Cross-Sector Social Partnership Framework

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Delimitations

Because of constraints in terms of time, space and resources, this thesis has various delimitations. For instance, having more time, this study could have covered a more extensive empirical study to gain an enhanced comprehension of the subject. Also, this thesis investigates the multinational corporations (MNCs) of CC, which are the five largest corporations within the CSSP, which equals delimitating investigations to corporations operating in the Jönköping region, and that the outcomes may not be applicable on organizations of all shapes and sizes. Furthermore, the study is conducted through a descriptive point of view, and therefore solely investigates how the five MNCs operate and contribute to CC, and not how successful their work is. This is due to the hardship of defining and measuring success. Moreover, 21 CABs operate in Sweden and have the same task and responsibility of coordinating climate collaborations between regional actors. However, because of practical constraints and the uniqueness of CC, this thesis focuses on the specific case of CC which is an imitative of CAB of Jönköping. Finally, being aware of that CSSP is a multidisciplinary scientific field, this study has a business administration perspective.

Delimitations

Cross-Sector Social Partnership Framework

About a decade ago, Bryson et al. (2006) conducted research on current cross-sector social partnership theories, which was part of an initial phase of what was going to be a rapid growth and recognition of the topic, within both theory and practice (Bryson et al., 2015). The article has been highly cited by other scholars, and to update their own framework with the latest research, in 2015 the researchers again investigated scholars theoretical- and empirical findings. By reviewing the CSSP literature from the previous decade, and combining it with the 2006 findings, the authors presented a new and refined CSSP framework. To create the framework, the authors reviewed 196 articles and three books published between 2007 and 2015, which included keywords with a focus on cross-sector collaboration and partnership. The objective of the framework is to help public managers, as well as integrative leaders from any sector, to design an efficient and successful CSSP. The CSSP framework (Figure 1) consists of seven major categories which in the sections below are described in consecutive order, starting with general antecedent conditions, and ending with accountabilities and outcomes (Bryson et al., 2015). In the figure, the two grey boxes at the top represent priorand early conditions of the CSSP, whereas the grey box at the bottom describes its outcomes. The white boxes in between stand for the CSSP’s processes and structures, as well as its inherent conflicts between actors. The dashed lines highlight that three boxes’ contents are connected, and the arrows throughout the framework explain the interactions between different theories collected by Bryson et al. (2015).

READ Efficient Inventory Management Goals

General Antecedent Conditions

The first part of the CSSP framework concerns antecedent conditions, which is referred to the institutional settings and why actors are focusing on public issues such as mitigating climate change. Studies highlight the importance of understanding institutional settings in cross-sector social partnerships, as they are complex systems with connections between actors from different sectors. Various types of CSSPs are discussed, where some are mandated for the actors and others are voluntary. In some cases, CSSPs are the result of the current political environment or public managers that seek public funds. Furthermore, regarding why addressing public issues through CSSP, public managers’, policy makers’, and actors, have recognized governments’ hardship of acting alone. Through collaboration over sectors, non-governmental actors can provide experience, technology, and a relevant network to the CSSP. This limits the risk on individual organizations and might improve the chance of reaching efficient solutions (Bryson et al., 2015).

Collaborative Processes

According to Bryson et al. (2015), the collaborative processes unite organizations and makes it possible for actors to establish comprehensive structures, a shared vision, and to handle power imbalances. Structures make it possible to ease governance of the cross-sector social partnership and implement partners’ agreements. Trust, is one of the main components of the collaborative process and is often described as the core of CSSPs. Within a CSSP, trust is built by sharing resources such as information and competences as well as showing commitment and good intentions. It is also something which needs to be constantly maintained. The authors also highlight the importance of communication between CSSP actors, and that negotiations and constructions are vital for its existence. Hence, it is communication which makes the rise and survival of CSSP possible. Another important component of the collaborative processes is legitimacy, and in a CSSP, it refers to the degree of engagement of actors. For example, if all voices are heard in decision-making situations, if there is a mutual understanding among the actors, and if there is an acknowledgement of interdependence.

Table of Contents :

1. Introduction
- 1.1 Background
  - 1.1.1 Cross-Sector Social Partnership
  - 1.1.2 Climate Council of Jönköping
  - 1.1.3 Problem
- 1.2 Purpose
- 1.3 Delimitations
- 1.4 Definitions
2. Literature Review
- 2.1 Sustainability
- 2.2 Partnership
- 2.3 Cross-Sector Social Partnership
- 2.4 Cross-Sector Social Partnership Framework
  - 2.4.1 General Antecedent Conditions
  - 2.4.2 Initial Conditions, Drivers and Linking Mechanisms
  - 2.4.3 Collaborative Processes
  - 2.4.4 Collaboration Structures
  - 2.4.5 Intersections of Processes and Structure
  - 2.4.6 Endemic Conflicts and Tensions
  - 2.4.7 Accountabilities and Outcomes
- 2.5 Sustainability Goals
  - 2.5.1 The United Nations
  - 2.5.2 The Government of Sweden
  - 2.5.3 County Administrative Board of Jönköping
  - 2.5.4 Climate Council of Jönköping
  - 2.5.5 The Multinational Corporations of the Climate Council of Jönköping
  - 3. Methodology & Method
- 3.1 Methodology
  - 3.1.1 Research Purpose
  - 3.1.2 Research Philosophy
  - 3.1.3 Research Approach
  - 3.1.4 Research Strategy
- 3.2 Method
  - 3.2.1 Secondary Data
  - 3.2.2 Primary Data
  - 3.2.3 Observation Criteria
  - 3.2.4 Interview Design
  - 3.2.5 Data Analysis

4. Empirical Results
- 4.1 Observational Research and Interviews
  - 4.1.1 Actors’ Involvement at Meetings of Climate Council of Jönköping
  - 4.1.2 The Multinational Corporations’ Contributions to the Climate Council of Jönköping
  - 4.1.3 General Antecedent Conditions and Triple Bottom Line
  - 4.1.4 Initial Conditions, Drivers and Linking Mechanisms
  - 4.1.5 Collaborative Processes
  - 4.1.6 Collaborative Structures
  - 4.1.7 Intersections of Processes and Structure
  - 4.1.8 Endemic Conflicts and Tensions
  - 4.1.9 Accountabilities and Outcomes
5. Analysis
- 5.1 Research Question
  - 5.1.1 General Antecedent Conditions and Triple Bottom Line
  - 5.1.2 Initial Conditions, Drivers and Linking Mechanisms
  - 5.1.3 Collaborative Processes
  - 5.1.4 Collaborative Structures
  - 5.1.5 Intersections of Processes and Structure
  - 5.1.6 Endemic Conflicts and Tensions
  - 5.1.7 Accountabilities and Outcomes
6. Conclusion
7. Discussion
- 7.1 Method Discussion
- 7.1.1 Limitations
- 7.2 Theoretical and Empirical Contributions
- 7.3 Implications
- 7.4 Further Research
- References