Search results

Purpose – This chapter considers the question whether firms can contribute to poverty alleviation through engaging in ‘inclusive business’, thereby linking the macro concept of ‘inclusive growth’ to the micro concept of ‘inclusive business’. A key element in this approach is how to take so-called cross-sector partnerships into account. Partnerships are one way of bundling non-market resources in the internationalisation strategies of multinational enterprises (MNEs).

Design/methodology/approach – This chapter is largely exploratory and primarily aimed at validating a general taxonomy of inclusive business. The creation of a multi-level taxonomy of business models of MNEs towards inclusive business takes into account the role of cross-sector partnership portfolios. The taxonomy makes it possible to come to a first comparison of the strategies of MNEs across national and cultural boundaries, distinguish some patterns and discuss determinants of strategies in which partnerships play a role in the inclusive growth strategies of MNEs.

Findings – A first application of this taxonomy on the business and partnership models adopted by the first 100 Global Fortune companies shows that in general firms still adopt very reactive strategies when integrating inclusive business strategies in their cross-sector partnership portfolios.

Originality/value of chapter – This chapter takes a company-specific level of analysis for the relationship between Foreign Direct Investment and development, which is habitually researched at the macro level of analysis. It documents business models as well as the related cross-sector partnerships. Cross-sector partnership portfolios of companies are not yet researched at any systematic level. They form the meso-level link between micro-level business models and macro-level national development strategies.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the topic and review the contributions of the special issue papers on cross-sector dialogue for sustainability. The paper also presents avenues for further research.

The paper is based on a review of the current literature on cross-sector partnership and dialogue. It explores the current issues in cross-sector partnerships through a discussion of the papers accepted for the special issue, their focus, findings and key contributions.

It highlights three main key research themes and learnings from the special issue papers: a high level of “hybridity” of collaboration forms, which involve important tensions; a need to understand partnership in its context and the importance of the individual level in cross-sector collaboration.

The authors call for attention to be paid to two forms of myopia: a tendency to view partnerships primarily from a resource-based view (without much attempt to measure societal impact) and a reluctance to be explicitly critical (despite empirical evidence of some suboptimal aspects of partnerships).

The authors call for researchers to move away from a resource-based approach to one that is situated in exploring the value derived from partnerships in the broader societal context. The authors suggest some avenues for further research to move the discussion beyond the partnership imperative.

The paper outlines the need to critically revisit the very essence of what real partnership means and whether dialogue is really taking place.

This paper aims to propose a framework to map partnerships as practiced in higher education institutions (HEIs) and trace the current mode of engagement between HEIs and their partners. This paper reflects on the alignment between current practices and what is understood in the literature as “true” partnerships. We are interested in the different modes of engagement that are labeled by the HEIs as partnerships and consider the plasticity of the term. The interest is in how the term is operationalized by HEIs and how variations in approach can be accounted for while still maintaining some stability and common understanding of the term partnership.

Drawing on extant literature in the field of cross-sector partnerships, a three-dimensional framework is proposed to map partnerships as practiced in HEIs. Furthermore, this paper draws on insights gained from the partnership stories of 13 leading principles of responsible management education (PRME) signatories to evidence examples of how this framework can help us to categorize the different types of engagement that the HEIs call partnerships. These case stories were gathered in the fall of 2019, based on a brief inquiry form sent to the 39 PRME signatories who were part of the PRME Champions Cycle 2018–2019.

This paper sees cases where faculty drive interaction on sustainable development goal-related issues with external stakeholders, but where the impact of these interactions seems to reside within the main business of the HEI (teaching and research). In contrast, much partnering work addresses broader social impacts. Of particular, interest in partnerships that seek to address a specific local issue, first and foremost and doing so in such a way as to apply the unique resources of the HEI working in multi-stakeholder networks. This paper also notes important variation between individual faculty-driven initiatives and initiatives where the school provides a strategic framework to support these efforts.

By focusing on the academic sector and its stakeholder partnerships, this paper contributes to the literature on cross-sector partnerships. In particular, the specifics of this context and the importance of, for example, academic freedom have been under-researched in this field. Furthermore, the framework presented is novel in that it helps us to grasp the nuances of external university partnerships that can form out of individual, programmatic and other institutional levels.

From a practice perspective, the framework offers a useable tool for HEI partnership managers to position themselves and their activities and reflect more on how they organize external partnerships. Further, this tool offers a more precise framework for the discussion on partnerships within the PRME to sharpen the partnership instrument and bring more clarity about what is meant by the partnership for the goals.

The paper offers a novel partnership portfolio framework that contributes both to theory and practice. The framework aids in mapping the locus of benefits/outcomes and the material and affective commitments made by the HEI to bring these collaborations about. In dimensionalizing partnerships in this way, this paper can conceptualize a balanced portfolio in an HEI’s partnerships for the goals.

This paper aims to build on notions of a higher level of organizational learning to suggest another dimension: interorganizational learning that emerges in a cross‐sector partnership.

A case study was conducted with the DC Central Kitchen (DCCK) partnership with for‐profit and governmental entities. Research methods included interviews with the founder, CEO, and manager responsible for the relationship with partners; direct observation during volunteer work at DCCK; and review of archival data and physical artifacts.

At the organizational level, DCCK was a learning organization because the principal variables – culture, strategy, shared vision, and knowledge management – were focused on learning. At the interorganizational level, the network was like a constellation of organizations. DCCK had many dyadic relationships with its partners, but the partners were not always interconnected with one another. Triple‐loop learning occurred in DCCK but was not yet developed among partners. DCCK benefited the community both tangibly, as seen in its education projects, and culturally, by giving a more central role to the nonprofit organization in the economic system.

The paper illustrates the value of interorganizational learning across two or more sectors of organizations.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the formation of a cross-sector partnership in which a collaborative response addressed the issue of affordable housing and homelessness in Melbourne, Australia. Factors leading to the formation and evolution of the relationship reveal how social partnerships in the housing/construction industry can be formulated.

Semi-structured interviews were held with representatives of the three sectors involved in an innovative social housing model, the Elizabeth Street Common Ground project. Supported with background documentation, interviews were coded and the results contrasted against theories pertaining to cross-sector collaboration.

Several factors contributed to the formation of this partnership, most notably the strong social imperative found within the organisational ethos of the participating organisations. The opportunity to replicate a well-trialled and successful model coincided with the desire among all partners to be part of the solution.

The results provide an insight into the ingredients pivotal to the formation of a successful multi-sector partnership. It highlights the value in sharing the best practice and the importance of networks when tackling major global problems such as affordable housing and homelessness.

This paper aims to identify models of best practice and examines the manner in which such social partnerships attract new partners and scale-up their solutions. Social responsibility initiatives that incorporate multiple sectors have the capacity to challenge unsustainable practice and pave the way for model solutions towards the societal problems we face globally.

Comparisons of three Australian case studies were analysed. These cases were purposefully selected as they all represented relationships that demonstrated social partnerships characteristics, and they had all attracted acclaim by their peers. They differed in terms of their societal problems and relationship duration. Semi-structured interviews were held with managers and employees from each social partnership, where they discussed all aspects of the partnership lifecycle from pre-collaborative conditions through to outcomes. In total, 50 semi-structured interviews were held with members of the private, nonprofit and public sectors.

Social partnerships pool skills, knowledge and finance across sectors, concentrating on specific societal issues of mutual concern. Resultant successful initiatives act as catalysts in soliciting further support. Three primary pathways exist for successful social partnerships that wish to evolve: expansion, replication and refinement. Focused attention and resources, through the formation of social responsibility clusters, can lead to sustainable solutions.

There are many organisations wishing to move on from philanthropic exchange towards more meaningful integrated relationships. This paper highlights the value of both within sector and cross-sector collaboration to achieve organisational outcomes. It provides some insight into the entry points for both nonprofit organisations as well as small- to medium-sized private sector organisations that would otherwise consider social investment in large-scale societal problems beyond their reach.

Social partnerships within the Australian context are under-represented; this paper addresses this by examining three best practice exemplars. The rationale for incorporating new partners and sharing success is discussed and supported by a model of social responsibility cluster formation.

The purpose of this paper is to explore bricolage as the missing link in understanding how cross-sector social partnerships form and operate in response to grand challenges. It is proposed that the weaving together of resources employed by members of cross-sector social partnerships (CSSPs) is bricolage in action and can be linked to Gray's (1985) facilitating conditions for collaboration. While existing research examines bricolage primarily at the individual level, this research studies collective bricolage, as implemented by a cross-sector social partnership in its process to address a grand challenge.

The authors follow the evolution of a Midwestern initiative aimed at the grand challenge of generational poverty. The deductive case study approach identifies the mechanisms of bricolage being employed in the initiative's evolution and ties these to Gray's (1985) seminal paper on interorganizational collaboration.

This case study has implications for academics conceptually struggling to understand grand challenges and the role of entrepreneurial initiatives in the public and nonprofit sectors, as well as practitioners currently involved in collaborative efforts to address said challenges.

This study enriches the discussion and enhances the link between the CSSP literature and new notions of social entrepreneurship that embrace the collective as their unit of analysis. This is the first work of its kind to link bricolage to a nascent CSSP and demonstrate how the entrepreneurial concept of bricolage is an inherent part of CSSP formation and operation.

Communities are best able to tackle complex social problems when solutions are achieved collaboratively. Inter-organizational partnerships are strongest and provide the greatest benefit to communities when the relationships are mutually compatible. The purpose of this paper is to introduce an evidence-informed approach to identifying and forming mutually compatible collaborations among organizations responsible for promoting community well-being and carrying out community-level interventions.

A three-stage case study examines the utility of a novel measurement tool for identifying opportunities for strategic collaboration. The strategic compatibility assessment (SCA) was designed to identify inter-organizational collaborative capacities within and across sectors as a means to motivate collaborative behaviors that are essential to community change initiatives that advance the collective impact.

The findings of this paper indicate the SCA is an effective tool for fostering mutually beneficial collaborative partnerships. A high degree of content, face and practical validity was evidenced in two independent studies of SCA, and organizations using the SCA tool reported a moderate-to-high degree of collaborative behavior in a post-intervention assessment of SCA outcomes. These findings provide field-based support for the SCA to promote cross-sector collaboration for community-level interventions.

The SCA tool describes the degree of collaboration among organizations that operate within a neighborhood; identifies potential points of mutual compatibility within the network; and creates pathways for leveraging collaborative behavior to promote community capitals. The aim of this research is to examine the potential of the SCA tool to shift the non-profit sector climate away from one characterized by competition toward one rich with collaboration.

Cross-sector partnerships (CSPs) are one type of collective social enterprise that has gained importance as a vehicle for social innovation (SI). The purpose of this paper is to understand the sources of the competitive advantage of CSPs as a strategic option for SI.

The authors propose a conceptual framework that integrates two interrelated dimensions of CSP competitiveness – resources and coordination – and their corresponding indicators. Then, the authors apply it to an in-depth case study through qualitative enquiry of a large CSP in the field of work integration during its formation and implementation stages (2012–2016). The authors employ a case study design with process tracing methods for increased validity, analyzing structured data from multiple sources (documentary, in-depth interviews with field experts and key decision-makers in coordinating partner organizations, direct observations) through narrative and visual mapping strategies.

Results illustrate the dynamic interaction between the key dimensions and factors that shape the potential and limitations of CSPs for SI and evidence three types of tensions which management influences partnership outcomes: hierarchical/horizontal commitment; competition/collaboration; and managerial efficiency/social transformation.

This research highlights the pivotal role of product development for the organizing of SI in a CSP context and proposes a conceptual framework that paves the way for future research on the sources of competitive advantage of CSPs, facilitating the assessment of their performance in terms of socially innovative outcomes.