The Partnership Box

The notion of ‘partnerships’ can be seen as a process in which partners commit to long-term, structural interaction based on a shared analysis that every actor suffers from a number of failures, consequently a shared vision of sustainability and a shared ambition that all partners should play a role in its achievement. The underlying idea of partnerships is that by generating additional knowledge and resources, results can be achieved that benefit all parties and which they could not have achieved on an individual basis. Collaborative advantage is achieved if the following equation is reached: 1+1+1=4. The widely-held expectation is that (cross-sector) partnerships provide both organizational benefits to their member organizations and create synergy to achieve effective outcomes for society. Partnerships, thus, have three basic dimensions: analysis, vision, ambition. Together they can be portrayed as a Partnership Box, consisting of eight possible building blocks

The Collaborative Paradigm

Mainstream development and sustainability thinking in the past sixty years has largely gone through four phases. In the past sixty years thinking about (sustainable) development has been prone to some intense intellectual and practical turmoil. Especially in the first forty years, thereby, markets and firms were seen rather as part of the development problem than as part of its solution. Since the start of the 21st century however, awareness has grown that the complexity of the worlds sustainability and development problems, asks for joint approaches. Markets and firms, governments and NGOs, as well as firms and NGOs should work together to address those wicked problems

Partnering Skills - The need for an integrated approach

These are challenging times, surrounded by considerable uncertainti es. Issues are complex, interests are high and often conflicting, no convenient paradigms or ideologies exist anymore to guide the actions of people. Solutions to societal problems have to be developed and implemented in collaborati on with other actors. There is need for a partnering society. Effectively operating in the “partnering space” presents four challenges for integrati ve skill development: relevance, reliability, timeliness and sharing

From Platform to Partnership

Increasingly multi-stakeholder processes are being used in response to complex, „tough‟ or „wicked‟ problems such as responding to climate change, hunger or poverty. This development is also denominated as „engaging stakeholders for change‟ (The Broker, blog January 2011). But there is considerable confusion of terms on what „engaging‟ actually means, let alone that there is clarity on the preconditions under which this engagement can be effective in actually bringing about change. The Partnerships Resource Centre (PrC) focuses on (cross sector) stakeholder partnerships as arguably the most sophisticated way to address wicked problems. But not all multi-stakeholder processes can and should be qualified as partnerships, even when actors denominate their cooperation as a partnership. Not every „dialogue‟ deserves that term, whilst combining partnerships‟ and „dialogues‟ leads to considerable confusion. In practice there is considerable confusion even over basic terminology, which is detrimental to the potential of multi-stakeholder processes to actually address complex problems. Any study on partnerships will thus have to solve a number of terminological problems in order to be relevant. This paper elaborates two dimensions: it argues that the ultimate organizational format (Platform or Partnership) and the actual techniques chosen (normal or strategic stakeholder dialogue) need to be crystal clear. Depending on the nature of the actual problem addressed by the multi-stakeholder process, a partnership or a platform can be equally effective – as long as all participants use the same words, have shared goals and consequently have their expectations aligned. The organization fits the problem

Leadership in times of crisis

The economic crisis shows remarkable parallels to a personal crisis in its characteristics and consequences. If that is the case, does this imply that solutions should also run parallel? For sure, such crises provide corporate leaders with many new demands

CSR business models and change trajectories in the retail industry; A Dynamic Benchmark Exercise (1995-2007)

Sustainability or Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is an important societal issue that also gains momentum in the food retail industry. Companies apply different strategies towards sustainability and can alter these over time. This report presents the findings of RSM research on (changes in) business models of CSR strategies within three leading Dutch food retailers as well as three leading European food retailers. The research reveals the level of internal and external alignment as important factors to understand the design and the development of the companies' CSR business model

Exploring Patterns of Upstream Internationalization: The Role of Home-region ‘Stickiness’

Recent work has emphasized the importance of regional strategies downstream, adding new depth to the debate on ‘globalization’. This paper adds to the debate by exploring the regional dimension upstream for a sample of Triad-based Fortune 500 firms. We find support for our hypothesis that MNEs with higher levels of value-added upstream are relatively constrained in their ability to shift that activity outside the home region due to its strategic significance to home-region stakeholders

Macro Intentions, Micro Realities

The current understanding of Regional Integration is largely macro-economic and political in orientation and has tended to neglect, even ex post, the significance of the Single European Market (SEM) for the spatial restructuring of individual firms. The problem stems largely from a lopsided understanding of Regional Integration. This paper introduces a two-level approach in which integration and its outcomes are studied based on the strategic intent and strategic realities of two types of key actors: governments and core companies. In this contribution it is argued that in advocating the SEM, these actors did not necessarily share the same strategic intent. A new firm-level data set shows also that the expectations of European policymakers did not accurately match actual strategies developed by European core companies