Zoekresultaten

Collaborating with competitors ... 5 tips to managing competition in multi-stakeholder collaborations

Shifting cognitive frames through collective action to address grand challenges: A case study of a multi-stakeholder initiative in the apparel industry

Inter-organizational arrangements that aim to address social and environmental “grand challenges” often take the form of multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) (also cross-sector partnerships or collaborations). Grand challenges -- problems characterized by knowledge uncertainty, dynamic complexity and value conflict -- require diverse organizations to join forces to resolve them. MSIs are complex and dynamic arrangements due to the constant change occurring in the external environment and in the dynamics of the collaboration, as each participating organization may have very different frames of reference and interests that impede action and continuity. Scholars have long recognized the tensions of conflicting logics that are inherent in MSIs and the challenges that MSIs face in reconciling incongruent organizational identities, goals or shared visions. Accordingly, MSIs need facilitators (i.e., ‘orchestrators’) to navigate the persistent and pervasive challenges of both reconciling conflicting logics and using complementary logics in such a way that the collaboration achieves collective goals. Our study examines how MSI orchestrators work to meet this challenge by shaping and shifting cognitive frames in the context of a mature organizational field. We investigate the mechanisms used to enable cognitive shifts in logic and highlight the role of orchestration in enacting frame shifts. Empirically, we examine an MSI in the apparel industry that aims to guide retailers and fashion brands in the implementation of recommerce and rental business models, thereby pushing the textile and apparel industry from linear to regenerative and circular use of textile resources. We identify several frames from the perspective of diverse stakeholders and uncover the four mechanisms that orchestrators use to influence frame shifts. We also see from our findings that orchestrators efforts to influence and navigate frame shifting is both emergent and planned as they attempt to navigate and manage the tensions and complexity that arise in multi-stakeholder initiatives focused on sustainability challenges.

Tensions in Work Integration Social Enterprises in The Netherlands: balancing social and commercial goals in a multi-stakeholder context

PurposeSocial enterprises have proven to play a vital role in the transitions towards inclusive labour markets and sustainable economies. Yet, they often struggle to flourish within traditional economic systems due to the dual mission of pursuing social and commercial goals, leading to inherent tensions for social entrepreneurs. This study aims to explore tensions within Work Integration Social Enterprises (WISEs) arising from their dual mission and engagement withmultiple stakeholders.MethodologyInterviews with representatives from 10 Dutch WISEs were conducted to understand their day-to-day challenges. The typology by Smith and Lewis (2011), focusing on learning, belonging, organising, and performing tensions, was used for data analysis. FindingsThe study reveals tensions between social impact and commercial viability, withorganizational challenges being predominant. Also, there's an observed temporal pattern in tension prominence: early stages emphasize belonging, organising, and performing tensions, while learning tensions become more prominent as enterprises mature. OriginalityThis study offers insights into tensions within WISEs, highlighting the complexity of managing multiple identities in a multi-stakeholder context. By drawing on practical experiences, it contributes nuanced understanding to existing literature.

Challenges in Building Robust Interventions in Contexts of Poverty

We examine the demise of a multi-stakeholder network that was launched to promote an inclusive dairy market in Ethiopia to better understand why nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) may develop interventions in contexts of poverty that fail to endure after they exit. We identify organizational reflexivity – the capacity to recognize and understand the recursive interplay between an intervention and the local environment – as a key explanatory mechanism for this intervention outcome. Limited reflexivity not only prevented the NGO we studied from properly aligning the intervention with the context (design failures), but also prevented the organization from adjusting its intervention when negative feedback emerged (orchestration failures), which eventually evolved into the demise of the network (maintenance failure). While our study confirms the theoretical premise that NGOs need to contextualize their interventions, we expand current knowledge by highlighting the role of organizational reflexivity in this process. Moreover, by showing how reflexivity deficits can trigger a cascade of failure, especially when intervening in voids where incumbent firms have interests in maintaining the void, our study calls attention to the politicized nature of institutional voids.

Resource Orchestration and Opportunity Beliefs in Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives for Sustainability

Our world is increasingly faced with wicked environmental sustainability challenges, requiring entrepreneurs to work in multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) to address these challenges. Network orchestration is essential for these MSIs to realize their sustainability goals and make an impact. The concept of opportunity beliefs is central in understanding the actions taken by these entrepreneurs. However, the current theorization of opportunity beliefs formation is individual-centric. Furthermore, there is little understanding of how orchestration influences the opportunity beliefs formation in multi-stakeholder teams. We build on the framework of McMullen and Shepherd (2016), who presented a two-stage model of how third-person opportunity beliefs transform into first-person opportunity beliefs. We advance two contributions by using a single case study and applying the Gioia method to code and analyze the data. First is a two-stage model consisting of the formation of joint first-person opportunity beliefs that suggests that value-aligning and informing resource orchestration activities are essential in this process. Second, we advance the idea that the resource orchestration activities have both enabling and adversely constraining effects impairing the formation of joint first-person opportunity beliefs under conditions of organizational pressure.

International multi-stakeholder consensus statement on clinical trial integrity

Objective: To prepare a set of statements for randomised clinical trials (RCT) integrity through an international multi-stakeholder consensus. Methods: The consensus was developed via: multi-country multidisciplinary stakeholder group composition and engagement; evidence synthesis of 55 systematic reviews concerning RCT integrity; anonymised two-round modified Delphi survey with consensus threshold based on the average percentage of majority opinions; and, a final consensus development meeting. Prospective registrations: (https://osf.io/bhncy, https://osf.io/3ursn). Results: There were 30 stakeholders representing 15 countries from five continents including triallists, ethicists, methodologists, statisticians, consumer representatives, industry representatives, systematic reviewers, funding body panel members, regulatory experts, authors, journal editors, peer-reviewers and advisors for resolving integrity concerns. Delphi survey response rate was 86.7% (26/30 stakeholders). There were 111 statements (73 stakeholder-provided, 46 systematic review-generated, 8 supported by both) in the initial long list, with eight additional statements provided during the consensus rounds. Through consensus the final set consolidated 81 statements (49 stakeholder-provided, 41 systematic review-generated, 9 supported by both). The entire RCT life cycle was covered by the set of statements including general aspects (n = 6), design and approval (n = 11), conduct and monitoring (n = 19), reporting of protocols and findings (n = 20), post-publication concerns (n = 12), and future research and development (n = 13). Conclusion: Implementation of this multi-stakeholder consensus statement is expected to enhance RCT integrity.