A Literature Review of Inter-Organizational Sustainability Learning
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theory
2.1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Business Context
2.2. Inter-Firm Alliances and Cross-Sector Partnerships
2.3. Inter-Organizational Learning in the Business Context
3. Methods
4. Findings
4.1. Partner Characteristics
4.2. Partnership Characteristics
4.3. Context
4.4. Catalyst
4.4.1. Structural Dimension of Social Capital: Effective Coordination
4.4.2. Relational Dimension of Social Capital: Trust
4.4.3. Cognitive Dimension of Social Capital: Optimal Distance
4.5. Inhibitors
4.6. Inter-Organizational Learning Process
4.7. Outcomes
4.7.1. Firm-Level Outcomes
4.7.2. Partnership-Level Outcomes: Alliance/Partnership Success
4.7.3. System-Level Outcomes: Contribution to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
5. Future Research
5.1. Partner Characteristics
5.2. Partnership Characteristics
5.3. Context
5.4. Catalyst
5.5. Inhibitors
5.6. Inter-Organizational Learning Process
5.7. Outcomes
6. Conclusions: Contributions to Theory and Practice
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Ref | IF & CS 1 | SDG | Theoretical Framework/Main Concepts | Method | Contribution to the Model | Summary |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[139] | IF | 9, 17 | Absorptive capacity, Resource-based view, dynamic capabilities | Quant. | Partner characteristics, environmental conditions, outcomes, catalyst | This study shows that absorptive capacity and sustainable collaboration has an essential impact on green innovation adaptation in the context of SMEs. |
[183] | CS | 2, 3, 17 | Proximity (geographical, organizational, institutional, cognitive, social) | Qual. | Catalyst, partnership characteristics, outcomes | This study shows that to understand how collective impact, in other words, system-level outcomes can be generated through multi-stakeholder partnerships, it is necessary to evaluate the partnership using various proximity metrics and their impact on learning and innovation. |
[151] | CS | 17 | Governance, network theory, CSR | Review | Partnership characteristics, catalyst, environmental conditions, inter-organizational learning process | This study reviews the literature on CSR initiatives and finds out how different modes of governance, namely networks as CSR governance, collaborative CSR governance, networked CSR governance, and integrated networked CSR governance, have emerged, and how they differ from each other in terms of their development, structure and form. |
[147] | IF & CS | 17 | Sustainability- oriented partnerships (with various partners) and environmental performance | Quant. | Outcomes, partner characteristics, catalyst, inhibitors | This study shows that sustainability-oriented alliances and partnerships positively affect firms’ environmental performance, though the impact of different types of partners varies. |
[192] | IF | 9, 17 | Relationship learning, absorptive capacity, green innovation (eco-innovation) | Quant. | Partner characteristics, outcomes, catalyst, inter-organizational learning process | This study shows that collaborations and absorptive capacity impact firms’ green innovation performance positively. |
[245] | IF | 9, 17 | Green innovation, environmental performance, knowledge spill overs | Quant. | Outcomes, partner characteristics, catalyst, inter-organizational learning process | This study shows that external knowledge sources increasingly have more impact on the development of green innovations through spill overs. |
[107] | CS | 2, 17 | Organizational learning | Qual. | Inter-organizational learning process, catalyst, partnership characteristics, outcomes | This study shows how triple-loop learning took place in the setting of a cross-sector partnership that aims to achieve food distribution and improved nutrition in communities while working with a network of volunteers. |
[158] | IF & CS | 17 | Organizational learning | Review | Inter-organizational learning process, partnership characteristics, catalyst, partner characteristics, inhibitors | This study “examines five dimensions of the learning paradox in the context of adaptive co-management, where the learning and linking functions of governance are stressed: (i) definitions of learning; (ii) learning goals and expectations; (iii) mechanisms by which learning takes place; (iv) questions regarding who is involved in the process of learning; and (v) the risks and ethical ambiguities faced by different actors expected to willingly participate in a learning process, whether formal or informal.” |
[145] | CS | 17 | Inter-firm alliances and cross-sector partnerships, inter-organizational learning | Review | Catalyst, partner characteristics, environmental conditions, partnership characteristics, outcomes | This study provides propositions to explain how various partner-level, partnership-level and environmental factors would enable or facilitate inter-organizational learning in cross-sector partnerships. |
[162] | CS | 4, 8, 17 | Inter-firm alliances and cross-sector partnerships | Qual. | Partnership characteristics, catalyst, environmental conditions, inter-organizational learning process, outcomes | This study shows that partnerships between businesses and civil society may be dominated by business interests, and therefore, the setup of governance that set goals beyond business interests would enable the creation of system-level outcomes. This study also proposes that coordination that allows shared decision-making would contribute to the success of the partnership. |
[189] | CS | 13, 17 | Networks, organizational cognition, institutional logics | Quant. | Catalyst, outcomes, inhibitors | This study shows that “the differences in frames and logics between firms and their partners in partnerships for sustainability improve focal firms’ sustainability performance, but only up to a turning point after which these differences lead to a decrease in sustainability performance instead.” Therefore, the study signals the role of an optimal distance that allow learning and innovation, hence improve performance. |
[171] | CS | 13, 17 | Networks, organizational cognition, institutional logics | Quant. | Catalyst, inhibitors, environmental conditions, outcomes | This study shows that the differences in institutional logics may lead to tensions in partnerships; especially if there is a power imbalance between partners and a lack of mutual resource dependence in the partnerships. |
[131] | CS | 17 | Cross-sector partnerships in the global south | Qual. | Partnership characteristics, catalyst, inhibitors, environmental conditions, outcomes | This study shows that structural conditions, in other words, the environmental context, may be different in the global south and these conditions may have an impact on the inter-organizational learning process in the multi-stakeholder initiatives; however, factors such as setting clear goals and objectives, establishing clear lines of communication through coordination mechanisms, and creating a shared vision also impact the learning process in the multi-stakeholder initiatives in the global south (Mexico). |
[182] | CS | 6, 17 | Co-creation and learning | Qual. | Partnership characteristics, catalyst, partner characteristics, environmental conditions, inter-organizational learning process | This study uses lessons learnt from various cases and identifies that there are the following four phases: co-initiation, co-design, co-implementation, and co-evaluation in the context of collaborative, sustainable freshwater management research and practice. The study discusses the different characteristics of each of these four phases. |
[146] | IF | 8, 17 | Organizational culture, organizational learning, environmental collaboration | Quant. | Outcomes, partner characteristics, inter-organizational learning process, catalyst, inhibitors | This study finds that environmental collaborations within the supply chain have a positive impact on environmental performance, thanks to “a focal firm sharing these learned capabilities about the environment with other supply chain partners.” |
[233] | IF & CS | 13, 17 | Stakeholder theory, the resource-based view | Qual. | Outcomes, catalyst, environmental conditions, inter-organizational learning process | This study shows that through engagement and partnerships with various stakeholders, firms can build environmental capabilities which would help them move towards a low-carbon economy. |
[157] | IF | 8, 17 | Sustainable supply chain, resource-based view, sustainability performance, market performance | Quant. | Outcomes, partner characteristics, catalyst, partnership characteristics | This study evaluates the impact of different sustainable supply chain collaboration profiles on performance outcomes. |
[173] | IF | 8, 17 | Innovation studies, environmental collaborations | Quant. | Partner characteristics, outcomes | This study shows it is less likely to develop environmental process innovations through collaborations and contests the general understanding in the literature that collaborations yield higher environmental innovation performance. |
[195] | IF | 8, 17 | Ambidexterity, dynamic capabilities, inter-firm alliances | Quant. | Outcomes, inter-organizational learning process, partner characteristics | This study shows that engaging in inter-firm alliances positively impact ambidexterity and reinforces the positive impact of alliances on environmental performance. |
[152] | CS | 8, 17 | Inter-organizational learning, trust | Qual. | Catalyst, partnership characteristics, inter-organizational learning process | This study finds that “Relational Space nourishes collaborative contexts—projects, events, and meetings—that help creates sustainability. As business relations are too often defined by economic and technical transactions, a little space remains for relational ‘glue’ that allows for highly complex, assumption- challenging learning to find new ways to transform competitive relationships into truly sustainable partnerships across multiple stakeholders with tangible benefit for many.” |
[246] | IF | 8, 17 | Resource-based view, relational view, sustainable supply chain | Qual. | Outcomes, catalyst, partner characteristics | This study, based on qualitative cases from the German chemical industry, builds a model of inter-organizational practices which would allow the diffusion of sustainability across the supply chain. |
[175] | IF & CS | 8, 17 | NRBV, stakeholder theory, environmental management | Quant. | Environmental conditions, outcomes | This study shows that stakeholder engagement, including inter-firm and cross-sector alliances and partnerships, help firms to develop proactive environmental strategies. |
[209] | IF & CS | 8, 17 | Dynamic capabilities, systems thinking | Qual. | Outcomes, inter-organizational learning process, catalyst | This study integrates systems to dynamic capabilities literature and demonstrates a conceptual framework for the development of sustainability-oriented capabilities using an in-depth case study. |
[121] | IF | 8, 17 | Environmental management, environmental collaborations | Quant. | Outcomes, catalyst, environmental conditions, partnership characteristics | This study explores the relationships between environmental management, green product strategy, competitiveness, and environmental collaborations in supply chains. |
[122] | IF | 8, 17 | Inter-organizational knowledge sharing and learning, trust | Quant. | Partner characteristics, catalyst, inhibitor, outcomes | This study shows that partner opportunism negatively impacts trust between partners, while communication and participation have a positive effect. The study also shows that the more trust there is between partners, the higher the knowledge sharing and learning between partners. |
[247] | CS | 17 | Collaborative strategy, process approach | Qual. | Partnership characteristics | This study develops a model of collaborative strategic management using two cases from collaborative regional sustainable development strategies. |
[248] | IF & CS | 8, 17 | Dynamic capabilities, organizational design | Qual. | Partner characteristics, outcomes, catalyst, inter-organizational learning process | This study shows that for companies to achieve sustainable competitiveness, they need to develop dynamic capabilities which “entails changing their current organizational design by realigning their activities, partnerships, and routines with the changing external environment”. |
[135] | IF & CS | 8, 17 | Resource-based view, environmental collaborations | Quant. | Outcomes, catalyst, inter-organizational learning process, inhibitors | This study shows how cross-sector partnerships help firms improve their image performance, while both inter-firm and cross-sector partnerships help them improve their market performance. |
[136] | IF & CS | 8, 17 | Product development, dynamic capabilities, environmental collaborations | Quant. | Outcomes, inter-organizational learning process, partner characteristics, catalyst | This paper shows that external knowledge sources such as “as partners, universities and research centers, policymakers, conferences” help with the integration of environmental issues, while forming partnerships within the supply chain helps firms with green product design. |
[249] | IF & CS | 17 | Learning, social networks | Qual. | Partner characteristics, inter-organizational learning process, catalyst, inhibitors | This paper demonstrates how social network software can help in developing learning environments for sustainable development. |
[140] | IF | 8, 17 | Environmental innovation, R&D, environmental collaborations | Quant. | Partner characteristics, outcomes, partnership characteristics, catalyst | This paper demonstrates that environmental innovations develop, thanks to the acquisition of external knowledge, including partnerships within the supply chain, universities, and competitors. |
[159] | CS | 8, 17 | Environmental innovation | Mixed | Partnership characteristics, partner characteristics, catalyst, outcomes | This study finds that a public-private joint venture studied has a positive impact on innovation capacity and “experience sharing; training and education; hiring/transferring qualified personnel to a partner company; and participatory demonstration of new technology with support from technology gatekeepers (technicians)” improve human capital and capability building. |
[250] | IF & CS | 17 | Stakeholder theory, capabilities, environmental management | Quant. | Inhibitor, outcomes, partner characteristics, catalyst, environmental conditions | This study finds that stakeholder integration helps firms to develop proactive environmental strategies and also warns that stakeholder engagement may not always bring about a system-level outcome, or a collective impact, but sometimes only benefit the firm and its managers. |
[142] | IF & CS | 8, 17 | Absorptive capacity, environmental management, environmental collaboration | Quant. | Outcomes, partner characteristics, inter-organizational learning | This study demonstrates how absorptive capacity can trigger organizational and inter-organizational learning and development of organizational capabilities that yield proactive environmental management and shows that amongst others, environmental collaborations are a part of this proactive managements’ strategies. |
[49] | CS | 2, 17 | Dynamic capabilities, stakeholder theory, inter-organizational learning | Qual. | Inter-organizational learning process, environmental conditions, partnership characteristics, outcomes, catalyst | This study demonstrates how, through cross-sector partnerships, firms can co-develop dynamic capabilities via inter-organizational learning that takes place. |
[134] | CS | 17 | Social exchange theory, partnerships, dialectical analysis | Qual. | Environmental conditions, inhibitors, catalyst, partnership characteristics, outcomes | This study proposes that dialectical processes take place between corporates and social enterprises within a collaborative setting and as a result, a synthesis stage emerges as partners resolve their differences. |
[177] | CS | 17 | Social learning, social capital | Quant. | Inter-organizational learning process, catalyst, partner characteristics, partnership characteristics | This study analyzes two different sustainability initiatives through social learning and social capital lenses and discusses how effective and efficient platforms can be built that would enhance learning for sustainable development. |
[203] | IF & CS | 7, 13, 17 | Organizational cognition, partnerships | Qual. | Inter-organizational learning process, outcomes | This study finds that to respond to various SDGs, electric utilities develop alliance portfolios with various partners and the configuration of these portfolios in terms of partner diversity has a relationship with firms’ value frames. |
[130] | CS | 17 | Interdisciplinary collaborative research | Review | Inhibitors, partner characteristics, catalyst, inter-organizational learning process, environmental conditions | This study shows how research partners can learn to collaborate while collaborating by: “(1) creating conditions for learning to take place, which includes paying attention to discomfort as a trigger for learning and (2) engaging in collaborations in ways that strengthen researchers’ collaborative capacities by cultivating particular orientations, knowledge and skills.” |
[137] | IF & CS | 17 | Absorptive capacity, societal values, and value conflict | Qual. | Partner characteristics, catalyst, inhibitors, environmental conditions, outcomes | This paper expands the notion of absorptive capacity from knowledge absorption capacity to value absorption capacity and shows “how technically savvy, economic value-creating firms diverge in their receptivity, articulation, and reflexivity of societal values.” |
[156] | CS | 17 | Network, trust | Qual. | Catalyst, partnership characteristic, partner characteristic, environmental conditions, outcomes | This study analyzes the UN Global Compact (UNGC) through a lens of network theory and trust. The authors highlight that for a collaborative environment to foster at UNGC, trust between different stakeholders need to improve to the extent that it will stimulate social learning. |
[160] | CS | 1, 3, 17 | Inter-organizational collaboration | Qual. | Catalyst, environmental conditions, partnership characteristics, inhibitors, inter-organizational learning process | This study shows that in a collaboration between social enterprises and local councils, there are differences due to the sectors, that these organizations are embedded, and the institutional logics that guide thinking in those sectors. The study finds that while such logic distance creates tensions, creation of shared objectives, synergistic capabilities and relying on known partners can help collaborations work towards a system-level collective impact. |
[199] | CS | 8, 17 | Knowledge management (sharing) | Qual. | Partner characteristic, inter-organizational learning, inhibitors, partnership characteristics | This study discusses the mechanisms of knowledge sharing in an inter-disciplinary collaborative setting and finds that individuals willing to adapt and attempt to translate the disciplinary discourses and modes of communication of researchers and of practitioner specialists enable knowledge sharing. |
[202] | CS | 15, 17 | Inter-organizational collaboration, framing | Qual. | Catalyst, inhibitors, outcomes | This study shows that the frame distance between partners can act as an inhibitor and create resistance to find an agreeable solution between the parties involved. |
[251] | IF & CS | 8, 17 | R&D, knowledge spill overs | Quant. | Partner characteristics, catalyst | This study finds that in the context of chemical companies, research, and development fosters thanks to spill overs in the context of collaborative partnerships within industrial clusters, and even open innovation settings with competitors can help the development of sustainable solutions. |
[155] | CS | 10, 16, 17 | Cross-sector collaboration | Qual. | Environmental conditions catalyst, partnership characteristics, outcomes | This study shows how state and market incentives can trigger companies to form transformational partnerships that are beyond corporate philanthropy. |
[27] | CS | 8, 17 | Cross-sector collaboration | Review | Catalyst, inhibitors, outcomes | This study provides an understanding of why firms would partner with NGOs, what they can gain from it, and what factors should firms take into consideration in selecting, managing, and evaluating partnerships with environmental NGOs. |
[26] | IF & CS | 17 | Inter-organizational partnerships | Review | Inhibitors, outcomes, partnership characteristics, catalyst, partner characteristics | This article provides an overview of research on partnerships for environmental sustainability between different kinds of partners and argues how businesses can frame these kinds of environmental partnerships as a source of competitive advantage. |
[252] | IF | 8, 17 | Open innovation, SMEs | Quant. | Partner characteristics | This study shows “the effect of external technology R&D cooperation network diversity (ETRDCND) on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction and energy saving of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)” and analyzes “the roles of production time reduction and absorptive capacity in the relationship between SMEs’ ETRDCND and their GHG emission reduction and energy-saving.” |
[132] | CS | 13, 17 | Stakeholder theory, multi-stakeholder networks, climate change engagement of businesses | Qual. | Partner characteristics, outcomes, environmental conditions | This study shows that multi-stakeholder networks can help to create platforms for inter-organizational learning and innovation that can address complex sustainability challenges through the engagement of various stakeholders. |
[198] | IF | 8, 17 | Environmental management, inter-firm alliances, dynamic capabilities | Quant. | Outcomes, catalyst, inter-organizational learning process | This study shows that collaboration with customers and suppliers in the value chain help firms develop capabilities to address sustainability challenges. |
[205] | IF | 8, 17 | Sustainable supply chains, innovation, and absorptive capacity | Quant. | Partner characteristics, outcomes, catalyst | This paper shows that inter-organizational collaborations positively impact the innovation performance of firms in the context of sustainable supply chains, and absorptive capacity acts positively as a mediator of this impact. |
[19] | CS | 17 | SDGs, partnerships | Review | Outcomes, catalyst, partnership characteristics, environmental conditions | This paper discusses five potential problems in partnerships for SDGs: “compensation for losers; barriers to partnering; short-time horizons, inadequate coordination mechanisms and misaligned incentives.” |
[138] | IF & CS | 8, 17 | CSR, stakeholder theory, absorptive capacity | Quant. | Partner characteristics, environmental conditions, inter-organizational learning process | This study finds that absorptive capacity helps to develop sustainable product and organizational innovations, and absorptive capacity is reinforced by stakeholder embeddedness and pressure. |
[174] | CS | 8, 17 | Environmental policies, innovation, absorptive capacity, R&D collaborations | Qual. | Partner characteristics, catalyst, inhibitors, outcomes | This study finds that the closeness between R&D partners in terms of dominant logics, knowledge bases and organizational structures help them respond coherently to the environmental policies to create environmental innovations. |
[253] | IF & CS | 8, 17 | Knowledge acquisition | Qual. | Partner characteristics, inter-organizational learning process, catalyst | This study shows that external knowledge sources, such as inter-organizational networks and partnerships, help SMEs develop internal capabilities to move them towards sustainability. |
[254] | CS | 11, 17 | Social learning, scenarios | Qual. | Inhibitors, catalyst, partner characteristics, environmental conditions | This study shows that participatory scenarios can enhance social learning in a collaborative environment by helping the development of systemic thinking, enhanced relationships, and awareness of new perspectives, all of which are valuable for developing adaptive capacity. |
[11] | CS | 2, 17 | Framing, cross-sector collaborations | Qual. | Outcomes, inhibitor, catalyst, environmental conditions | This study shows that in a collaborative setting between diverse partners, as opposed to converging to a shared frame, partners may maintain an optimal frame plurality, “not excessive frame variety that may prevent agreements from emerging, but the retention of a select few frames and the deletion of others toward achieving a narrowing frame bandwidth.” |
[255] | IF & CS | 12, 17 | Product service systems, circular economy, business models | Qual. | Partner characteristics, outcomes, catalyst | This study shows that to achieve system-level outcomes from circular economy business models, the interaction between the business model to the broader ecosystem through partnerships are helpful. In other words, partnerships can help businesses to create environmental and social value. |
[12] | CS | 3, 17 | Frames and framing, relational coordination | Qual. | Outcomes, catalyst, inhibitors | This study shows how within a cross-sector partnership, setting partners’ frames may fuse, which the authors define as “partners reach[ing] common ground by coming to appreciate their (complementary) differences rather than espousing and/or enacting a similar frame.” |
[153] | CS | 14, 15, 17 | Governance | Qual. | Partnership characteristics, catalyst, inter-organizational learning process | This study focuses on polycentric governance of environmental commons. It explores how trust can help to build a shared understanding, how polycentric governance improves learning and knowledge sharing and how such initiatives need to take account of justice and inclusivity and consider vulnerable groups and societal impacts. |
[181] | IF | 12, 17 | Circular economy, industrial ecology, sustainable innovation, supply chain collaboration | Qual. | Catalyst, inter-organizational learning process, outcomes, partner characteristics | This study shows that for circular economy transition, firms need to engage in new forms of sustainable supply chain collaborations which require cross-functional engagement, trust, and joint learning and problem-solving. |
[164] | IF & CS | 8, 17 | Inter-firm alliances, resource-based view, institutional theory, organizational learning | Quant. | Environmental conditions, partnership conditions, inter-organizational learning process, catalyst, inhibitors, partner characteristics, outcomes | This study analyzes how some alliances are focusing on capability development, while others are trying to create legitimacy and reputation. The article further discusses how learning and governance would vary depending on whether these alliances are focused on capability development or legitimacy. |
[127] | CS | 8, 17 | Environmental innovations, partnerships, transaction cost economics, resource complementarities | Quant. | Partnership characteristics, inter-organizational learning process, inhibitors, catalyst, partner characteristics | This study shows that transactional cost and complementary logics explain why there are government-business partnerships that aim radical environmental innovations. Furthermore, the study highlights that for these partnerships to work, governance, learning and rulemaking needs to be adequately addressed. |
[148] | IF & CS | 8, 17 | Inter-firm alliances, resource-based view, institutional theory, organizational learning | Quant. | Partnership characteristics, inter-organizational learning process, environmental conditions, inhibitors | This study argues that “competency-oriented alliances (COAs), characterized with exploration learning, diverse partnership, and nonequity structure, tend to engage firms for more proactive environmental strategies.” In contrast “conversely, legitimacy-oriented alliances (LOAs), characterized by exploitation learning, homogeneous partners, and equity structure, tend to engage firms for less proactive environmental strategies.” |
[51] | CS | 8, 17 | Cross-sector partnerships, environmental innovations, proactive environmental management | Quant. | Outcomes, inter-organizational learning process, partnership characteristics, catalyst | This study shows that more diverse alliance partners contribute more to the development of proactive environmental outcomes. Furthermore, innovative firms that have greater experiences in partnerships and alliances are engaged in more diverse partnerships. |
[200] | IF | 8, 17 | Sustainable supply chain, dynamic capabilities | Quant. | Outcomes, catalyst | This study shows that supplier orientation and innovation orientation improve sustainability performance. |
[256] | IF | 8, 17 | Environmental innovation, sustainable supply chain | Quant. | Partner characteristics, outcomes, environmental conditions, inhibitors, catalyst | This study shows that learning from suppliers and customers has a positive impact on environmental innovations and turbulence moderates these relationships. |
[161] | IF | 17 | Inter-organizational partnerships | Quant. | Partner characteristics, catalyst, outcomes, catalysts, inter-organizational learning process | This study shows that inter-organizational learning which is catalyzed by trust-building and knowledge sharing patterns has a positive effect on identity and adaptability of partnerships. |
[257] | IF & CS | 17 | Sustainability, absorptive capacity, open innovation | Qual. | Partner characteristics, outcomes, inter-organizational learning process | This study shows that through open innovation with partners, organizations can absorb knowledge and improve sustainability outcomes. |
[258] | CS | 8, 17 | Sustainability-oriented innovation, business models, partnerships | Qual. | Catalyst, outcomes | This study shows how Interface, a global carpet manufacturer, has created a sustainable business model that puts partnerships at its core by working in a networked relationship with communities and an NGO whereby they create a safe failure space. |
[259] | CS | 17 | CSR, knowledge sharing | Qual. | Partner characteristics, environmental conditions, partnership characteristics, catalyst | This study shows how firms can enhance CSR outcomes by engaging in knowledge sharing and seeking collaboration opportunities that will help improve inter-organizational learning from communities, which will then improve the collective outcomes and the legitimacy of the firm. |
[176] | CS | 17 | Multi-stakeholder partnerships, organizational design | Quant. | Catalyst, partner characteristics, partnership characteristics, outcomes | This study focuses on how effective multi-stakeholder partnerships can be designed effectively. Furthermore, the authors find that collaborative decision-making systems help coordination and improve learning. |
[172] | IF & CS | 17 | Networks, learning organizations | Qual. | Inter-organizational learning process, environmental conditions, catalyst, partnership characteristics, inhibitors | This study discusses how inter-organizational networks are increasingly becoming more critical as learning organizations and how learning can take place in such networks through collaborative decision-making, consensus building, diffusion of practices, rules, norms, and values. |
[260] | IF & CS | 8, 17 | Capability development (acquisition) | Qual. | Outcomes, catalyst, inhibitors, inter-organizational learning process | This study discusses how firms can build capabilities both due to the impact of societal logics at the macro-level and the “firm’s capacity to search for talent, technology, and ideas and to harmonize what it learns internally” and through cases, the authors discuss how interaction with the external environment through partnerships and networks can help firms develop such capabilities. |
[197] | IF | 8, 17 | Sustainable supply chain, absorptive capacity | Qual. | Partner characteristics, inter-organizational learning process, outcomes, catalyst, partnership characteristics | This study demonstrates various mechanisms that help firms develop capabilities through absorbing knowledge from their collaborative supply chain interactions. |
[186] | IF | 8, 17 | Inter-firm alliances, environmental management | Quant. | Inhibitors, catalyst, outcomes, partner characteristics, partnership characteristics | This study finds that organizational size disparity has a positive effect on alliance terminations, while cultural separation has a negative effect on alliance terminations in the context of environmental alliances. |
[163] | IF | 8, 17 | Sustainable supply chain, resource-based view, sustainability-oriented innovation | Qual. | Partnership characteristics, partner characteristics, outcomes, catalyst | This study shows how supply chain collaboration can allow room for inter-organizational learning, help the development of new capabilities, practices and processes, thanks to knowledge sharing between parties and, as a result, how this learning would lead to sustainability-oriented innovations. |
[261] | IF & CS | 17 | Technological development, knowledge management (knowledge types) | Qual. | Inter-organizational learning process | This study discusses that in studying knowledge development and diffusion, also in partnership settings, it is essential to pay attention to the type of knowledge that is being transferred. The study shows that knowledge can be domain-specific and procedural, and general knowledge and the nature of the knowledge can have an impact on whether and how it can be transferred. |
[188] | IF | 8, 17 | Inter-firm alliances, trust, strategic cognition | Quant. | Catalyst, outcomes, inhibitors, partnership characteristics | This study demonstrates how the environmental reputation of firms have an impact on trust, and perceived partner attractiveness which affects the partnership formation patterns. |
[196] | IF & CS | 8, 17 | Organizational learning, sustainable supply chain | Qual. | Partner characteristics, inter-organizational learning process, catalyst, outcomes | This study discusses the role of organizational learning and collaboration for the improvement of supply chain sustainability and argues that training, knowledge acquisition, stakeholder engagement and collaboration between intra-organizational and inter-organizational partners, including suppliers and NGOs, help firms learn and develop capabilities to address sustainability issues in the supply chain. |
[262] | CS | 2, 17 | Networks | Qual. | Catalyst, inter-organizational learning process, partnership characteristics, | This study discusses how, through networks, farmers can engage in the collective learning process and sustainable agricultural development. The authors argue that within such a network environment, to enhance learning, it is vital to create a feeling of “shared responsibility and balanced leadership.” |
[179] | IF & CS | 8, 17 | Sustainable innovation, partnerships | Quant. | Catalyst, partner characteristics, outcomes | This study discusses “collaborative search strategies led by firms in general and for solving environmental problems in particular” and finds that “the problem-solving potential of a search strategy increases with the diversity of existing knowledge of the partners in a consortium and with the experience of the partners involved.” |
[180] | IF | 12, 17 | Circular economy, business models, innovation ecosystems | Qual. | Catalyst, inhibitors, partnership characteristics, partner characteristics, environmental conditions | This study discusses that the transition to a circular economy requires collaboration between ecosystem partners and an “ecosystem-wide orchestration.” |
[169] | IF & CS | 17 | Knowledge brokerage, environmental impact assessment | Qual. | Partner characteristics, partnership characteristics, inter-organizational learning process, catalyst, environmental conditions | This study demonstrates the role of knowledge brokerage and how it can enable the learning process and knowledge transfer in the context of impact assessment. |
[204] | IF | 8, 17 | Sustainable supply chain, environmental collaboration | Quant. | Outcomes, catalyst, environmental conditions, inter-organizational learning process | This study demonstrates that internal capabilities improve sustainable supply management and sustainability performance and shows that “relational capability” helps firms access resources and capabilities outside the firm and combine capabilities within and outside the boundaries. |
[210] | CS | 13, 17 | Partnerships, climate change mitigation, | Qual. | Partnership characteristics, partner characteristics, inter-organizational learning process, outcomes, inhibitors, catalyst | This study shows that multi-stakeholder partnerships can be an effective form of governance to address climate change by providing a space of learning and participation of actors from different societal sectors. |
[143] | IF & CS | 8, 17 | Absorptive capacity, international business (MNCs) | Qual. | Partner characteristics, outcomes, catalyst, inter-organizational learning process | This study demonstrates that in the context of MNCs, absorptive capacity acts on two levels: shared and unit-specific levels of absorptive capacity. The authors highlight that partnerships are a way of building shared absorptive capacity. |
[193] | IF & CS | 12, 17 | Sustainability-oriented innovation, learning, collaboration, sustainability transitions | Review | Partner characteristics, inter-organizational learning process, outcomes, partnership characteristics, catalyst | This study demonstrates that collaborations help in creating inter-organizational learning opportunities and lead to sustainable innovation. This paper highlights that second-order learning leads to incremental sustainability-oriented innovation. The authors highlight that “to bring about a shift towards the kinds of innovations that will contribute to sustainable consumption and production, the various actors and stakeholders involved need to share knowledge and to learn from pilot experiments, practices, users and communities.” |
[123] | IF | 8, 17 | Sustainable supply chain, dynamic capabilities | Qual. | Outcomes, inter-organizational learning process, inhibitors, environmental conditions, catalyst | This study argues that “sustainable global supplier management (SGSM) capabilities are a source of competitive advantage” due to the value they create when firms are exposed to stakeholder pressures and those firms that were early movers in developing such skills enter into a virtuous cycle by accumulating more resources and learning processes. |
[206] | IF & CS | 8, 17 | Absorptive capacity, international business (MNCs), strategic purchasing | Quant. | Partner characteristics, outcomes, catalyst | This study suggests that realized absorptive capacity has an impact on social sustainability; however, finding that against the expectations, learning capabilities do not have an impact on the environmental sustainability of purchasing practices. The study also finds that there is no significant impact of sustainable practices on economic performance. |
[263] | IF | 17 | Networks, corporate responsibility | Qual. | Inter-organizational learning process, outcomes, partner characteristics, catalyst | This study discusses that learning can be triggered by interactions between a focal firm and its knowledge network “which provide[s] new concepts for inspiration, and an internal network of ideas and actions, which would help define and shape change.” |
[191] | CS | 17 | Stakeholder theory, organizational learning, environmental management | Qual. | Inter-organizational learning process, outcomes, partner characteristics, environmental conditions | This study discusses how stakeholder power affects exploitative and exploratory inter-organizational learning. The study finds that stakeholders may have different sources of power such as “personal skills, knowledge and networks, formal authority and operational capacity; these sources turned out to be different in the two case companies.” |
[264] | IF & CS | 17 | Knowledge management (acquisition) | Quant. | Partner characteristics, outcomes, catalyst | This study shows that in the context of SMEs, various external partners, especially trade associations and suppliers, help firms’ acquisition of valuable knowledge that help increase environmental commitment. |
[265] | IF & CS | 17 | Organizational capabilities, stakeholder theory, environmental management | Quant. | Inter-organizational learning process, outcomes, environmental conditions | This study finds that external environment impacts the development of firms’ stakeholder integration, and uncertainty, positively, with complexity, negatively, impacting firm’s environmental strategy. |
[165] | IF & CS | 17 | Networks, organizational change, and learning | Review | Environmental conditions, partner characteristics, catalyst, inhibitors, outcomes | This study discusses how relationships in a network create a platform for organizational learning and change and describe how organizational capabilities built through interaction with network partners improve sustainability. |
[133] | CS | 17 | Collaborations (social alliances), social enterprises | Qual. | Environmental conditions, inter-organizational learning process, outcomes, partner characteristics, partnership characteristics, catalyst | This study shows that businesses may engage in partnerships with social enterprises to create value jointly or for community capacity building. Furthermore, the study discusses how businesses gain appreciation from their stakeholders (concern for legitimacy), while thanks to these partnerships, social enterprises create funds (financial resource dependence). |
[207] | CS | 17 | Business-non-profit partnerships, organizational learning | Quant. | Inter-organizational learning process, catalyst, outcomes, partner characteristics, inhibitors, partnership characteristics, environmental conditions | This study shows that organizational learning in business-non-profit partnerships occur thanks to close relationships between the partners whereby trust and inter-personal relationships play a critical role. Furthermore, the authors argue that non-profits gain resources and capabilities that allow them to “proactively detect, shape, and seize opportunities and threats.” |
[144] | CS | 17 | Corporate social responsibility, cross-sector partnerships | Qual. | Catalyst, environmental conditions, partnership characteristics, partner characteristics, inter-organizational learning process | This study discusses three phases of cross-sector partnerships: partner selection, partnership design, institutionalization and (potential) exit. This model also highlights the challenges and risks in each of these phases such as “determining effective criteria for partner selection, designing appropriate risk assessment techniques, experimenting with and adapting agreements, objectives, reporting mechanisms and other systems, managing crises to the benefit of the partnership, and balancing the necessary personal relationships with needs for ongoing organizational institutionalization.” |
[185] | CS | 17 | Corporate social responsibility, cross-sector partnerships | Qual. | Catalyst, environmental conditions, partnership characteristics, outcomes | This study discusses how firms engage with communities in different forms: corporate philanthropy, benefaction, patronage, sponsorship, and cause-related marketing (CRM) and partnerships. Furthermore, the authors highlight how from one form of engagement that contains less involvement, partners can improve institutional trust and partners can move towards forms of engagement that contain more involvement. |
[208] | CS | 17 | Cross-sector partnerships, sensemaking | Review | Partnership characteristics, catalyst, inter-organizational learning process, outcomes, environmental conditions | This study discusses three platforms that can be used to make sense of cross-sector partnerships that aim to co-create social innovation: resource dependence, social issues, and societal sector platforms. |
[266] | CS | 17 | Cross-sector partnerships, organizational learning | Qual. | Catalyst, outcomes, inter-organizational learning process, partner characteristics | This study highlights that learning from such partnerships that aim systemic changes requires systemic thinking, shared vision and awareness of mental models and effective dialogue. Furthermore, these kinds of cross-sector partnerships need to balance commercial interests and the creation of private value with societal interests and public value. |
[128] | CS | 17 | Organizational paradoxes, cross-sector partnerships | Qual. | Inhibitors, catalyst, outcomes | This study explores the paradoxical tensions between businesses and NGOs and explains how the way actors perceive each other’s frames impact the partnership outcomes. Furthermore, the authors found that when partners had a fluid frame, they were able to appreciate the differences of each other, which contributed to the creation of generative outcomes. |
[194] | CS | 1, 2, 17 | Social learning | Qual. | Environmental conditions, inter-organizational learning process, partnership characteristics, catalyst | This study highlights that bi-directional, or two-way learning helps to contribute the system-level outcomes to sustainable development goals. Furthermore, the study provides several examples of which partnerships and networks are channels for knowledge mobilization. |
[166] | IF | 8, 17 | Environmental innovations, inter-organizational fit, sustainable supply chain | Quant. | Partner characteristics, inter-organizational learning process, catalyst, inhibitors, outcomes | This study measures the impact of complementarity and compatibility between firms and their supply partners on environmental innovation (EI) outcomes. The study finds that “complementarity facilitates incremental EI while inter-organizational compatibility plays a more crucial role in radical EI.” |
[184] | CS | 17 | Networks, social learning | Qual. | Catalyst, inter-organizational learning process, partner characteristics | This study highlights that innovation networks allow social learning to trigger sustainable development by creating a platform for different stakeholders and their diverse perspectives to share knowledge and values. The authors find that trust, commitment, and reframing catalyze the social learning process. |
[267] | CS | 4, 17 | Cross-sector partnerships, coopetition, tensions/paradoxes | Qual. | Partnership characteristics, partner characteristics, catalyst, inter-organizational learning process, outcomes | This study evaluates the coopetitive tensions in cross-sector partnerships whereby multiple companies are involved. The study finds that the coopetitive tensions are leveraged in the studied partnerships, and authors conclude that coopetitive dynamics can help to enhance the system-level partnership outcomes. |
[126] | CS | 17 | Public-private partnerships, inter-organizational learning, social capital, brokerage | Qual. | Catalyst, environmental conditions, partner characteristics, partnership characteristics, inter-organizational learning process | This study analyzes the different roles of broker organizations in public-private partnerships as “convener, mediator, and learning catalyst” drawing on social capital and inter-organizational learning literature. |
[25] | CS | 17 | Strategic bridging | Qual. | Environmental conditions, inhibitors, catalyst, inter-organizational learning process, outcomes | This study evaluates the role of NGOs as strategic bridges in their engagement with businesses. The case finds that within a partnership setting, partners may prioritize their private benefits and individual goals which may pose a risk. Furthermore, the study proposes that strategic bridging requires setting and articulating a vision, gaining support and commitment, balancing stakeholder needs and addressing issues to create system-level outcomes. |
[268] | CS | 17 | Multi-stakeholder initiatives, communities of practice | Qual. | Inhibitors, catalyst, inter-organizational learning process, partner characteristics, partnership characteristics | This study shows how multi-stakeholder initiatives, which are communities of practitioners, are organized in the first place thanks to “interpersonal relationships among the participants involved [which] are nurtured through discussions and dialogues on common areas of interest.” The study highlighted that the informal elements were also crucial in building trust, which enables building a sense of community. |
[269] | IF | 17 | Sustainable supply chain, action research | Review/Qual. | Inter-organizational learning process, catalyst, environmental conditions, partnership characteristics, outcomes | This study proposes a research agenda at the intersection of action research and sustainable supply chain management. Furthermore, the authors highlight that due to the emphasis on relational dynamics and collaboration for building sustainable supply chains, action research can reveal dynamics of “resistance, power and discourse” in building sustainable supply chains. |
[201] | IF & CS | 8, 17 | Sustainability-oriented innovation, collaboration, IT | Review | Partner characteristics, outcomes, partnership characteristics, inter-organizational learning process | This study explores the role of IT in facilitating the sustainability-oriented collaborations and building innovation capabilities for sustainability. |
[270] | IF | 8, 17 | Collaboration, sustainable supply chain | Quant. | Outcomes, partner characteristics, catalyst, inter-organizational learning process, partnership characteristics | This study emphasizes that the capability of managing partnerships through building operational, coordinative, and communicative routines improve inter-organizational learning outcomes for cleaner production. |
[129] | CS | 17 | Stakeholder theory, strategic issue management | Qual. | Inter-organizational learning process, catalyst, environmental conditions, partnership characteristics, outcomes | This study evaluates how NGOs and companies engage in dialogue which holds the potential for employees to learn from their NGO partners/stakeholders and create environmental and social value for their companies. The study finds that such engagements are often organized around issues that are perceived risky, and that for the engagement between organizations to create value for the company, the company has to consider the learning from the NGO as strategic and prioritize it as such. |
[271] | CS | 2, 17 | Transformative change, social learning | Qual. | Partnership characteristics, inter-organizational learning process, outcomes, catalyst, inhibitors | This study highlights that in transforming the agricultural system along the lines of sustainable development, it is crucial to understand different perceptions that different societal actors may hold and “identify areas of actionable consensus.” This idea of the cognitive distance between the partners can be addressed through the creation of safe experimentation and learning spaces. |
[187] | CS | 6, 17 | Social learning | Qual. | Catalyst, partnership characteristics, inter-organizational learning process, partner characteristics, catalyst | This study highlights that in a collaborative setting, learning takes place as actors exchange “motivations, cognitions and resources” and while some interactions may yield system-level outcomes, others may not. The authors highlight that the “unconstructive” collaborations led to the termination of partnerships or partnerships that did not continue after the set time frame. |
[154] | CS | 11, 17 | Social learning, sustainability-oriented innovation | Qual. | Partner characteristics, outcomes, partnership characteristics, outcomes, inter-organizational learning process, environmental conditions | This study specifically focuses on the role of local authorities in the transition towards sustainable development through networks and partnerships. Furthermore, the study highlights that local authorities may take a tutor or a teacher role in collaborative environments. |
[125] | IF | 7, 17 | Business models, sustainability-oriented innovation, inter-organizational collaboration | Qual. | Partner characteristics, partnership characteristics, inhibitors, inter-organizational learning process, environmental conditions, outcomes | This study focuses explicitly on inter-firm alliances between firms of different sizes, an incumbent energy firm and a renewable energy company. The study finds that such alliances provide a platform for the incumbent to disseminate sustainable technologies using their access to the market. Furthermore, the study highlights that there may be a competition to learn between the partners, whereby the incumbent may gain private benefits “leaving small firms with limited learning outcomes.” The study finds that intent, culture, receptivity, transparency, and complementary assets act as factors that impact the inter-organizational learning process. |
[120] | IF & CS | 17 | Sustainability-oriented alliances and partnerships (environmental only) | Review | Partner characteristics, partnership characteristics, environmental conditions, outcomes, catalyst, inhibitors | This study reviews the literature on environmental collaborations and identifies partner and partnership characteristics that generally impact inter-organizational collaborations, the environmental conditions that shape partner relationships and engagement, and the factors that facilitate and inhibit the relationships. |
[190] | IF & CS | 8, 17 | Sustainability-oriented innovation, stakeholder engagement | Review | Partner characteristics, outcomes, inter-organizational learning process, environmental conditions, partnership characteristics, catalyst | This study specifically focuses on capabilities that help firms engage with their stakeholders at different levels: “specific operational capabilities; first-order dynamic capabilities to manage the engagement (engagement management capabilities); and second-order dynamic capabilities to make use of contrasting ways of seeing the world to reframe problems, combine competencies in new ways, and co-create innovative solutions (value framing), and to learn from stakeholder engagement activities (systematized learning).” |
[4] | CS | 8, 17 | Sustainability-oriented innovation, | Qual. | Catalyst, partner characteristics, outcomes, inhibitors, environmental conditions, inter-organizational learning process | This study focuses on how businesses engage with non-profits to create environmental, social, and economic value. The authors find that actors involved going after the kind of value they aim to create in the partnership, combine resources and capabilities and empathize each other’s value differences. |
[167] | IF | 17 | Institutional theory, inter-organizational learning | Quant. | Outcomes, environmental conditions, catalyst, partnership characteristics | This study finds that firms’ engagement in CSR is difficult to imitate by other firms even when there exist conditions for mimetic pressures. The authors highlight that this is because the knowledge that is needed for substantive CSR engagement is sticky. However, the study highlights that such substantive engagement may be facilitated by the selected governance structure, culture, and capability development. |
References
- Sachs, J.D. From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. Lancet 2012, 379, 2206–2211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agarwal, N.; Gneiting, U.; Mhlanga, R. Raising the Bar: Rethinking the Role of Business in the Sustainable Development Goals; Oxfam Discussion Papers: Oxford, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Burford, G.; Hoover, E.; Velasco, I.; Janoušková, S.; Jimenez, A.; Piggot, G.; Podger, D.; Harder, M.K. Bringing the “missing pillar” into sustainable development goals: Towards intersubjective values-based indicators. Sustainability 2013, 5, 3035–3059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Watson, R.; Wilson, H.N.; Smart, P.; Macdonald, E.K. Harnessing difference: A capability-based framework for stakeholder engagement in environmental innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2018, 35, 254–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- MacDonald, A.; Clarke, A.; Huang, L.; Roseland, M.; Seitanidi, M.M. Multi-stakeholder partnerships (sdg #17) as a means of achieving sustainable communities and cities (sdg #11). In Handbook of Sustainability Science and Research; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 193–209. [Google Scholar]
- Van Tulder, R. Business & the Sustainable Development Goals: A Framework for Effective Corporate Involvement; Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Buhmann, K.; Jonsson, J.; Fisker, M. Do no harm and do more good too: Connecting the sdgs with business and human rights and political csr theory. Corp. Gov. Int. J. Bus. Soc. 2019, 19, 389–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Austin, J.; Seitanidi, M. Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses: Part i. Value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2012, 41, 726–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Austin, J.; Seitanidi, M. Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses. Part 2: Partnership processes and outcomes. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Q. 2012, 41, 929–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dzhengiz, T.; Niesten, E. Competences for environmental sustainability: A systematic review on the impact of absorptive capacity and capabilities. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 162, 881–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Klitsie, E.J.; Ansari, S.; Volberda, H.W. Maintenance of cross-sector partnerships: The role of frames in sustained collaboration. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 150, 401–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Le Ber, M.J.; Branzei, O. Value frame fusion in cross sector interactions. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 94, 163–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biermann, F.; Kanie, N.; Kim, R.E. Global governance by goal-setting: The novel approach of the un sustainable development goals. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 26, 26–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Griggs, D.; Stafford-Smith, M.; Gaffney, O.; Rockström, J.; Öhman, M.C.; Shyamsundar, P.; Steffen, W.; Glaser, G.; Kanie, N.; Noble, I. Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 2013, 495, 305–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Esquivel, V.; Sweetman, C. Gender and the sustainable development goals. Gend. Dev. 2016, 24, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akter, M.; Rahman, M.; Radicic, D. Women entrepreneurship in international trade: Bridging the gap by bringing feminist theories into entrepreneurship and internationalization theories. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- UN. Goal 17: Revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development. Available online: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/globalpartnerships/ (accessed on 30 January 2020).
- Sachs, J.D.; Schmidt-Traub, G.; Mazzucato, M.; Messner, D.; Nakicenovic, N.; Rockström, J. Six transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Nat. Sustain. 2019, 2, 805–814. [Google Scholar]
- Horan, D. A new approach to partnerships for sdg transformations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Howard-Grenville, J.; Davis, G.F.; Dyllick, T.; Miller, C.C.; Thau, S.; Tsui, A.S. Sustainable development for a better world: Contributions of leadership, management, and organizations. Acad. Manag. Discov. 2019, 5, 355–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ike, M.; Donovan, J.D.; Topple, C.; Masli, E.K. The process of selecting and prioritising corporate sustainability issues: Insights for achieving the sustainable development goals. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 236, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Zanten, J.A.; Van Tulder, R. Multinational enterprises and the sustainable development goals: An institutional approach to corporate engagement. J. Int. Bus. Policy 2018, 1, 208–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waddock, S. Building successful social partnerships. Mit Sloan Manag. Rev. 1998, 29, 17. [Google Scholar]
- Waddock, S. A typology of social partnership organizations. Adm. Soc. 1991, 22, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stafford, E.R.; Polonsky, M.J.; Hartman, C.L. Environmental ngo-business collaboration and strategic bridging: A case analysis of the greenpeace-foron alliance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2000, 9, 122–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartmann, C.; Hofman, P.S.; Stafford, E.R. Partnerships: A path to sustainability. Bus. Strategy Environ. 1999, 8, 255–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hartman, C.L.; Stafford, E.R. Green alliances: Building new business with environmental groups. Long Range Plan. 1997, 30, 184–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crane, A. Exploring green alliances. J. Mark. Manag. 1998, 14, 559–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gutiérrez, R.; Márquez, P.; Reficco, E. Configuration and development of alliance portfolios: A comparison of same-sector and cross-sector partnerships. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 135, 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schmutzler, J.; Gutiérrez, R.; Reficco, E.; Marquez, P. Evolution of an alliance portfolio to develop and inclusive business. In Social Partnerships and Responsible Business; Seitanidi, M., Crane, A., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Park, S.H.; Chen, R.R.; Gallagher, S. Firm resources as moderators of the relationship between market growth and strategic alliances in semiconductor start-ups. Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45, 527–545. [Google Scholar]
- Gulati, R. Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Adm. Sci. Q. 1995, 40, 619–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Borys, B.; Jemison, D.B. Hybrid arrangements as strategic alliances: Theoretical issues in organizational combinations. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 234–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hennart, J.-F. A transaction costs theory of equity joint ventures. Strateg. Manag. J. 1988, 9, 361–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, H.-J. The complementary effects of transaction cost economics and resource-based view: A technological alliance perspective. Int. J. Bus. Excell. 2017, 13, 355–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eisenhardt, K.; Schoonhoven, C.B. Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organ. Sci. 1996, 7, 136–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grant, R.M.; Baden-Fuller, C. A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. J. Manag. Stud. 2004, 41, 61–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kale, P.; Singh, H. Building firm capabilities through learning: The role of the alliance learning process in alliance capability and firm-level alliance success. Strateg. Manag. J. 2007, 28, 981–1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lin, C.; Wu, Y.-J.; Chang, C.; Wang, W.; Lee, C.-Y. The alliance innovation performance of r&d alliances—The absorptive capacity perspective. Technovation 2012, 32, 282–292. [Google Scholar]
- Dacin, M.T.; Oliver, C.; Roy, J.-P. The legitimacy of strategic alliances: An institutional perspective. Strateg. Manag. J. 2007, 28, 169–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayer, K.J.; Teece, D.J. Unpacking strategic alliances: The structure and purpose of alliance versus supplier relationships. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2008, 66, 106–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rottman, J.W. Successful knowledge transfer within offshore supplier networks: A case study exploring social capital in strategic alliances. J. Inf. Technol. 2008, 23, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bengtsson, M.; Kock, S. ”Coopetition” in business networks—To cooperate and compete simultaneously. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2000, 29, 411–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Man, A.-P.; Duysters, G. Collaboration and innovation: A review of the effects of mergers, acquisitions and alliances on innovation. Technovation 2005, 25, 1377–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kogut, B. Joint Ventures: Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: London, UK, 1988; Volume 9, pp. 319–332. [Google Scholar]
- Googins, B.K.; Rochlin, S.A. Creating the partnership society: Understanding the rhetoric and reality of cross-sectoral partnerships. Bus. Soc. Rev. 2000, 105, 127–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rivera-Santos, M.; Rufin, C.; Kolk, A. Bridging the institutional divide: Partnerships in subsistence markets. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 1721–1727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Clarke, A.; MacDonald, A. Outcomes to partners in multi-stakeholder cross-sector partnerships: A resource-based view. Bus. Soc. 2019, 58, 298–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dentoni, D.; Bitzer, V.; Pascucci, S. Cross-sector partnerships and the co-creation of dynamic capabilities for stakeholder orientation. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 135, 35–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Vurro, C.; Dacin, M.T.; Perrini, F. Institutional antecedents of partnering for social change: How institutional logics shape cross-sector social partnerships. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 94, 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, H. Cross-sector alliances for corporate social responsibility partner heterogeneity moderates environmental strategy outcomes. J. Bus. Ethics 2012, 110, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dzhengiz, T.; Hockerts, K. From corporate sustainability to organisational sustainability. Acad. Manag. Proc. 2019, 2019, 12215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laasch, O. Beyond the purely commercial business model: Organizational value logics and the heterogeneity of sustainability business models. Long Range Plan. 2018, 51, 158–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Laasch, O.; Pinkse, J. Explaining the leopards’ spots: Responsibility-embedding in business model artefacts across spaces of institutional complexity. Long Range Plan. 2019, 101891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radoynovska, N.; Ocasio, W.; Laasch, O. The emerging logic of responsible management: Institutional pluralism, leadership and strategizing. In The Research Handbook of Responsible Management; Edward Elgar: Chelthenham, UK, 2019; Volume Cheltenham. [Google Scholar]
- Saz-Carranza, A.; Longo, F. Managing competing institutional logics in public–private joint ventures. Public Manag. Rev. 2012, 14, 331–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmadsimab, A.; Chowdhury, I. Managing tensions and divergent institutional logics in firm–npo partnerships. J. Bus. Ethics 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nicholls, A.; Huybrechts, B. Sustaining inter-organizational relationships across institutional logics and power asymmetries: The case of fair trade. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 135, 699–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reast, J.; Lindgreen, A.; Vanhamme, J.; Maon, F. The manchester super casino: Experience and learning in a cross-sector social partnership. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 94, 197–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akgün, A.E.; Lynn, G.S.; Byrne, J.C. Organizational learning: A socio-cognitive framework. Hum. Relat. 2003, 56, 839–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Argote, L.; Miron-Spektor, E. Organizational learning: From experience to knowledge. Organ. Sci. 2011, 22, 1123–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crossan, M.M.; Berdrow, I. Organizational learning and strategic renewal. Strateg. Manag. J. 2003, 24, 1087–1105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crossan, M.M.; Lane, H.W.; White, R.E. An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1999, 24, 522–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dodgson, M. Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organ. Stud. 1993, 14, 375–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edmondson, A.; Moingeon, B. From organizational learning to the learning organization. Manag. Learn. 1998, 29, 5–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fiol, C.M.; Lyles, M.A. Organizational learning. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1985, 10, 803–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lam, A. Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: An integrated framework. Organ. Stud. 2000, 21, 487–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- March, J.G. Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ. Sci. 1991, 2, 71–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spender, J.C. Organizational knowledge, learning and memory: Three concepts in search of a theory. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 1996, 9, 63–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cohen, W.; Levinthal, D. Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm. Sci. Q. 1990, 35, 128–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahra, S.A.; George, G. Absorptive capacity a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2002, 27, 185–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kashan, A.J.; Mohannak, K. Integrating the content and process of capability development: Lessons from theoretical and methodological developments. J. Manag. Organ. 2017, 25, 748–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van den Bosch, F.; Volberda, H.W.; de Boer, M. Coevolution of firm absorptive capacity and knowledge environment organizational forms and combinative capabilities. Organ. Sci. 1999, 10, 551–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- van Wijk, R.; Jansen, J.J.P.; Lyles, M.A. Inter- and intra-organizational knowledge transfer: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and consequences. J. Manag. Stud. 2008, 45, 830–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halme, M. Learning for sustainable development in tourism networks. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2001, 10, 100–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamel, G. Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international strategic alliances. Strateg. Manag. J. 1991, 12, 83–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ho, M.H.-W.; Wang, F. Unpacking knowledge transfer and learning paradoxes in international strategic alliances: Contextual differences matter. Int. Bus. Rev. 2015, 24, 287–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Easterby-Smith, M.; Lyles, M.A.; Tsang, E.W.K. Inter-organizational knowledge transfer: Current themes and future prospects. J. Manag. Stud. 2008, 45, 677–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inkpen, A.C. Learning and knowledge acquisition through international strategic alliances. Acad. Manag. Exec. 1998, 12, 69–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, P.Y.T.; Scott, J.L. An investigation of barriers to knowledge transfer. J. Knowl. Manag. 2005, 9, 75–90. [Google Scholar]
- Larsson, R.; Bengtsson, L.; Henriksson, K.; Sparks, J. The interorganizational learning dilemma: Collective knowledge development in strategic alliances. Organ. Sci. 1998, 9, 285–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lui, S.S. The roles of competence trust, formal contract, and time horizon in interorganizational learning. Organ. Stud. 2009, 30, 333–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inkpen, A.C.; Tsang, E.W.K. Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2005, 30, 146–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Barroso-Méndez, M.J.; Galera-Casquet, C.; Valero-Amaro, V.; Nevado-Gil, M.T. Antecedents of relationship learning in business-non-profit organization collaboration agreements. Sustainability 2019, 12, 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nooteboom, B. Cognitive distance in and between cop’s and firms: Where do exploitation and exploration take place, and how are they connected? SSRN Electron. J. 2006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nooteboom, B. A Cognitive Theory of the Firm: Learning, Governance and Dynamic Capabilities; Edward Elgar: Cheltenham, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Nooteboom, B.; Van Haverbeke, W.; Duysters, G.; Gilsing, V.; van den Oord, A. Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity. Res. Policy 2007, 36, 1016–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Knoben, J.; Gilsing, V.A.; Krijkamp, A.R. From homophily through embeddedness to strategy: The role of network accuracy in partner selection choices. Long Range Plan. 2019, 52, 86–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flatten, T.C.; Engelen, A.; Zahra, S.A.; Brettel, M. A measure of absorptive capacity: Scale development and validation. Eur. Manag. J. 2011, 29, 98–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lane, P.J.; Lubatkin, M. Relative absorptive capacity and interorganizational learning. Strateg. Manag. J. 1998, 19, 461–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Love, P.E.D.; Teo, P.; Davidson, M.; Cumming, S.; Morrison, J. Building absorptive capacity in an alliance: Process improvement through lessons learned. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2016, 34, 1123–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schulze, A.; Brojerdi, G.; von Krogh, G. Those who know, do. Those who understand, teach. Disseminative capability and knowledge transfer in the automotive industry. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2014, 31, 79–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minbaeva, D.; Park, C.; Vertinsky, I.; Cho, Y.S. Disseminative capacity and knowledge acquisition from foreign partners in international joint ventures. J. World Bus. 2018, 53, 712–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lavie, D.; Kang, J.; Rosenkopf, L. Balance within and across domains: The performance implications of exploration and exploitation in alliances. Organ. Sci. 2011, 22, 1517–1538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lavie, D.; Rosenkopf, L. Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Acad. Manag. J. 2006, 49, 797–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rothaermel, F.T.; Deeds, D.L. Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strateg. Manag. J. 2004, 25, 201–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yamakawa, Y.; Yang, H.; Lin, Z. Exploration versus exploitation in alliance portfolio: Performance implications of organizational, strategic, and environmental fit. Res. Policy 2011, 40, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Argyris, C. Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Adm. Sci. Q. 1976, 21, 363–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Levinthal, D.A.; March, J.G. The myopia of learning. Strateg. Manag. J. 1993, 14, 95–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Argyris, C. On Organizational Learning; Blackwell: Malden, MA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Nooteboom, B. Learning by interaction: Absorptive capacity, cognitive distance and governance. J. Manag. Gov. 2000, 4, 69–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winter, S.G. Understanding dynamic capabilities. Strateg. Manag. J. 2003, 24, 991–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sun, P.Y.T.; Anderson, M.H. An examination of the relationship between absorptive capacity and organizational learning, and a proposed integration. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2008, 12, 130–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vera, D.; Crossan, M.M.; Apaydin, M. A framework for integrating organizational learning, knowledge, capabilities, and absorptive capacity. In Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge Management; John Wiley and Sons Chichester: Chichester, UK, 2011; Volume 2, pp. 153–180. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplan, S.; Murray, F. Entrepreneurship and the construction of value in biotechnology. Res. Sociol. Organ. 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Romme, A.G.L.; Van Witteloostuijn, A. Circular organizing and triple loop learning. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 1999, 12, 439–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ameli, P.; Kayes, D.C. Triple-loop learning in a cross-sector partnership. Learn. Organ. 2011, 18, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.; Rajagopalan, N. Alliance capabilities: Review and research agenda. J. Manag. 2015, 41, 236–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kohtamäki, M.; Rabetino, R.; Möller, K. Alliance capabilities: A systematic review and future research directions. Ind. Mark. Manag. 2018, 68, 188–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heimeriks, K.H. Confident or competent? How to avoid superstitious learning in alliance portfolios. Long Range Plan. 2010, 43, 57–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fink, A. Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper; Sage Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- PRISMA. Prisma 2009 Checklist. Available online: http://www.prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA%202009%20checklist.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2020).
- Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D. Prisma group: Methods of systematic reviews and meta-analysis: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The prisma statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2009, 62, 1006–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bramer, W.M.; Rethlefsen, M.L.; Kleijnen, J.; Franco, O.H. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: A prospective exploratory study. Syst. Rev. 2017, 6, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Booth, A.; Sutton, A.; Papaioannou, D. Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review; Sage Publications Limited: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Tranfield, D.; Denyer, D.; Smart, P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 2003, 14, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montiel, I. Corporate social responsibility and corporate sustainability: Separate pasts, common futures. Organ. Environ. 2008, 21, 245–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wassmer, U. Alliance portfolios: A review and research agenda. J. Manag. 2008, 36, 141–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wassmer, U.; Pain, G.; Paquin, R.L. Taking environmental partnerships seriously. Bus. Horiz. 2017, 60, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wassmer, U.; Paquin, R.; Sharma, S. The engagement of firms in environmental collaborations. Bus. Soc. 2012, 53, 754–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.J.; Shong-lee Ivan Su, D.; Wu, Y.J.; Wu, T. Moderating effect of environmental supply chain collaboration. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2015, 45, 959–978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheng, J.H.; Yeh, C.H.; Tu, C.W. Trust and knowledge sharing in green supply chains. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2008, 13, 283–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reuter, C.; Foerstl, K.; Hartmann, E.; Blome, C. Sustainable global supplier management: The role of dynamic capabilities in achieving competitive advantage. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2010, 46, 45–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Touboulic, A.; Walker, H. Love me, love me not: A nuanced view on collaboration in sustainable supply chains. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2015, 21, 178–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wadin, J.L.; Ahlgren, K.; Bengtsson, L. Joint business model innovation for sustainable transformation of industries—A large multinational utility in alliance with a small solar energy company. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 160, 139–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stadtler, L.; Probst, G. How broker organizations can facilitate public-private partnerships for development. Eur. Manag. J. 2012, 30, 32–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, H. Government–business partnerships for radical eco-innovation. Bus. Soc. 2016, 58, 533–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, G.; Bansal, P. Partners for good: How business and ngos engage the commercial-social paradox. Organ. Stud. 2017, 38, 341–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Huijstee, M.; Glasbergen, P. The practice of stakeholder dialogue between multinationals and ngos. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2008, 15, 298–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Freeth, R.; Caniglia, G. Learning to collaborate while collaborating: Advancing interdisciplinary sustainability research. Sustain. Sci. 2019, 15, 247–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayala-Orozco, B.; Rosell, J.; Merçon, J.; Bueno, I.; Alatorre-Frenk, G.; Langle-Flores, A.; Lobato, A. Challenges and strategies in place-based multi-stakeholder collaboration for sustainability: Learning from experiences in the global south. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Heikkinen, A. Business climate change engagement: Stakeholder collaboration in multi-stakeholder networks. In Stakeholder Engagement: Clinical Research Cases; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2017; pp. 231–253. [Google Scholar]
- Sakarya, S.; Bodur, M.; Yildirim-Öktem, Ö.; Selekler-Göksen, N. Social alliances: Business and social enterprise collaboration for social transformation. J. Bus. Res. 2012, 65, 1710–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Domenico, M.; Tracey, P.; Haugh, H. The dialectic of social exchange: Theorizing corporate—Social enterprise collaboration. Organ. Stud. 2009, 30, 887–907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dangelico, R.M.; Pontrandolfo, P. Being ‘green and competitive’: The impact of environmental actions and collaborations on firm performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2015, 24, 413–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dangelico, R.M.; Pontrandolfo, P.; Pujari, D. Developing sustainable new products in the textile and upholstered furniture industries: Role of external integrative capabilities. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2013, 30, 642–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garst, J.; Blok, V.; Branzei, O.; Jansen, L.; Omta, O.S.W.F. Toward a value-sensitive absorptive capacity framework: Navigating intervalue and intravalue conflicts to answer the societal call for health. Bus. Soc. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ingenbleek, P.; Dentoni, D. Learning from stakeholder pressure and embeddedness: The roles of absorptive capacity in the corporate social responsibility of dutch agribusinesses. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aboelmaged, M.; Hashem, G. Absorptive capacity and green innovation adoption in smes: The mediating effects of sustainable organisational capabilities. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 853–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Marchi, V.; Schiuma, G.; Grandinetti, R. Knowledge strategies for environmental innovations: The case of italian manufacturing firms. J. Knowl. Manag. 2013, 17, 569–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pace, L.A. How do tourism firms innovate for sustainable energy consumption? A capabilities perspective on the adoption of energy efficiency in tourism accommodation establishments. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 111, 409–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delmas, M.; Hoffmann, V.H.; Kuss, M. Under the tip of the iceberg: Absorptive capacity, environmental strategy, and competitive advantage. Bus. Soc. 2011, 50, 116–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pinkse, J.; Kuss, M.; Hoffmann, V.H. On the implementation of a global environmental strategy: The role of absorptive capacity. Int. Bus. Rev. 2010, 19, 160–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seitanidi, M.M.; Crane, A. Implementing csr through partnerships: Understanding the selection, design and institutionalisation of nonprofit-business partnerships. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 85, 413–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arya, B.; Salk, J.E. Cross-sector alliance learning and effectiveness of voluntary codes of corporate social responsibility. Bus. Ethics Q. 2006, 16, 211–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bae, H.-S.; Grant, D.B. Investigating effects of organisational culture and learning on environmental collaboration and performance of korean exporting firms. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 2018, 21, 614–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albino, V.; Dangelico, R.M.; Pontrandolfo, P. Do inter-organizational collaborations enhance a firm’s environmental performance? A study of the largest u.S. Companies. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 37, 304–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, H. Strategic alliances for environmental improvements. Bus. Soc. 2012, 51, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mu, J.; Tang, F.; MacLachlan, D.L. Absorptive and disseminative capacity: Knowledge transfer in intra-organization networks. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 31–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, F.; Mu, J.; MacLachlan, D.L. Disseminative capacity, organizational structure and knowledge transfer. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 1586–1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albareda, L.; Waddock, S. Networked csr governance: A whole network approach to meta-governance. Bus. Soc. 2016, 57, 636–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bradbury-Huang, H.; Lichtenstein, B.; Carroll, J.S.; Senge, P.M. Relational space and learning experiments: The heart of sustainability collaborations. In Research in Organizational Change and Development; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2010; pp. 109–148. [Google Scholar]
- Lebel, L.; Anderies, J.M.; Campbell, B.; Folke, C.; Harthfield-Dodds, S. Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. In Earth Science Faculty Scholarship; The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine: Orono, ME, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- von Malmborg, F. Stimulating learning and innovation in networks for regional sustainable development: The role of local authorities. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 1730–1741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamann, R. Corporate social responsibility, partnerships, and institutional change: The case of mining companies in south africa. Nat. Resour. Forum 2004, 28, 278–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilbert, D.U.; Behnam, M. Trust and the united nations global compact. Bus. Soc. 2012, 52, 135–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blome, C.; Helen Walker, P.S.S.P.; Paulraj, A.; Schuetz, K. Supply chain collaboration and sustainability: A profile deviation analysis. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2014, 34, 639–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Armitage, D.; Marschke, M.; Plummer, R. Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2008, 18, 86–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Degato, D.D.; Carlos, B.V. Innovation capacity evaluation framework for sustainable value chains. J. Innov. Sustain. 2017, 8, 16–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gillett, A.; Loader, K.; Doherty, B.; Scott, J.M. An examination of tensions in a hybrid collaboration: A longitudinal study of an empty homes project. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 157, 949–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, Y.; Esangbedo, M.; Bai, S. Adaptability of inter-organizational information systems based on organizational identity: Some factors of partnership for the goals. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ashman, D. Civil society collaboration with business: Bringing empowerment back in. World Dev. 2001, 29, 1097–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Neutzling, D.M.; Land, A.; Seuring, S.; Nascimento, L.F.M.d. Linking sustainability-oriented innovation to supply chain relationship integration. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3448–3458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, H.; Darnall, N. Strategic alliance formation and structural configuration. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 127, 549–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryan, A.; Millar, C.; Kajzer Mitchell, I.; Daskou, S. An interaction and networks approach to developing sustainable organizations. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2012, 25, 578–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shou, Y.; Che, W.; Dai, J.; Jia, F. Inter-organizational fit and environmental innovation in supply chains. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2018, 38, 1683–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zou, H.; Xie, X.; Meng, X.; Yang, M. The diffusion of corporate social responsibility through social network ties: From the perspective of strategic imitation. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 186–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Suchman, M.C. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 571–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Partidario, M.R.; Sheate, W.R. Knowledge brokerage-potential for increased capacities and shared power in impact assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2013, 39, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dimaggio, P.J.; Powell, W.W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 48, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ashraf, N.; Ahmadsimab, A.; Pinkse, J. From animosity to affinity: The interplay of competing logics and interdependence in cross-sector partnerships. J. Manag. Stud. 2017, 54, 793–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Manring, S.L. Creating and managing interorganizational learning networks to achieve sustainable ecosystem management. Organ. Environ. 2016, 20, 325–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bönte, W.; Dienes, C. Environmental innovations and strategies for the development of new production technologies: Empirical evidence from europe. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2013, 22, 501–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jakobsen, S.; Lauvås, T.A.; Steinmo, M. Collaborative dynamics in environmental r&d alliances. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 212, 950–959. [Google Scholar]
- Buysse, K.; Verbeke, A. Proactive environmental strategies: A stakeholder management perspective. Strateg. Manag. J. 2003, 24, 453–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacDonald, A.; Clarke, A.; Huang, L. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainability: Designing decision-making processes for partnership capacity. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 160, 409–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dlouhá, J.; Barton, A.; Janoušková, S.; Dlouhý, J. Social learning indicators in sustainability-oriented regional learning networks. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 49, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nahapiet, J.; Ghoshal, S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 242–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olsen, A.Ø.; Sofka, W.; Grimpe, C. Solving environmental problems: Knowledge and coordination in collaborative search. Long Range Plan. 2017, 50, 726–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Parida, V.; Burström, T.; Visnjic, I.; Wincent, J. Orchestrating industrial ecosystem in circular economy: A two-stage transformation model for large manufacturing companies. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 101, 715–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leising, E.; Quist, J.; Bocken, N. Circular economy in the building sector: Three cases and a collaboration tool. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 176, 976–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayre, M.L.; Wallis, P.J.; Daniell, K.A. Learning from collaborative research on sustainably managing fresh water: Implications for ethical research—Practice engagement. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Addy, N.; Dubé, L. Addressing complex societal problems: Enabling multiple dimensions of proximity to sustain partnerships for collective impact in quebec. Sustainability 2018, 10, 980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sol, J.; Beers, P.J.; Wals, A.E.J. Social learning in regional innovation networks: Trust, commitment and reframing as emergent properties of interaction. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 49, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seitanidi, M.M.; Ryan, A. A critical review of forms of corporate community involvement: From philanthropy to partnerships. Int. J. Nonprofit Volunt. Sect. Mark. 2007, 12, 247–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meschi, P.X.; Norheim-Hansen, A. Partner-diversity effects on alliance termination in the early stage of green alliance formation: Empirical evidence from carbon-emission reduction projects in latin america. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2019, 29, 250–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vinke-de Kruijf, J.; Bressers, H.; Augustijn, D.C.M. How social learning influences further collaboration: Experiences from an international collaborative water project. Ecol. Soc. 2014, 19, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Norheim-Hansen, A. Are ‘green brides’ more attractive? An empirical examination of how prospective partners’ environmental reputation affects the trust-based mechanism in alliance formation. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 132, 813–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ashraf, N.; Pinkse, J.; Ahmadsimab, A.; Ul-Haq, S.; Badar, K. Divide and rule: The effects of diversity and network structure on a firm’s sustainability performance. Long Range Plan. 2019, 52, 101880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, R.; Wilson, H.N.; Macdonald, E.K. Business-nonprofit engagement in sustainability-oriented innovation: What works for whom and why? J. Bus. Res. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roome, N.; Wijen, F. Stakeholder power and organizational learning in corporate environmental management. Organ. Stud. 2005, 27, 235–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Albort-Morant, G.; Leal-Rodríguez, A.L.; De Marchi, V. Absorptive capacity and relationship learning mechanisms as complementary drivers of green innovation performance. J. Knowl. Manag. 2018, 22, 432–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quist, J.; Tukker, A. Knowledge collaboration and learning for sustainable innovation and consumption: Introduction to the erscp portion of this special volume. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 48, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaw, A.; Kristjanson, P. A catalyst toward sustainability? Exploring social learning and social differentiation approaches with the agricultural poor. Sustainability 2014, 6, 2685–2717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Boronat-Navarro, M.; García-Joerger, A. Ambidexterity, alliances and environmental management system adoption in spanish hotels. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oelze, N.; Hoejmose, S.U.; Habisch, A.; Millington, A. Sustainable development in supply chain management: The role of organizational learning for policy implementation. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2016, 25, 241–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meinlschmidt, J.; Foerstl, K.; Kirchoff, J.F. The role of absorptive and desorptive capacity (acdc) in sustainable supply management. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2016, 46, 177–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hofmann, K.H.; Theyel, G.; Wood, C.H. Identifying firm capabilities as drivers of environmental management and sustainability practices-evidence from small and medium-sized manufacturers. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2012, 21, 530–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gluch, P.; Johansson, K.; Räisänen, C. Knowledge sharing and learning across community boundaries in an arena for energy efficient buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 48, 232–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lintukangas, K.; Kähkönen, A.-K.; Hallikas, J. The role of supply management innovativeness and supplier orientation in firms’ sustainability performance. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2019, 25, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van de Wetering, R.; Mikalef, P.; Helms, R. Driving organizational sustainability-oriented innovation capabilities: A complex adaptive systems perspective. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2017, 28, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gray, B. Strong opposition: Frame-based resistance to collaboration. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 14, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dzhengiz, T. The relationship of organisational value frames with the configuration of alliance portfolios: Cases from electricity utilities in great britain. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Paulraj, A. Understanding the relationships between internal resources and capabilities, sustainable supply management and organizational sustainability. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2011, 47, 19–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hong, J.; Zheng, R.; Deng, H.; Zhou, Y. Green supply chain collaborative innovation, absorptive capacity and innovation performance: Evidence from china. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 241, 118377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riikkinen, R.; Kauppi, K.; Salmi, A. Learning sustainability? Absorptive capacities as drivers of sustainability in mncs’ purchasing. Int. Bus. Rev. 2017, 26, 1075–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanzo, M.; Álvarez, L.; Rey, M. Lights and shadows of business-nonprofit partnerships: The role of nonprofit learning and empowerment in this ethical puzzle. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Selsky, J.W.; Parker, B. Platforms for cross-sector social partnerships: Prospective sensemaking devices for social benefit. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 94, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cezarino, L.O.; Alves, M.F.R.; Caldana, A.C.F.; Liboni, L.B. Dynamic capabilities for sustainability: Revealing the systemic key factors. Syst. Pract. Action Res. 2018, 32, 93–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pinkse, J.; Kolk, A. Addressing the climate change—Sustainable development nexus. Bus. Soc. 2011, 51, 176–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kolk, A.; Lenfant, F. Multinationals, csr and partnerships in central african conflict countries. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2013, 20, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jarzabkowski, P.; Lê, J.K.; Van de Ven, A.H. Responding to competing strategic demands: How organizing, belonging, and performing paradoxes coevolve. Strateg. Organ. 2013, 11, 245–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Leonard-Barton, D. Core capabilities and core rigidities: A paradox in managing new product development. Strateg. Manag. J. 1992, 13, 111–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, M.W. Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2000, 25, 760–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lindgreen, A.; Maon, F. Editorial: Organization and management paradoxes. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2019, 21, 139–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poole, M.S.; Van de Ven, A.H. Using paradox to build management and organization theories. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 562–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schad, J.; Lewis, M.W.; Raisch, S.; Smith, W.K. Paradox research in management science: Looking back to move forward. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2016, 10, 5–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uzzi, B. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Adm. Sci. Q. 1997, 42, 35–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dzhengiz, T. Organisational Value Frames and Sustainable Alliance Portfolios: Bridging between the Theories; Corporate Responsibility Research Conference (CRRC): Tampere, Finland, 2019; p. 67. [Google Scholar]
- Rivera-Santos, M.; Rufín, C. Odd couples: Understanding the governance of firm–ngo alliances. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 94, 55–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vazquez-Brust, D.; Piao, R.S.; de Melo, M.F.d.S.; Yaryd, R.T.; de Carvalho, M.M. The governance of collaboration for sustainable development: Exploring the “black box”. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Florini, A.; Pauli, M. Collaborative governance for the sustainable development goals. Asia Pac. Policy Stud. 2018, 5, 583–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Spitzeck, H. Organizational moral learning: What, if anything, do corporations learn from ngo critique? J. Bus. Ethics 2009, 88, 157–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Das, T. Strategic alliance temporalities and partner opportunism. Br. J. Manag. 2006, 17, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Das, T.; Rahman, N. Determinants of partner opportunism in strategic alliances: A conceptual framework. J. Bus. Psychol. 2010, 25, 55–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ping Ho, S.; Levitt, R.; Tsui, C.-W.; Hsu, Y. Opportunism-focused transaction cost analysis of public-private partnerships. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 04015007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henard, D.H.; McFadyen, M.A. R&d knowledge is power. Res. Technol. Manag. 2006, 49, 41–47. [Google Scholar]
- Lawrence, T.B.; Mauws, M.K.; Dyck, B.; Kleysen, R.F. The politics of organizational learning: Integrating power into the 4i framework. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2005, 30, 180–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Marabelli, M.; Newell, S. Knowing, power and materiality: A critical review and reconceptualization of absorptive capacity. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 2014, 16, 479–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tosey, P.; Visser, M.; Saunders, M.N. The origins and conceptualizations of ‘triple-loop’learning: A critical review. Manag. Learn. 2012, 43, 291–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lane, P.J.; Koka, B.R.; Pathak, S. The reification of absorptive capacity: A critical review and rejuvenatinon of the construct. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2006, 31, 833–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lavie, D. Alliance portfolios and firm performance: A study of value creation and appropriation in the U.S. Software industry. Strateg. Manag. J. 2007, 28, 1187–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baranova, P.; Meadows, M. Engaging with environmental stakeholders: Routes to building environmental capabilities in the context of the low carbon economy. J. Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. 2016, 26, 112–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Husted, B.W.; Sousa-Filho, J.M.d. The impact of sustainability governance, country stakeholder orientation, and country risk on environmental, social, and governance performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 155, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koza, M.P.; Lewin, A.Y. Managing partnerships and strategic alliances: Raising the odds of success. Eur. Manag. J. 2000, 18, 146–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorange, P.; Roos, J.; Bronn, S. Building successful strategic alliances. Long Range Plan. 1992, 25, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Russo, M.; Cesarani, M. Strategic alliance success factors: A literature review on alliance lifecycle. Int. J. Bus. Adm. 2017, 8, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- GRI; UN Global Compact. Integrating the SDGs into Corporate Reporting: A Practical Guide; GRI: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Rosati, F.; Faria, L.G.D. Addressing the SDGs in sustainability reports: The relationship with institutional factors. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 1312–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosati, F.; Faria, L.G.D. Business contribution to the sustainable development agenda: Organizational factors related to early adoption of sdg reporting. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019, 26, 588–597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Geels, F. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 2002, 31, 1257–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Geels, F.W. Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Res. Policy 2010, 39, 495–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goyal, N.; Howlett, M. Who learns what in sustainability transitions? Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2019, 34, 311–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Poeck, K.; Östman, L.; Block, T. Opening up the black box of learning-by-doing in sustainability transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2018, 34, 298–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldieri, L.; Kotsemir, M.; Vinci, C.P. The role of environmental innovation through the technological proximity in the implementation of the sustainable development. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2020, 29, 493–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brömer, J.; Brandenburg, M.; Gold, S. Transforming chemical supply chains toward sustainability—A practice-based view. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 236, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarke, A.; Fuller, M. Collaborative strategic management: Strategy formulation and implementation by multi-organizational cross-sector social partnerships. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 94, 85–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Da Giau, A.; Foss, N.J.; Furlan, A.; Vinelli, A. Sustainable development and dynamic capabilities in the fashion industry: A multi-case study. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Kraker, J.; Cörvers, R.; Valkering, P.; Hermans, M.; Rikers, J. Learning for sustainable regional development: Towards learning networks 2.0? J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 49, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delgado-Ceballos, J.; Aragón-Correa, J.A.; Ortiz-de-Mandojana, N.; Rueda-Manzanares, A. The effect of internal barriers on the connection between stakeholder integration and proactive environmental strategies. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 107, 281–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hájek, P.; Stejskal, J. R&d cooperation and knowledge spillover effects for sustainable business innovation in the chemical industry. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1064. [Google Scholar]
- Hau, Y. Smes’ external technology r&d cooperation network diversity and their greenhouse gas emission reduction and energy saving: A moderated mediation analysis. Sustainability 2018, 11, 115. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, M.P. Knowledge acquisition and development in sustainability-oriented small and medium-sized enterprises: Exploring the practices, capabilities and cooperation. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 3769–3781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, K.A.; Dana, G.; Jordan, N.R.; Draeger, K.J.; Kapuscinski, A.; Schmitt Olabisi, L.K.; Reich, P.B. Using participatory scenarios to stimulate social learning for collaborative sustainable development. Ecol. Soc. 2012, 17, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kristensen, H.S.; Remmen, A. A framework for sustainable value propositions in product-service systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 223, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lisi, W.; Zhu, R.; Yuan, C. Embracing green innovation via green supply chain learning: The moderating role of green technology turbulence. Sustain. Dev. 2019, 28, 155–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopes, C.M.; Scavarda, A.; Hofmeister, L.F.; Thomé, A.M.T.; Vaccaro, G.L.R. An analysis of the interplay between organizational sustainability, knowledge management, and open innovation. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 142, 476–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luqmani, A.; Leach, M.; Jesson, D. Factors behind sustainable business innovation: The case of a global carpet manufacturing company. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2017, 24, 94–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lyra, M.G.; Gomes, R.C.; Pinto, M.M. Knowledge sharing relevance in social responsibility partnerships. J. Manag. Dev. 2017, 36, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marcus, A.; Geffen, D. The dialectics of competency acquisition: Pollution prevention in electric generation. Strateg. Manag. J. 1998, 19, 1145–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordqvist, S.; Frishammar, J. Knowledge types to progress the development of sustainable technologies: A case study of swedish demonstration plants. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 2018, 15, 75–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Oerlemans, N.; Assouline, G. Enhancing farmers’ networking strategies for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 2004, 12, 469–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roome, N.; Louche, C. Strategic process of change: A multiple network game—The rohner textil case. In Sustaining Innovation; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin, Germany, 2012; pp. 95–113. [Google Scholar]
- Roy, M.-J.; Thérin, F. Knowledge acquisition and environmental commitment in smes. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2008, 15, 249–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rueda-Manzanares, A.; Aragón-Correa, J.A.; Sharma, S. The influence of stakeholders on the environmental strategy of service firms: The moderating effects of complexity, uncertainty and munificence. Br. J. Manag. 2008, 19, 185–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Senge, P.M.; Lichtenstein, B.B.; Kaeufer, K.; Bradbury, H.; Carroll, J.S. Collaborating for systemic change. Mit Sloan Manag. Rev. 2007, 48, 44–53. [Google Scholar]
- Stadtler, L. Tightrope walking: Navigating competition in multi-company cross-sector social partnerships. J. Bus. Ethics 2017, 148, 329–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Todorow, L. Understanding multi-stakeholder dialogues: The emerging concept of community of practice. Bus. Peace Sustain. Dev. 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Touboulic, A.; Walker, H. A relational, transformative and engaged approach to sustainable supply chain management: The potential of action research. Hum. Relat. 2015, 69, 301–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Hoof, B.; Thiell, M. Collaboration capacity for sustainable supply chain management: Small and medium-sized enterprises in mexico. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 67, 239–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Zwanenberg, P.; Cremaschi, A.; Obaya, M.; Marin, A.; Lowenstein, V. Seeking unconventional alliances and bridging innovations in spaces for transformative change: The seed sector and agricultural sustainability in argentina. Ecol. Soc. 2018, 23, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Concepts | Definition |
---|---|
Exploitation vs. Exploration | “Exploration includes things captured by terms such as search, variation, risk-taking, experimentation, play, flexibility, discovery, innovation. Exploitation includes such things as refinement, choice, production, efficiency, selection, implementation, execution” [68]. In other words, exploration is “the pursuit of new knowledge, of things that might come to be known”, exploitation is “the use and development of things already known” [99]. |
Single-loop vs. Double-loop | While single-loop learning occurs “whenever an error is detected and corrected without questioning or altering the underlying values of the system”, double-loop learning occurs “when mismatches are corrected by first examining and altering the governing variables and then the actions” [100]. |
Lower-level learning vs. Higher-level learning | “Lower-level learning occurs within a given organizational structure; a given set of rules. It leads to the development of some rudimentary associations of behavior and outcomes, but these usually are of short duration and impact only part of what the organization does. It is a result of repetition and routine and involves association building.” “Higher-level learning, on the other hand, aims at adjusting overall rules and norms rather than specific activities or behaviors. The associations that result from higher-level learning have long-term effects and impacts on the organization as a whole. This type of learning occurs through the use of heuristics, skill development, and insights. It, therefore, is a more cognitive process than lower-level learning, which often is the result of repetitive behavior” [66]. |
Stages | Result |
---|---|
Search in the Web of Science | 5688 articles |
Inclusion Criteria | 1655 articles |
Exclusion Criteria | 75 articles |
Snowballing | 47 articles |
Total | 122 articles |
© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Dzhengiz, T. A Literature Review of Inter-Organizational Sustainability Learning. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4876. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124876
Dzhengiz T. A Literature Review of Inter-Organizational Sustainability Learning. Sustainability. 2020; 12(12):4876. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124876
Chicago/Turabian StyleDzhengiz, Tulin. 2020. "A Literature Review of Inter-Organizational Sustainability Learning" Sustainability 12, no. 12: 4876. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124876
APA StyleDzhengiz, T. (2020). A Literature Review of Inter-Organizational Sustainability Learning. Sustainability, 12(12), 4876. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12124876