The Metaphysics of Collaboration: Identity, Unity and Difference in Cross-sector Partnerships for Sustainable Development

Philosophy of Management

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 53-74

  Blok, Vincent ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Collective Identity; Common Ground; Essential Quality; Frame Fusion; Wicked Problem

Indexed keywords

EID: 85058407222     PISSN: 17403812     EISSN: 20529597     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5840/pom201413211     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Accenture, A New Era of Sustainability: UN Global Compact-Accenture CEO Study 2010
2. M. Porter, ‘Strategy and Society. The Link between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility’, Harvard Business Review 84, No. 12, 2006, pp.78–92
3. G. Málovics, N.N. Csigéné and S. Kraus, ‘The role of corporate social responsibility in strong sustainability’, The Journal of Socio-Economics 37, 2006, pp.907–918
4. L. Hens and B. Nath, ‘The Johannesburg Conference’, Environment, Development and Sustainability 5, 2003, pp.7–39
5. G. Eweje, ‘Strategic partnerships between MNEs and civil society: the post-WSSD perspectives’, Sustainable Development 15, No. 1, 2007, pp.15–27
6. M.M. van Huijstee, M. Francken and P. Leroy, ‘Partnerships for sustainable development: a review of current literature’, Environmental Sciences 4, No. 2, 2007, p.75
7. J.M. Bryson, B.C. Crosby and M. Middleton Stone, ‘The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the literature’, Public Management Review, 2006, pp.44–55; J.W. Selsky and B. Parker, ‘Cross-Sector Partnerships to Address Social Issues: Challenges to Theory and Practice’, Journal of Management 31, No. 6, 2005, pp.849–73
8. Van Huijstee et al., op. cit
9. Bryson et al., op. cit., p.44
10. Ibid
11. H.W.J. Rittel and M.M. Webber, ‘Dilemmas in a general theory of planning’, Policy Sciences 4, 1973, pp.155–169
12. World Commision on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford UP, 1987
13. C. Peterson, ‘Transformational supply chains and the “wicked problem” of sustainability: Aligning knowledge, innovation, entrepreneurship, and leadership’, Journal of Chain and Network Science 9(2), 2009, pp.71–82
14. M.W. Kreuter, C. de Rosa, E.H. Howze and G.T. Baldwin, ‘Understanding wicked problems: A key to advancing environmental health promotion’, Health, Education and Behavior 31, 2004, pp.441–454
15. S.S. Batie, ‘Wicked problems and applied economics’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 5, 2008, pp.1,176–91; cf. Rittel and Webber, op. cit
16. M. Yaziji and J. Doh, NGOs and Corporations: Conflict and Collaboration, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2009
17. G.R. Milne, E.S. Iyer and S. Gooding-Williams, ‘Environmental organization alliance relationships within and across non-profit, business, and government sectors’, Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 15, No. 2, 1996, pp.203–215
18. E. Iyer, ‘Theory of alliances: Partnership and partner characteristics’, Journal of Non-profit and Public Sector Marketing 11, No. 1, 2003, pp.41–57
19. Yaziji and Doh, op. cit., pp.76–79
20. S.L. Brickson, ‘Organizational Identity Orientation: The Genesis of the Role of the Firm and Distinct Forms of Social Value’, Academy of Management Review 32, 2007, pp.864–888
21. A.M. Reed and D. Reed ‘Partnership for Development: Four Models of Business Involvement’, Journal of Business Ethics 90, 2009, pp.3–37
22. M.J. le Ber and O. Branzei, ‘Value Frame Fusion in Cross Sector Interactions’, Journal of Business Ethics 94, 2010, pp.163–195
23. cf. D. Croteau and L. Hicks, ‘Coalition Framing and the Challenge of a Consonant Frame Pyramid: The Case of a Collaborative Response to Homelessness’, Social Problems 50, 2003, pp.251–272; cf. B. Nowell, ‘Out of sync and unaware? Exploring the effects of problem frame alignment and discordance in community collaboratives’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20, No. 1, 2010, pp.91–116
24. Le Ber and Branzei, op. cit
25. C. Hardy, T.B. Lawrence and D. Grant, ‘Discourse and Collaboration: The Role of Conversations and Collective Identity’, Academy of Management Review 30, No. 1, 2005, pp.58–77
26. Bryson et al., op. cit., p.46; cf. Van Huijstee et al., op. cit
27. B. Gray, ‘Cross-Sectoral Partners: Collaborative Alliances among Business, Government, and Communities’ in C. Huxham (ed.), Creating Collaborative Advantage, pp.57–79, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1989; F. Westley and H. Vredenburg, ‘Interorganizational collaboration and the preservation of global biodiversity’, Organization Science 8, No. 4, 1997, pp.381–403; Selsky and Parker, op. cit
28. J.M. Logsdon, ‘Interests and Interdependence in the Formation of Social Problem-Solving Collaborations’, Journal of Applied Behavioural Science 27, No. 1, 1991, pp.23–37; cf. Bryson et al., op. cit
29. Selsky and Parker, op. cit
30. M.M. Seitanidi and A. Crane, ‘Implementing CSR through Partnerships: Understanding the Selection, Design and Institutionalisation of Nonprofit-Business Partnerships’, Journal of Business Ethics 85, 2009, pp.413–429
31. Cf. Van Huijstee et al., op. cit
32. J. Bos, V. Blok and R. van Tulder, ‘From confrontation to partnership: The role of a Dutch Non-Governmental Organisation in co-creating a market to address the issue of animal welfare’, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review 16, No. A, 2013, pp.69–75; cf. Van Huijstee et al., op. cit
33. Cf. Nowell, op. cit
34. Cf. Bryson et al., op. cit.; cf
35. C. Huxham and S. Vangen, Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage, New York : Routledge, 2005
36. Seitanidi and Crane, op. cit., p.422
37. Cf. Global Environmental Management Initiative (GEMI) and Environmental Defense Fund, Guide to Successful Corporate-NGO Partnerships, 2008
38. H. Noonan, ‘Identity’ in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2011
39. Aristotle, Metaphysics (trans H. Tredennick), Cambridge/London: Harvard UP, 1933–1989, 1028b35
40. S.M. Cohen, ‘Aristotle’s Metaphysics’ in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2012
41. E. Levinas, Totality and Infinity, Pittsburgh: Duquesne UP, 1969, p.43
42. Levinas, op. cit., pp.45–46
43. Cf. J. Derrida, Margins of Philosophy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982
44. Levinas, op. cit., p.45
45. Ibid., p.44
46. Ibid
47. Ibid., p.24
48. Hardy et al., op. cit., pp.62–63
49. Cf. Hardy, op. cit. — Although the case study of Seitanidi and Crane does not speak in terms of a collective identity, their partnership selection criteria correspond in general with the generalised partnership ties — a mutual interest like sustainable development, for instance — and the particularised membership ties; previous experience in working with CSPs, covering similar geographical areas etc
50. This double origin of the identity of the partnership corresponds with the double — onto-theo-logical — origin of the philosophical question of being (cf. M. Heidegger, ‚Der Satz der Identität‘, Identität und Differenz, Gesamtausgabe Band 11 Frankfurt a.M., Vittorio Klostermann, 2006, pp.37–38). The further elaboration of this connection is beyond the scope of this article
51. Le Ber and Branzei, op. cit., p.169
52. In their article, Le Ber and Branzei speak in terms of frames. Frames are ways in which specific phenomena — problems, ideas, issues etc. — are understood and ‘framed’ by various individuals and/or organisations. With regard to the question of this article, we will avoid the terms ‘frame’ and ‘framing’ and refer to the way problems and objectives are understood by various partners
53. Cf. Bos et al., op. cit
54. Cf. Le Ber and Branzei, op. cit
55. Ibid., p.182
56. Ibid., p.177
57. There is also a more subtle form of reduction at stake in the process of value frame fusion. The ability to see the other’s point of view and to embrace the other’s viewpoint presupposes already that I abandon the fundamental — unbridgeable — differences between myself and the other in order to be able to grasp and comprehend him or her
58. Le Ber and Branzei, op. cit
59. Cf. Bryson et al., op. cit
60. A negative consequence of such a situation can be found in the legitimacy loss of the weaker partner or the blurring of responsibility within the CSP (cf. Van Huijstee et al., op. cit.)
61. Cf. Bryson et al., op. cit
62. Hardy et al., op. cit.; B. Gray and T.M. Hay, ‘Political limits to interorganisational consensus and change’,Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 22, 1986, pp.95–112
63. Although Bryson and colleagues acknowledge the risk of conflict within the partnership due to differing aims and expectations, differing strategies and different attempts to control the collaboration, they see no principal obstacle to developing a common problem definition and shared objectives. Because conflict is common in partnerships, they argue for the use of “resources and tactics to equalize power and manage conflicts effectively” (Bryson et al., op. cit., p.48). We do not argue against the possibility of managing conflicts but question whether this ideal of the unity of the partnership can ever be guaranteed by power equalisation and conflict management in the case of wicked problems like sustainable development. Le Ber and Branzei seem to ignore this risk of conflict within partnerships completely. The frame elasticity presupposes the willingness of the partners to challenge their own conception of the problem and its solution, and to embrace their partners’ understanding of the problem “without push and pull” (Le Ber and Branzei, op. cit.). We do not argue against the possibility of embracing the other in CSPs, but raise the question of whether the different (conflicting) judgments and values of multiple stakeholders could also prevent such openness towards other partners
64. H.W. Chesbrough, Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology, Harvard: Harvard Business School Press, 2003; for an example of competitive advantage based on interorganisational collaborations between for-profit companies, see: E.F.M. Wubben, N.A. Runge and V. Blok, ‘From Waste to Profit: an interorganisational perspective on drivers for biomass valorization’, Journal on Chain and Network Science 12, No. 3, 2012, pp.261–72
65. Hardy et al., op. cit., p.68
66. It’s for this reason that ‘mutual interests’ is an important criterion for partner selection (cf. Seitanidi and Crane, op. cit., p.418)
67. Hardy et al., op. cit
68. According to Günter Figal, the function of a hermeneutic-phenomenological destruction of metaphysical concepts is exactly that it enables us to question the applicability of metaphysical concepts in new contexts (G. Figal, ‘Hermeneutics as Phenomenology’, Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 40, No. 3, 2009, pp.255–262)
69. Cf. M. Lim, ‘The ethics of alterity and the teaching of otherness’, Business Ethics: A European Review 16, No. 3, 2007, pp.251–63
70. Levinas, op. cit
71. For a philosophical reflection on such a non-metaphysical concept of partnership with the other, see V. Blok, ‘Communication or Confrontation: Heidegger and philosophical Method’ (Empedocles 1, 2009, pp.43–57) and — in the context of business and economics — V. Blok, ‘The Power of Speech Acts: Reflections on a Performative Concept of Ethical Oaths in Economics and Business’ (Review of Social Economy 71, No. 2, 2013, pp.187–208)