Data collection ... 6
2.5.3 Finding interviewees ... 8
2.5.4 Data analysis ... 8
2.6ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ... 8
3 LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE ... 10
3.1LITERATURE REVIEW ... 10
3.2THE STAKEHOLDERS... 11
3.3PARTNERSHIPS ... 13
3.3.1 Social Partnerships ... 13
3.3.2 Advantages of partnerships ... 14
3.3.3 Problems in partnerships ... 15
3.3.4 Common success factors in partnerships ... 16
3.4PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTICIPATION... 17
3.4.1 PPP as a part of environmental governance ... 17
3.5COLLABORATION-MOTIVATION-ACTION FRAMEWORK ... 18
4 BACKGROUND FOR THE EMPIRICAL STUDY ... 20
4.1POLICY BACKGROUND ... 20
4.2A COLLECTION OF AGENCIES... 20
4.3REGIONAL BUSINESS NETWORKS ... 21
5 RESULTS ... 22
5.1BACKGROUND TO THE ORGANISATIONS ... 22
5.1.1 Sustainable Småland ... 22
5.1.2 Sustainable Sweden Southeast ... 23
5.1.3 Affärsdriven Miljöutveckling and Business Region Göteborg ... 23
5.2VALUES AND MOTIVES ... 24
5.2.1 Private organisations ... 24
5.2.2 Public organisations ... 25
5.3DYNAMICS OF COOPERATION ... 26
5.3.1 Private organisations ... 26
5.3.2 Public organisations ... 26
5.4GOALS ... 28
5.4.1 Private organisations ... 28
5.4.2 Public organisations ... 28
6 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION ... 29
6.1MOTIVATIONS FOR COLLABORATION... 29
6.1.1 Compatibility of motives, attitudes and goals ... 30
6.2ADVANTAGES OF PARTNERSHIPS ... 30
6.3THE COLLABORATION-MOTIVATION-ACTION FRAMEWORK ... 33
7 CONCLUSIONS ... 37
7.1SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH... 37
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 38
Literature and publications ... 38
Internet... 41
Personal Communication ... 42
APPENDIX I ... 43
1 INTERVIEW GUIDE ... 43
1.1 Guide to questions for companies ... 43
1.2 Guide to questions for public organisations ... 43
Public Private Participation: A case-study of public-private
participation to promote environmental technology development by SMEs in Sweden.
VICTORIA BOTHMA
Bothma, V., 2012: Public Private Participation: A case-study of public-private participation to promote environmental technology development by SMEs in Sweden.. Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, 92. 43 pp, 30 ECTS/hp
Abstract: With the increasing understaning of the need for sustainable development, many are finding that existing systems of governance are not sufficiently complex to solve the environmental crisis (see Glasbergen, 2011; Brown et al., 2009). As a result, the recent years has seen the rise of public-private participation, strengthened by the endorsement of the concept by the World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002 (Andonova, 2010). In Europe, the concept of collaboration between state and private sector has been further endorsed by EUCETSA and former SWENTEC. Using a literature review to establish a theoretical basis, the study then embarks on a qualitative case-study of regional environmental technology networks. This study investigates the motivations causing the companies and networks to go into partnership with one another, and whether these motivations conflict. It also aims to find the perceived benefits of cooperation and the perceived end goals. The study finds that motivations for entering into partnership often seem to be business opportunity-oriented, although elements of risk, values, legal compliance and using existing capabilities also play a large role.
Keywords: Sustainable development, small and medium-sized enterprises, public-private participation, environmental technology, partnership
Victoria Bothma, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden
Public Private Participation: A case-study of public-private
participation to promote environmental technology development by SMEs in Sweden.
VICTORIA BOTHMA
Bothma, V., 2012: Public Private Participation: A case-study of public-private participation to promote environmental technology development by SMEs in Sweden.. Master thesis in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University, 92. 43 pp, 30 ECTS/hp
Summary: Sustainable development was defined by the Brundtland Commission in 1987 as ”development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations
to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987: 43). Nevertheless, however desirable this goal may be, the solutions are inherently complex (Gray & Wood, 1991) and involve a large amount of stakeholders that need to be taken into account (Hemmati, 2002). Therefore, governments today seek a broader collaboration between many actors in society in order to find and implement solutions to societal problems (Giguere, 2001).
Environmental technology is a sector that is well-situated in a time of increasing environmental focus , but the sector in Sweden mostly consists of companies with less than ten employees (SWENTEC, 2009). As a result, these companies do not always have the resources to expand internationally to larger markets (Pers.com., Strömberg, 2012). Additionally, small companies are more vulnerable to economic fluctuations (Storey, 1994).
Therefore the state, who have a duty towards their citizens to promote their long-term benefit (SWENTEC, 2009), are in a good position to support these companies and promote a competitive environmental technology sector through supportive regional networks.
This thesis studies the regional public networks set up to promote and help environmental technology companies in Sweden, with the aim of finding what motivates companies and networks to enter into partnership. The study consists of a literature review that discusses the concepts of a mulit-stakeholder view, as well as current ideas of public partnerships with the private sector. It also includes a case-study, where representatives from the public and private sector involved in regional networks are interviewed to give their views on partnership.
The main conclusions that the thesis finds is that companies are strongly motivated by perceived economic benefits of partnerships. However, there was also a strong motivation in meeting with future customers and business partners as well as the possibilities involved in taking part in public projects. Additionally, the study finds that partnerships can bring many advantages, including knowledge sharing, resource sharing and access to investors.
Keywords: Sustainable development, small and medium-sized enterprises, public-private participation, environmental technology, partnership
Victoria Bothma, Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE- 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my supervisor Dr Cecila Mark-Herbert at SLU for her dedicated help throughout the thesis project. Her ideas and feedback had a profound effect on the entire thesis project. Thanks also go to my evaluator Dr Karin Hakelius for her comments in advance of the presentation.
Further thanks go to the representatives of the organisations and company that I interviewed.
Final thanks go to my husband and my family for their support throughout my studies.
Abbreviatons
AfM Affärsdriven Miljöutveckling, part of Business Region Göteborg ASSET Association for Swedish Environmental Technology
BRG Business Region Göteborg
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
CMA Collaboration-Motivation-Action framework
EUCETSA European Committee of Environmental Technology Suppliers Associations
NGO Non-governmental organisation
SME Small – to medium-sized enterprises
SSSE Sustainable Sweden Southeast AB
SusSm Sustainable Småland
SWENTEC Swedish Environmental Technology Council
1 Introduction
This chapter explains the background to the rise of participation and networks as a tool of governing. It also explains the aims and delimitations of the project and its outline.
1.1 Problem background
In 1987, the Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as ”development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland, 1987:
43). For the last 25 years, this quote has set the foundations for our understanding of what sustainable
development is. However, the definition of what we as humans need may vary, and even the best technology that we can afford may not always be sufficient to solve our problems (Sachs, 1999). Additionally, the high level of complexity of environmental problems caused by mechanisms and feedback effects not fully understood has created tension, blame and confusion between various factions that can often be seen in the media.
For many years, it has been recognised that the complexity of problems faced with regards to the environment and sustainability requires a more complex solution than what has previously been offered (Gray & Wood, 1991;
Giguere, 2001; Hemmati, 2002). One of these solutions is collaborative interorganisational alliances. These are seen as a solution due to the much larger range of skills available, as well as a sharing of resources, economies of scale and other benefits (Ibid.; Glasbergen et al., 2007). The democratic nature of partnerships through the stimulation of public debate further recommends the collaborative strategy as a political tool (Giguere, 2001).
Additionally, the possibility of engaging stakeholders in change processes is seen as both legitimising the process and ensuring a better rate of success through acceptance of the process (Hemmati, 2002).
The last 15 years have seen a great increase in the number of partnerships between public and private actors (Andonova, 2010). The World Summit for Sustainable Development in Johanesburg in 2002 is estimated to have stimulated the registration of over 400 public-private partnerships (Ibid). It is to be noted that these are likely only official partnerships, and there might be a much greater number of inofficial, informal partnerships that also are likely to play an important role in how business is done.
With a growing focus and discussion on sustainable development, the focus on environmental technology is also expanding daily. Consumers are becoming aware of their purchasing decisions having an impact on the world around them (Cronin et al., 2011; Straughan & Roberts, 1999; UNEP, 2005). However, evidence shows that this does not always translate into them making a different purchasing decision. Indeed, some suggest that green products only make up at most 4% of the global product market share, despite claims by consumers that they consider ‘green’ issues when purchasing (UNEP, 2005: 14). However, a report by the Swedish Environmental Technology Council (SWENTEC) suggests that there is also little reason for companies to embark on highly innovative environmental technology solutions (SWENTEC, 2009). This might be for several reasons, such as perceived high cost of adoption, the high risk of untested technologies, for which there might only be a limited market, or perhaps even the lack of knowledge about new technologies both from the side of companies and consumers. A study by Cronin et al. (2011: 159) sites a number of sources that suggest that the perceived high cost of ‘going green’ is in fact not correct; indeed, they propose that the increasing environmental focus leads to greater financial benefits, increasing competitiveness and higher levels of innovation. SWENTEC claims that state bodies are well situated to act to increase sustainable development in their regions, as they have a duty towards their citizens to promote their long-term benefit (SWENTEC, 2009). It could be argued that companies act just as much for a long-term advantage as governmental organisations. However, the latter are certainly in the position to aid with funds and networks in order to promote values that are considered important for the state.
Additionally, the bringing together of many perspectives in a network of actors might have business cluster- related benefits. Porter (1990), suggests that well-defined clusters may lead to increased productivity, increased innovation and the stimulation of new businesses.
The stimulation of certain sectors, such as the environmental technology sector in this case, has in the past often been done through setting up government organizations. The purpose of these organisations is multi-faceted and varied. They can act as a source of information and advice, a forum for ideas and a source of new partnerships (Green Business Region, 2011). According to a SWENTEC report, the Swedish environmental technology sector mainly consists of small- to medium-sized companies (SMEs). Indeed over 80% of environmental technology companies in Sweden have ten employees or less (SWENTEC, 2009: 13). The environmental technology sector is comprised of companies that technologically contribute in some way to improving the environment, such as waste and water treatment, recycling and sustainable city planning (www, Sustainable Sweden Southeast AB,
2012). Cooperation between these companies and the public sector also exists, as there are many organizations for the support of such companies, but their abundance may confuse companies, leading to a perhaps even greater inefficiency than were there fewer organizations. Due to the small size of many companies, and their likely greater specialization, many are more vulnerable to economic fluctuations and are statistically more likely to fail than larger companies (Storey, 1994). As a result, although they might be highly reliant on effective technology, they are also likely to be less able or less willing to take high risks. Thus, cooperation with other companies and knowledge hubs such as universities might be a way of increasing competence in the companies, perhaps minimizing risk by being more aware of many options.
1.2 Problem
Although there has been an evident rise in partnership as a method for knowledge sharing, there is by no means a consensus as to its efficiency (see Van Huijstee et al., 2007; Andonova, 2010; Hemmati, 2002). Partly, this can be attributed to the difficulty in measuring many of the desired outcomes of partnerships, such as knowledge, networks and other qualitative effects. For example, authors point out that companies have difficulties fully participating in partnerships due to the risk of disclosing private information (van Huijstee et al., 2007; Gray, 2007). Public actors might on the other hand find it difficult to combine their duty to the population in general with their desire and duty to aid companies in the preferred sector. Companies likewise might find it difficult to focus on their core business if they are required to participate for the public good (see Gray, 2007; Austin, 2007).
Yoshimura and Yoshikawa (1998: 7) point out that “cooperative work is feasible only when each partner can mutually benefit from sharing their knowledge”. The same is true for the cooperation between private and public actors. Although it can be seen from government literature (see SWENTEC, 2009) that the state is eager to increase the amount of entrepreneurs acting in the green technology field, the motives of the private actors to enter into such a partnership also need to be fully understood in order to make the partnership successful.
Additionally, Macdonald and Chrisp (2005) argue that in order for a partnership to succeed, it is important to acknowledge the true motives (rather than just those stated) behind the initiation of the partnership in order for it to be successful.
It is also important to understand the goals that companies and organisations have in mind when entering into partnership. A goal, according to the Oxford Dictionaries, is defined as the ”aim or desired result”, to be
contrasted with the motives as ”the reason for something” (Oxford Dictionaries 2012). Thus, the motives provide a historical perspective of underlying values and the present state of things, whereas the goal is where the organisation wants to end up. An analysis of goals should preferably include both public goal and ulterior goals (perhaps the company wants to increase their market by having a public body name behind them but do not want to say so), as well as attempts to find unconscious goals. The reason for this is that these goals will affect the partnership to a very great extent (Gray 2007; Austin 2007). To be aware of them therefore might lessen sudden surprises or a sudden realisation that goals are conflicting (ibid).
There is a political interest in the type of partnership investigated. In many cases, including this, there is a political background to the initiative, as seen by the municipal involvement. As will later be described, the organisation that is the target of this study is part of a much larger European programme. This programme, in its turn, has resulted from a pan-European desire to increase environmental technology (EUCETSA, 2011). Further, the organisations being studied are directly linked to the state, implying that the state finds a benefit in
collaborating with businesses. Finding out why the state or public bodies are interested in collaborating with businesses and what they see as a goal of that collaboration is therefore an important step in understanding collaboration behaviour. Aside from the political aspect it is also important to understand why private actors enter into the networks and what benefits and goals they see in these collaborations, and whether they agree with those of the public organisations.
1.3 Aim and delimitations
The aim of this study is to identify and describe what motivates private and public actors to enter into partnerships with one another. The overall objective is to develop a framework of collaboration motivations.
Research questions of particular interest are:
- Why are organisations and companies interested in cooperating?
- What are the perceived goals of the cooperation?
- Are the interests and motives of the various parties conflicting or compatible?
- What are the benefits of cooperation for the state and for private actors?
The study is focused on regional organisations under the umbrella organisation ASSET (Association for Swedish Environmental Technology), which is a collective of regional and sector organisations for the support of
environmental technology. It does not aim to evaluate the collaborations or working methods of the organisations, but rather to describe values and behaviours held by the organisations and their member companies. ASSET is also connected to an EU umbrella organisation, but this EU organisation will not be investigated.
The method selected, personal interviews of a semi-structured nature, enables a more in-depth probing into issues of choice. However, it is also resource-consuming both in data gathering and in processing and analysis.
Therefore, it has been necessary to interview a smaller amount of people than a survey would have allowed for in order to limit the study to the appropriate scope for a master thesis.
Theoretically, the thesis has been limited to analysing data using the theory presented in the thesis and using these findings to adapt a framework by Austin (2007) to fit public organisations as well as private organisations.
The decision to adopt this framework was taken due to its fit with other collaboration literature as well as its possibility to be easily adapted both for this thesis as well as for the future. The aim is to create a tool for understanding and presenting motivations of collaborations in a way that is easily overviewed. By adapting this framework with the empirical evidence, the framework can be used as a preliminary hypothesis for how collaborations function.
The subjects chosen for interview are directly connected to the organisations in either a state organisational role or in a private organisational role. Although politics is in many ways connected with the organisations,
politicians will not be interviewed, nor will the focus of the thesis be political. The decision to focus on the entrepreneurial side is partly to avoid subjective political views, as well as the opportunity to adopt a more objective role as a descriptive analysist of a phenomenon. Additionally, the units of analysis is only those directly connected with the partnership, rather than a wider range of stakeholders, as the partners are considered to be those key to understanding behaviour in the partnership. It is however also recognised that there may be several people in the organisations not formally recognised that may have a large impact on the partnership.
1.4 Outline
This chapter provides an overview of the structure and main arguments of the different chapters contained in this thesis. Figure 1 shows an outline of the thesis structure.
The first chaper provides a background to the inception of this thesis, and describes why the questions posed are necessary. It also gives an indication of the present status on research in the subject. Using a historical outlook, this section describes how the interaction between businesses and the state has moved from being hierarchical, to having a sense of cooperation and interaction.
Chapter two describes the methods used to gather in data for the empirical study. It also provides evidence why these methods were chosen as best fitting the type of study. It is argued that interviewing in a semi-structured form provides the best tools to find descriptive information of attitudes in particular, as more structured methods would risk researcher bias in the choice of topics and questions.
A more full theoretical picture with a review of literature is embarked on in chapter three, for the purpose of building an understanding of what we may empirically expect to be the case. By broadly describing the various contributions made by academics, it builds a foundation for the research conducted in the thesis. It discusses the changing role of stakeholder theory and its impact on business strategy, and how this has affected the move to more interactive forms of governance. Finally, the end of the chapter describes the theoretical tools used to model the most common motivations for the different parties via the Collaboration-Motivation-Action framework.
Figure 1. Illustration of the outline of the study.
The background of the organisations involved and the use of participation as a governance tool is described in chapter four. The essence of this chapter is that there has been a progression of increased interaction in governance over the last few decades that has led to the creation of state agencies supporting business. These agencies often work as networks, sometimes run by the members themselves, in order to increase knowledge sharing and collaboration between companies and between municipalitites and companies.
Chapter 5 delineates the results from the empirical study. It presents a background of the public organisations and what has motivated their choices so far, as well as looking at their present values, motives and goals.
Additionally, it looks at the values and motives of companies, and how the relationships between company and public sector look in practice.
Chapter 6 analyses the results and compares them to the theory and models built up in chapter 2. The CMA model is adapted to fit the empirical results and analyses the results through the theory presented as a framework for the study. The analysis is then discussed using relevant literature, and how the analysis supports or differs from the context given for the study.
Finally, chapter 7 gives an overview of the study and the conclusions that can be drawn from the study.
2 Method
This chapter describes the choices related to the carrying out of this study. It describes methods of data collection and the theoretical foundation of the study.
2.1 Literature review
The theoretical understanding was built though a literature search and review. At the start of the project, when a very general topic had been decided upon, a literature search was conducted to further delimitate the problem.
The table below (table 1) shows commonly used search terms in databases. These were utilised both individually and in combination with other search terms, depending on the search results. Databases used include the Uppsala University library database, the Swedish national library database LIBRIS, as well as international databases such as JSTOR, Elsevier and SpringerLink.
Table 1. Commonly used search terms
Sustainable Development Entrepreneurship
Public-private participation Collaboration
Stakeholder theory Qualitative methods
Environmental technology Green technology
Corporate social responsibility Partnership
Another important source of initial information was the search of previous theses done in related subjects. These were interesting both to ensure the uniqueness of the project as well as providing a good overview on commonly used literature. Additionally, government reports on environmental technology provided an insight into the public stance on the issue as well as interesting literature. Using the bibliographies of theses, academic papers and government reports, the literature field was expanded.
2.2 Theory
The theory framework of the study was formed through the critical use of the literature review, where I attempted to extract the commonly agreed upon characteristics of partnership and conceptual frameworks that aided the understanding of the problem. Thus, the process has been of an iterative nature, where new insights have led to a development of a theoretical perspective. These theories are further described in chapter 3.
Public-private participation was chosen as a theoretical framework due to the complexity of the partnership notion. These partnerships are complex in that they involve more than one stakeholder and consequently the culture and ideas of at least two actors means that it is relevant to investigate literature on the area to gain a full understanding of the problem (van Huijstee et al. 2007). Other frameworks, such as multi-stakeholder
collaborations, can lend important insights into collaborations, but they do not as fully cover the dynamics and conflicts of interest that can be seen in the collaborations between state and private sector.
The Collaboration-Motivation-Action model (Austin, 2007) was chosen because of the ability to present attitudes and behaviour in a condensed way. Additionally, it is easily amended with new information; indeed, it was amended to use in public organisations at the theory stage of the thesis using literature. After data had been collected from interviews, the framework was again amended for a better fit to the Swedish environmental technology organisation context.
2.3 Choice of sector
Only three years ago, 80 percent of the environmental technology sector in Sweden was made up of small companies with less than 10 employees (SWENTEC 2009: 13). However, the interest in the environmental technology sector from the side of the government is significant. It is interesting to note that almost half of the area of Sweden is covered by a public regional organisation for the support of environmental technology companies (see ASSET 2012). This large interest in the sector, as well as the growing importance of
environmental technology solutions in large sustainable city projects such as Malmös Western Harbour (Malmö Stad 2012), shows the growing importance of sustainable technology.
The literature search found that although there are many studies on the subject of public-private participation (see van Huijstee et al. 2007), most do not apply to the Swedish context. Further, no studies were found concerning the environmental technology sector, despite the almost nation-wide application of the PPP idea through regional networks. Therefore, a study on this topic could benefit the research area through insights into this phenomenon.
2.4 Choice of units of analysis
The units of analysis for this study were public organisations supporting environmental technology and their member, or associated, companies. Public companies were found through the website of the head organisation ASSET, where network contact persons and contact details were listed. Member or affiliated companies were found through the listings on the network websites. As some networks had more information than others, these were favoured in collecting data. Through the websites, much information and understanding could be gained through other means than verbal communication, giving the means of corroborating information provided in interviews. Since some organisations also included larger companies and companies not clearly of the environmental technology sector, the companies contacted were part of a purposive sample of companies that were deemed to fit the keywords of ‘small-medium-size enterprise (SME)’ and ‘environmental technology company’.
2.5 Empirical study
The concept of cooperation between public and private actors is complex and requires both a theoretical and empirical understanding. The first is needed in order to build up an understanding of the dynamics of participation, in order to be able to isolate the particular problems or issues of the case study.
Yin (2011), in his seminal work on qualitative research, describes the importance of acknowledging and describing the research lens through which one has viewed the results. This means that assumptions or biases held are brought into the open and discussed, and their effect on the study determined. The method for this thesis is in many ways that of testing an hypothesis or model derived from literature. This has its advantages, in that it enables an efficient search for data. However, it does also imply a danger in missing data that does not fit with the model or the pre-conceived ideas. Further, there is a risk of misunderstanding interviewees based on expectations of what they will say. In accordance with suggestions from Yin, precautions have been taken in minimising bias through method. This includes cross-checking procedures with many sources of academic literature, and cross-checking data results with an even spread of respondents.
2.5.1 Case study
The empirical understanding, through case-study research, is one way in which the initial hypotheses and models of the literature study can be developed. Although a case-study does not allow for direct transferral of the knowledge, it allows for learning and a greater confidence in the results through observations of the phenomenon (Eisenhardt 1989). It can be argued that the only way that human behaviour can be explained is through thorough examination of the context of the phenomenon itself (Lantz 1993). If this is accepted, it also follows that
generalising understanding is problematic, as contexts vary. Nevertheless, it is of interest to compare theoretical frameworks with what can be seen in practice. That is, if the knowledge we gain from theoretical studies can be implemented to understand a complex reality. Furthermore, although great claims cannot be made from the basis of a smaller study, it can be indicative of greater trends and should not as such be considered unimportant (Gray 2004).
2.5.2 Data collection
The chosen methods for data collection is that of interviewing and website analysis. Interviewing is chosen as a mode of data gathering due to its descriptive nature. There are many techniques for gaining large amounts of information in a relatively short space of time. Web site information is used to gain information where interviews were not possible, as well as gaining further information about networks and companies.
Several authors (Lantz 1993, Gray 2004, Kvale & Brinkmann 2009) agree that interviewing is an appropriate method for exploring attitudes. In an interview, the respondent has the possibility of explaining in detail and with their own words what their thoughts on a particular topic are. In comparison, a questionnaire often asks
respondents to state their level of agreement with pre-established statements and ideas. The nature of the research question is such that it demands to know both ‘how’ (qualis) something has occurred, as well as ‘how much’ (quantitas) of the phenomenon (Lantz 1993). Thematic interviews leave the respondents able to freely describe the phenomenon and themselves filter what they think is relevant (Lantz 1993: 18-19). In contrast, the completely structured interview allows the researcher to receive very exact responses to exact questions.
However, this also means that the researcher has already filtered what knowledge is of relevance, and there is a risk of vital information being ignored (ibid). The information needed for this thesis requires a high level of description not completely known (the qualis) as well as attempting to verify a framework based on information already known (the quantitas). Consequently, the interview technique chosen is a semi-structured form, which allows specific questions to be asked, but also leaves room for the interviewee to elaborate on what they find important.
Thematic questions were formed on the basis of the research questions and the theoretical Collaboration- Motivation-Action framework (CMA) in order to verify the hypotheses contained in the model. The questions aimed to establish the background of the organisation, the motivations for entering into the partnership in the first place and what they considered especially meaningful in the network. To contextualise answers, both companies and organisations were also asked to describe the form of collaboration (what does the organisation actually do), what goals they had with the collaboration and what they saw as the function of the network (see full interview guide in Appenix I). The question guide was used as a starting point in the interview and this is what was sent to companies and organisations, stating that these were the main questions of interest. The guide was not rigidly adhered to in the cases where the respondent was found to have included the answer in a previous question. Respondents were to a large extent encouraged to speak freely on the given theme, but were sometimes asked to clarify a certain point or to elaborate on a point not covered by the interview guide.
The interviews were conducted with members of the public organisation ASSET through their regional agencies, as well as companies being supported by ASSET. In order to achieve a more reliable spread of opinions and to counteract localised opinions and culture, the interviewees sought were of a wide geographical spread. However, due to the difficulty in attaining interviews with private companies, information on companies also includes the public organisations’ views on what motivated companies.The table below (table 2) shows the persons and organisations interviewed, when they were interviewed and when their approval of the transcript came in.
Table 2. Interviewees
Interviewee Organisation/Company Telephone interview date
Transcript approved
Sven Josefsson, Entrepreneur
Eco-Quality Consulting AB
02/08/12 10/08/12
Ann-Christin Bayard Sustainable Sweden Southeast AB
14/08/12 10/08/12
Johan Thorsell Sustainable Småland 09/08/12 20/08/12
Maria Strömgren Affärsdriven
Miljöutveckling (part of Business Region Göteborg)
10/08/12 20/08/12
Due to the wide geographical spread of interviewees, the chosen method of interviewing is over the telephone.
Whilst this limits the ability to analyse respondents’ non-verbal cues, such as body language, the method has several other benefits. Firstly, the large geographical spread of interviewees becomes insignificant if the method does not require the participants to travel to any one place. Secondly, it is anticipated that the ability to
participate in an interview in familiar surroundings (at work or at home) puts both the interviewer and
interviewee at greater ease (Miller, 1995; Hanna, 2012). Respondents may also feel that less of their time is wasted and therefore feel more disposed to granting an interview (Sturges & Hanrahan, 2004). Additionally, the relative ease of ‘attending’ the interview makes risks such as a last-minute cancellation almost non-existent.
Initial contact was by e-mail.
The quality and reliability of data is an issue with any research, just as it is with qualitative research in particular (Roulston, 2010). In general, this issue has been addressed in this thesis by planning and preparing theoretically.
In the case of interviewing, preparation was done by thorough research into interviewing methods and careful selection of questions. One of the difficulties met with in selecting interviewees was the small number of potential interview candidates and the difficulty in reaching them. This was counteracted by repeated reminders and early on communicating the amount of time needed (approximately 20 minutes) as well as sending out an interview guide at an early stage. As far as was possible, the respondents interviewed presented a geographical and organisational diversity. Interviews were recorded in order to have the maximum amount of documentation and transparency, supported with notes throughout the interview. All attempts were made at recognising bias in the interviewer and interviewees alike in order to determine how this may have affected the study (Yin, 2011).
2.5.3 Finding interviewees
Contact details for the organisations were found through the ASSET website, and the contact details for companies through the websites of the regional organisations.
The greatest problem faced during the course of research was the difficulty in locating and contacting interviewees. The number of networks and organisations intitially provided only a small number of possible interviewees. With a very low response rate, despite reminders, the full number of interviewees was, in the end, very small. Equally, the difficulty in locating companies, as these were not always listed on the network website, was correspondingly low in response. Per necessity, the companies chosen were therefore part of the networks with websites that listed what companies were part of the networks.
In the case of companies, it can be expected that those companies that responded are those that are more active participants in the partnership. However, it is unfortunately also possible that they did not receive either initial contact or reminder, since these were sent out in July, during which month most of Sweden is on holiday.
2.5.4 Data analysis
Through analysis, date can be broken down into parts and connections can be made between different concepts (Gray, 2004). There are many forms of analysing data gathered from interviews. The method used in this study is a theoretical reading (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). In this method, the researcher reflects and analyses the text (transcribed interviews in this case) from the perspective of specific themes of interest, rather than following a systematic analytic technique (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009: 236). These themes of interest, or theoretical classes (Gray, 2004), are derived firstly from the gathering of data through literature and secondly through the gathering of interview data.
In this study, the literature review provided a hypothesis of what motivations would be visible in the interview analysis stage. Data from the interviews were then extracted and compared to the expected results. From this hypothesis testing, the framework was then adapted to better fit the results.
2.6 Ethical considerations
Gray (2004) states that the main ethical issue with data collection through interviews is that respondents should not be harmed or damaged through the research. Therefore, to avoid psychological distress in the interviewees, informed consent was sought at all points in the research process. This included explaining research aims, what information was sought and how their data would be handled. In an early stage of communication, an interview guide with the questions of interest was e-mailed out, so that the candidates could make an informed decision as to whether they wanted to be involved. Those that agreed to be interviewed were informed at the start of the interview of the recording, and that they had the right to at any point pull out of the interview if they do not feel comfortable continuing. At the end of the interview, respondents were informed that the interview would be transcribed and that the transcript would be sent to them for approval before its use in the study. This was done so that the respondents could correct any misunderstandings, and also so that they could, if they so desired, add
to their statements. As confidentiality is another issue with interviewing (Gray 2004), permission was also asked of the respondents to publish their name and the name of their organisation in the study, which was in all cases given.
It is important to note that the author of this thesis has a background in business studies as well as sustainable development. This has had a large impact in the choice of research area, since business is the primary area of expertise. It is worth noting that there may be a bias in favour of business-driven measures for sustainability due to this academic background. Additionally, it should be noted that there may be a geographical bias to the thesis.
The geographical setting of this study is Sweden, but also in a larger perspective European. As the study to a large extent combines implicit culture in interviews and interview analysis, the conclusions drawn from it will not necessarily hold true for other countries or regions.
3 Literature review and theoretical perspective
This chapter introduces the concept of partnerships for sustainable development. It discusses why there has been a change in governance approaches as well as the reasons for partnership increasingly being used as a method of governance for sustainable development. It also examines the problems associated with partnerships and what insights are vital for making a partnership effective, as suggested in literature.
3.1 Literature review
In recent years a growing interest for environmental and social awareness has been seen in organisations and consumers alike. The reasons for this interest have many causes, and there is no real consensus from researchers as to the exact reasons for companies to ‘go green’ or whether it is worth them doing so (Mathur & Mathur 2000). Although the term 'greening' is ambiguous, a broad definition is that it consists of efforts to lower environmental impact and a desire to increase awareness of environmental and social issues within the company (Cronin et al 2011).
Cronin et al., in their work on the strategic importance of going green, suggest that companies benefit from greening in many different ways. Firstly, they argue that energy efficiency and responsible use of resources is increasing because of the growing cost of materials and energy in many countries (2011: 159). Energy efficiency and waste reduction are steps that the authors agree enable companies to regain any expense incurred by
adopting the measure. However, since this is a purely profit (or perhaps rather break-even) argument, it could be debated that there is no real commitment to environmental issues, but rather one for lowering cost. Secondly, the authors argue that organisations are willing to change because of the increased pressure on them by consumers themselves (Cronin et al. 2011: 159): after all, they exist to provide for the needs and wants of their consumers.
However, as previously stated, green products only make up 4% of global product market share, so the real power of the consumers is perhaps limited in this field, or the consumers overstate their buying preferences (UNEP 2005).
It is difficult to argue the usefulness of benefits such as savings through greater efficiency, but there have historically been diverse opinions as to whether social responsibility is worth the time and money spent on it by companies (see Levitt 1958). Researchers of this view argue that the financial cost of social incentives is higher than the benefit, so that companies who spend on such initiatives are at a financial disadvantage (Aupperle et al.
1985, Ullmann 1985, Vance 1975). Other researchers argue that the implementation costs of socially responsible measures are in fact minimal and that other benefits, such as employee morale and corporate image offsets these costs (Moscowitz 1972, Parket & Eilbirt 1975).
Cronin et al. argue that there has in recent years been a shift from profit thinking to a more balanced view of decision-making, where companies consider the needs and effects of a much broader range of stakeholders than previously (2011: 161). Nevertheless, there are also arguments that profit is a limiting factor to socially
responsible measures, as efforts will only expand within the limits of profitability (Parket & Eilbirt, 1975;
Ullmann, 1985).
Lamarche and Rubinstein (2012) contend that companies have a fourfold responsibility, these being: economic responsibility to be profitable, legal responsibility to abide by laws, ethical responsibility to be fair and their philanthropic responsibility of being good citizens (see also Horrigan, 2010; Cronin et al, 2011). In short, the authors consider that companies have the same legal and ethical responsibilities as other citizens. This is not a view shared by all, although many business academics argue that multiple stakeholders need to be taken into account. Freeman et al. (2010) discusses that business and capitalism is not about social responsibility, but that for the sake of higher financial performance, it should consider multiple stakeholders. Likewise, in the late 1950's Levitt argues that social responsibility and welfare measures by corporations, although desirable, only make sense if they are also economically beneficial (1958). Nevertheless, corporate social responsibility measures are becoming increasingly common, and that they are considered necessary in a competitive situation (Freeman et al., 2010).
Building on the multiple stakeholder argument, Horrigan (2010) argues that increasing the amount of regulation concerning corporations’ social and environmental responsibility will result in the state having to accept the increasing involvement of businesses in decision-making. Considering that one of the great arguments in CSR is a wider view of stakeholders (see Lamarche & Rubinstein, 2012), giving the public a greater say and importance
should not be a problem in a CSR-ideology. However, it is worth noting that increasing the scope of business from business to a social function may require extra incentives and resources.
Partnership is an increasingly adopted method of providing businesses with the resources and incentives to engage with politics (Andonova 2010). Further, partnerships can provide both tangible and intangible resources in providing economies-of-scale. This is argued by Lee and Klassen (2008), who suggest that resources such as knowledge and expertise can be supplemented by collaborations. The seminal work edited by Glasbergen and Mol (2007) introduces many of the vital ideas concerned with partnership for sustainable development. Although mostly positive towards the concept of partnership, this book takes the view that partnerships are in many ways here to stay and that we have to make them work as best we can. Indeed, as Van Huijstee et al. point out, most literature on the subject of partnership is not critical to partnership as a concept (2007). The relatively uncritical acceptance evident in the book can be seen as negative in its single dimension, but can also be interpreted as a result of the malleability and diversity of partnerships. Thus, criticisms are mostly levelled at the factors that make for bad relationships, rather than the idea as a whole (van Huijstee et al. 2007).
A review of current literature on partnership is provided by Van Huijstee et al.(2007), who summarise much of the present research and attempts to view the pattern and direction of knowledge. All literature studied for this thesis seem to agree that partnerships are increasingly used for the purpose of sustainability governance (see Bovaird 2004, Andonova 2010, Hemmati 2002; Glasbergen 2011). However, as Gray (2007) points, although partnerships are never easy, partnerships within the sustainable development frame are more than usually ridden with conflicts of interest. Many of these conflicts can be seen to stem from the clash of motives and goals that the partners have on the partnerships. The increasing participation between public and private actors has caused traditional spheres of society to be mixed up, so that no longer is social welfare only the concern of the state, but it is increasingly the concern of businesses (Glasbergen 2011; Levitt 1958). This may cause businesses to be confused about their role, which has traditionally, as Levitt states, simply been to make money. It is interesting to note that as early as 1958, Levitt considered that he and others equally of the opinion that “the business of business is profits” (1958: 42) would not be invited to repeat such ideas on famous stages. With the rise of movements such as the degrowth and zero growth movements (see Meadows et al., 1972) it would perhaps not be surprising if there is an underlying profit-focus to many partnerships that is not always as clearly expressed as it should be for the sake of the partnership.
The difficulty in working with an organisation in a different sector is emphasised by Selsky and Parker (2005), who argue that partners looking at the same problem may view it in a different way, be motivated by different things and use different approaches to solving it. This conclusion is supported by Glasbergen (2011), who adds that partnerships will only function with the building up of mutual trust in securing added value for all parties.
The many conflicts and problems that partnerships can face emphasises the high importance of understanding the motives and problems of public-private partnerships. Welpe et al. (2012), in a study how entrepreneurs view business opportunities and what motivates them, suggest that although emotions play a large part in motivating action, acquiring captial is one of the biggest challenges facing entrepreneurs. Thus, the authors claim,
entrepreneurs are more likely to exploit an opportunity if the potential financial gain is higher. Conversely, public actors must focus on the public good rather than that of individual companies, and they are often motivated by the need to solve a societal problem (Glasbergen et al., 2007). However, it could also be argued that public actors are similarly motivated by more material outcomes, as the likelihood of successful policy implementation is considered by some to increase with a higher stakeholder involvement (Hemmati, 2002).
3.2 The stakeholders
The connection between stakeholder theory and corporate social responsibility (CSR) has been discussed for a long time. Jones (1980: 59-60) defined corporate social responsibility as “the notion that corporations have an obligation to constituent groups in society other than stockholders and beyond that prescribed by law or union contract, indicating that a stake may go beyond mere ownership”. It should be considered a legitimate concern especially on the behalf of organisations that a very wide definition of stakeholders and sphere of responsibility is only a theoretical possibility. In reality, no company can take absolutely everyone into account. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that the matter of stakeholders is not necessarily tied to ownership or as simple as a primary or secondary stakeholdership (see Jones, 1980), in which stakeholders are effectively ranked based on how important they are to the organisation. Rather, it can involve a very large and complex network of organisations and individuals, especially if one of the main stakeholders is a public organisation.
Sustainability and environmental issues are often highly complex in nature and involve many different
stakeholders, due to the wide-reaching effects of social, economic and environmental problems (Gray & Wood, 1991). Therefore, it is important to take a wider view of the stakeholder limitation. The definition of stakeholder that will be used in this thesis is that of Freeman. He stated that "a stakeholder in an organization is (by
definition) any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's
objectives" (Freeman, 1984: 46). Additionally, it is an empirical reality that companies can be vitally affected by, or themselves affect, virtually everyone (Mitchell et al., 1997). The public organisations created for the use of entrepreneurs and SMEs are of specific importance and use by certain groups and individuals, and as such are more limited in the stakeholder view than Freeman’s definition. However, if seen as part of environmental legislation by the state, and part of their implementation of legislation, the stakeholder view per necessity becomes wider.
As a case for a wider stakeholder involvement, Fraser et al. suggest that local engagement can help to build the community’s capacity to address future problems (2006). This could perhaps take the shape of creating a more stable economy in terms of a wide variety of employers and a greater accumulation of skilled workers or simply building up relationships that create socioeconomic stability. Some authors also suggest that a community’s capacity to solve future problems increases with local engagement, and that this can potentially be a more important goal than strictly project-related results (Fraser et al., 2006). In the case of the stimulation of local businesses, we could theorise that this could have effects on the economic stability of the region, if we assume that the added aid from the state would result in a greater success rate of businesses. Additionally, a larger amount of companies and a greater level of innovative companies might very well attract people to live in the region and present inhabitants to stay, leading to a greater vivacity and income to the region.
Although the importance of a wide stakeholder definition in environmental matters has been discussed in this section, it is nevertheless useful to categorise the stakeholders of ASSET as an organisation, as well as for the partnerships springing out of it. Firstly, it facilitates a greater level of detail in the area of analysis where the preconditions and reactions can be studied. Secondly, although ASSET may be affected by many different factors, the partnerships themselves are more affected by some categories than others. Further, although many factors may affect the partnership, those that can be controlled are within the partnership itself. As the interest is only of a small core group, it therefore becomes interesting to use a more exclusive form of stakeholder theory.
Using a categorising model according to Roberts (2003) to separate the various groups of stakeholders from one another based on their effect on the core entity, a much clearer picture of stakeholders emerge.
Figure 2. Stakeholders of ASSET’s partnerships (adapted from Roberts 2003) Government &
regulatory
agencies Board of
Directors
Suppliers Distributors Service providers Investors
Journalists Community members Politicians Tax-payers
Special interest groups Customer
segment A Customer segment B
Partnership
Authorisers Business partners
External influencers Customer groups
Shareholders
Customer segment C
Employees
The diagram shows four categories of stakeholders that are perceived to have an effect on the central partnership:
authorisers, business partners, customer groups and external influencers. These four categories are divided into sub-groups of stakeholders that are contained within the category definitions.
Authorisers provide the authority for the partnership to function and are able to regulate and monitor the partnerships, such as regulating business and providing subsidies to encourage certain sectors (Roberts, 2003).
The model shows the authorisers as shareholders, government and regulatory agencies and the board of directors.
From a CSR perspective, shareholders are seen as having less interest, as they wish for a return on their investment on a shorter timescale (Roberts 2003). However, in the case of a smaller company, it could also be argued that shareholders and employees and owners are the same, and that these have a much greater interest in the long-term benefits.
Business partners facilitate the operations of the company, and therefore include such diverse actors as suppliers and investors. These actors are very closely connected to the company side of the partnership and it is therefore in their interest to maintain a long-term view (Roberts, 2003). Partners in business can have a great effect on the partnership through the effect that they have on businesses. For instance, an investor can potentially discourage participation in a network if they do not see a profit in the partnership for themselves.
External influencers are not directly linked to the partnership or company, but are of interest because of the partnership’s influence on outsiders (Roberts, 2003). Influencers such as journalists and the media can have a tangible effect on the public perception of companies (Henriques & Sadorsky, 1999) and can therefore make a difference to the company’s reputation and value. Other important external influencers are community members, without whose approval a public network may find it difficult to continue, and politicians, who can forge an important link between networks and government
.
Customer groups will also affect the partnership from a business point of view, as they are ultimately the deciding factor in the survival of the business. If they do not approve of the service or product, there is very little that either the public organisation or company can do to make them do so. Roberts points out that different consumer segments act differently with regard to CSR. For example, consumers want to feel that the products they buy do not harm the environment more than business customers might (Roberts, 2003). However, business customers have to safeguard a good reputation and be seen not to harm the environment (Glasbergen, 2011).
3.3 Partnerships
It is important to establish from the beginning that unlike many other forms of collaboration, partnerships are often less set forms of organisations based on mutual commitment and has little or no legal status (Seitanidi &
Crane 2009; Glasbergen, Biermann & Mol 2007; Bovaird 2004; Andonova 2010). This can have several effects on the outcome of the cooperation. Firstly, because of the lack of legal status, it also means that there is less necessity for clear goals to be reached: there might not be a contract to fulfil. As a result, partnerships can be free to pursue long-term goals or intangible benefits of cooperation. However, the lack of formality can also mean that there is a lack of perceived legitimacy and a lack of clarity that cripples work (Van Huijstee, Francken &
Leroy, 2007: 83).
The reasons for entering into partnerships can be many and varied. Van Huijstee, Francken and Leroy (2007) identify many different roles that partnerships fulfil in academic literature. These could be defined as falling into either a market, a policy or a social role. In the market role, we have the benefit as making and deepening markets and bolstering institutional effectiveness (2007: 79; Reinicke & Deng 2000). Policy roles can include agenda setting and policy development, and the social role could be a voice-giving role to unheard groups (Reinicke & Deng 2000).
3.3.1 Social Partnerships
It is suggested that partnerships have a social function, i.e. that they are set up to solve problems commonly in the realm of government policy and public bodies (Glasbergen, Biermann & Mol 2007, Seitanidi & Crane 2009).
Social functions would by this definition be something that is for the public good, rather than the good of individual actors.
It may be suggested that this includes environmental issues, as well as those of social welfare. That many companies have been and are motivated by partnerships aiming at environmental issues is evident if one explores the local supermarket. Numerous paper products come with a Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) stamp and fish comes recommended by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), to give two examples. The partnerships that will be studied in this thesis are motivated in part by a political aim, although it too has an environmental motivation and economic motivation. Due to the human dependency on the environment around them and the often high cost of mitigating damage already done (Miller & Spoolman 2009), it could certainly be argued that environmental motives fall into the societal problems category.
It is important to note that if partnerships are indeed motivated by social and environmental concerns rather than by profitability alone, we have to consider that the success of the partnership might not be evaluated simply by considering financial gain or increased sales, but rather that the partnership itself might be part of the goal (Andonova, 2010; Glasbergen, 2011). As the focus of the partnership is not primarily profitability it is likely that this cannot be measured within a short time-frame, and that this type of partnership is therefore difficult to compare to ordinary business practice. It is also likely that many effects and benefits are not of the measureable kind (Glasbergen, 2011; Seitanidi & Crane, 2009), such as increased networks and knowledge exchange. It is important to understand this aspect of social partnerships for both evaluators and participants in order for motivations and perceived benefits to be clear and the levels of expectation of the partnership to be placed at an appropriate level. To do otherwise might lead to participants being disillusioned when they see few material consequences coming out of the partnership and might lead to partnership abandonment (Tholke, 2003).
3.3.2 Advantages of partnerships
Having established the definition of partnerships as well as the use of partnerships in a social function, this section will focus on the advantages that can be gained from working in a collaborative alliance. A summary of the important advantages of partnerships is found in the table below (table 3).
Table 3. Advantages derived from partnership from a corporate perspective
Advantages Source
Access to financial resources Van Huijstee et al., 2007
Knowledge sharing Van Huijstee et al., 2007; Reinicke & Deng, 2000
Increased legitimacy Glasbergen & Groenenberg, 2001
Cluster benefits Porter, 1990
Creating involvement in issue Andonova, 2010
Cooperation and using common resources Cronin et al., 2011
There are many benefits to working in a partnership from many points of view. Even though the partnership in question might have social (and thus less financially directed goals), there are economic benefits to increasing ones’ network in a partnership. For example, collaborating with a government organisation might give access (or at least ease the access) to financial resources (van Huijstee et al., 2007). This might simply take the form of the government organisation advising on the availability of government funding and helping with applications. One could ponder whether the increased level of legitimacy stemming from the partnership with the organisation (Glasbergen & Groenenberg, 2001) might facilitate the process of receiving finances, but certainly aid in finding sources of finance are already a great help. Additionally, being part of a larger network of similar companies could bring about knowledge sharing as companies (van Huijstee, Francken & Leroy, 2007; Reinicke & Deng 2000) that are not direct competitors can complement each other. It should, however, not be seen as a
disadvantage if many companies are direct competitors, as this can lead to cluster benefits (Porter, 1990) as supporting services are built up around the cluster. Also, the proximity to competitors could potentially lead to a spiralling level of innovation as companies try to outdo each other.
Cooperation and using common resources is an idea that is brought up by Cronin et al., stating that channelling resources for use by several companies enables sharing of expertise and knowledge: “Such decisions allow a firm not only to increase their own capabilities through the proxy of the suppliers and partners, but also to use the time and resources that are typically invested in developing those capabilities in other areas, including environmentally friendly product and/or process innovation” (Cronin et al., 2011: 166).
Andonova also brings up a less tangible benefit of public-private partnership, which is its use as a tool for
“engaging non-state actors in dialogue and co-governance on the basis of soft, experimental agreements” (2010:
32). In other words, it can be used to create involvement in an issue by actors that might otherwise be outside of the sphere of action.
Apart from organisational benefits to working in a partnership, it is important to understand what makes partnerships work or not work. After all, as Glasbergen (2011) points out, if partnerships are indeed, as many suggest, key to achieving sustainability, it is imperative that the collaboration works.
3.3.3 Problems in partnerships
Having described the various advantages of working in a partnership, this section develops the potential
problems that can arise in partnerships between partners of different sectors. A summary of the important factors is provided in the table below (table 4).
Table 4. Problems in partnerships
Problems Source
Differences in motivation, approach and views Selsky & Parker, 2005
Blurring of responsibilities Van Huijstee et al., 2007; Bovaird, 2004; Giguere, 2001; Tholke, 2003
Legitimacy loss Hemmati 2002; Glasbergen, 2011
Cultural differences Hartman & Stafford 1997; Selsky & Parker, 2005;
Glasbergen, 2010
Insecurity about outcomes Van Huijstee et al. 2007; Tholke, 2003 Lack of trust Cowe 2004; Hemmati 2002; Tholke 2003; Gray 2007
Whilst many authors recognise the benefits of collaborating (see Glasbergen 2011, Andonova 2010, Brown, de Jong & Levy 2009), some even deeming it a necessity for sustainable development, all recognise that
partnerships are wrought with troubles and that a successful partnership is the product of hard work. This view is reinforced by authors such as Selsky and Parker (2005), who point out that actors from different sectors who focus on the same issue are likely to view it in a different way, be motivated by different things and use different approaches. The reason for this may be very great differences in identity and culture between the two
organisations (Glasbergen 2011, Gray 1989), which will be expanded upon later. In a very practical sense it is important to have an understanding and awareness of these differences and problems, as most partnerships will face them at some time. Some problems brought up by many authors are that tasks and responsibilities become blurred, participants suffer legitimacy loss, cultural differences between parties hamper partner dynamics and that participants feel insecure about the outcomes (van Huijstee et al., 2007).
The blurring of responsibilities and tasks may happen if the partnership is of an informal kind, or if the
responsibilities have not been properly drawn up (Tholke, 2003). But it is also likely to happen in the most well- regulated of partnerships, as each partner might hold the partnership, rather than the separate entities, responsible for carrying out tasks (Bovaird 2004; Giguere 2001). If any party is unsure about who does what it is likely to affect the productivity of the relationship. There are naturally varying degrees of confusion around the set tasks, but if it affects the core activity of the partnership the results could be far-reaching.
Legitimacy loss may come especially for public organisations if they are seen to be collaborating in projects that are not appreciated or with companies that do not enjoy a good reputation in business or with society (Hemmati 2002). This could be seen as a more important risk for NGOs, where reputation is one of their foremost assets and sources of revenue (Glasbergen 2011). However, one could argue that this is also a risk for government organisations, as the government initiating the project might lose reputation if a partnership is seen as not functioning or, at worst, to be unethical. This could also be seen as an important issue for municipal projects, as what is undertaken will be well-known in the community, and failure to produce results can result in
unpopularity. Therefore it is important to counter legitimacy loss also in municipal projects.
Cultural difference between parties is a very likely problem in every partnership (Hartman & Stafford 1997).
Culture is defined as a set of shared values and beliefs in a group (Schein 2004). What this means in practice is that every organisation and company has a ‘way in which things are done here’ that often is not very flexible, i.e.
