WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY

From organizational structuring to

learning The role of authority and communication in translating individual

competencies to the organizational stakeholder –learning capability in

multi-stakeholder engagements

By Wouter Jager 23-8-2016

Faculty: Social Science

Major: Management, Economics and Consumer studies

Thesis specialization: Management Studies

City: Wageningen

Coordinators: Domenico Dentoni (1st), Valentina Materia (2nd)

Student number: 910209387100

Acknowledgements

I am pleased to present you this research as my MSc thesis for my master studies of Management and

Economics. It has been a period of intense work and learning on not only the topic of research, but also my

personal development of conducting research and writing. I can assure this development was not possible

without the help of great, supporting people around me that I would like to thank in this acknowledgement.

Upon explaining my fields and topics of interest in the initial phase of my research, Onna Omta and my fellow

students proposed me to get in contact with Domenico Dentoni. These students assured me he would be a

good fit as supervisor considering my research style and personality. I have to say I could not agree more.

Though it took many meetings, feedback (sessions) and brainstorming, Domenico was able to continuously

provide me with the guidance needed. Starting with proposing a research topic, he guided me to the research

process and the potential corresponding challenges. By sharing his experience both in the subject field as well

as researcher, I was able to learn and revise my work in an informal, open way. As we found in this research,

informal communication can facilitate learning in dynamic environments which I can only agree upon. I would

like to thanks Domenico for his patience, open communication on his opinions, sincere feedback and effort to

guide me to the final stage of my master: Many thanks Domenico!

Despite the request to be a second supervisor came the final phase of the research, Valentina Materia knew to

assist me a lot in both writing and elaboration of my research. Her insights shed light on aspects that needed a

“fresh” opinion. Many thanks for your flexibility and elaborated fruitful comments on my work Valentina.

There are several others close to me that supported my development in the research. First of all I would like to

thank Charlotte Walther for her (mental) support and advice on the research methodology used in this

research. I would like to thank my dear friend Tjen van den Berg for her strong mental support and the fruitful

breaks we had to recharge for working on our thesis. Of course I could not have done the work without the

loving support of my girlfriend, parents and sister who supported me in my perseverance to work hard and

keep improving the thesis. They gave me the necessary pushes to work hard.

As you can see, I had the fortunate many strongly supported my perseverance, content of the research and

personal development. I would very much like to thanks all of them for contributing for the thesis that lies in

front of you.

Wouter Jager

Abstract

Researchers have recently hypothesized that a set of individual competencies influences four organizational

capabilities necessary for partnering in multi-stakeholder engagements (MSEs) for sustainability, namely

sensing, interacting, learning and changing based on stakeholders. Yet, the role of other organizational

elements on the translation from individual competencies to these capabilities is still unexplored. A separate

strand of earlier research, though, indicates that organizational characteristics related to communication,

responsibilities and authority to have effect on performance. This research aims to start integrating the gap

between these two literature strands by assessing which organizational structures facilitate the translation of

individual competencies to one of the capabilities for MSEs, namely stakeholder learning. By means of an

inductive research approach, this research collected empirical data from a multi-national stakeholder with

semi-structured interviews on the role of authority and communication in translating individual competencies

to stakeholder learning, and on potential translation barriers. Through this empirical observation, the following

several (key) factors emerged as facilitating this translation. The use of a combination of both formal and

informal communication lines, as well as communication face to face facilitates clear communication.

Furthermore, misalignment in e.g. commitment between management and representatives should be

prevented, for which a combination of bottom-up and multi-level reporting can assist. The translation can

benefit from committed management that enables representatives to: communicate what, which and to

whoever representatives find necessary; have flexibility in the choice of informal communication channels; take

necessary steps in the MSE; to externally communicate with partners. Such management should also create a

stimulating and supporting culture for active engagement in MSEs, so that representatives can translate their

competencies to the capability. These findings represent the key factors of organizational structures assisting

(change) managers to facilitate the translation of their representatives’ competencies to learning from

stakeholders. Several of them can be yet by literature, while others are new to the theory as the research

discusses. They open up important issues for discussion that will benefit from further investigation of the roles

of the structural elements authority and communication that this research proposes.

Keywords: Authority, communication, organizational structures, individual competencies, organizational

capabilities.

4

Table of contents

Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 3

List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................................ 6

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Research background .................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 Problem definition ....................................................................................................................... 10

2 Conceptual design .............................................................................................................................. 11

2.1 Research objective ...................................................................................................................... 11

2.2 Research framework ................................................................................................................... 12

2.3 Research questions...................................................................................................................... 12

2.4 Definitions ................................................................................................................................... 13

3 Theoretical framework ....................................................................................................................... 16

3.1 Individual competencies and organizational capabilities............................................................ 16

3.2 Organizational structure .............................................................................................................. 18

3.2.1 The need to structure ........................................................................................................... 18

3.2.2 Approaches to organizational structure ............................................................................... 18

3.2.3 The facilitating structure ...................................................................................................... 20

3.2.4 Structuring the organization ................................................................................................ 20

3.2.5 Structural elements .............................................................................................................. 21

3.3 Conceptual framework ................................................................................................................ 24

4 Technical research design .................................................................................................................. 26

4.1 The use of the inductive analysis approach ................................................................................ 26

4.2 Interviews .................................................................................................................................... 27

4.2.1 Case selection ....................................................................................................................... 28

4.2.2 Background on Royal FrieslandCampina .............................................................................. 28

4.2.3 Background on the FDOV program ...................................................................................... 29

4.2.4 Background on the BICEPS Network initiative ..................................................................... 29

4.2.5 Background on the Rural Horizon program.......................................................................... 30

4.2.6 The interviewees .................................................................................................................. 30

4.2.7 Interview protocol development.......................................................................................... 31

5 Results ................................................................................................................................................ 34

5.1 Data structured models ............................................................................................................... 34

5.1.1 FDOV program ...................................................................................................................... 35

5.1.2 BICEPS Network initiative ..................................................................................................... 36

5

5.1.3 Rural Horizon program ......................................................................................................... 37

5.2 Model integration ........................................................................................................................ 39

5.2.1 Communication between representatives ........................................................................... 39

5.2.2 Communication on the program to rest of the organization ............................................... 42

5.2.3 Communication on the program between the ones involved ............................................. 43

5.2.4 Decision making process ...................................................................................................... 45

6 Discussion ........................................................................................................................................... 49

Introducing literature to the empirical findings ................................................................................ 49

Implications for managers ................................................................................................................. 53

Research limitations .......................................................................................................................... 54

Future research ................................................................................................................................. 55

References ............................................................................................................................................. 57

Appendices ............................................................................................................................................ 61

Appendix I: Interview structure protocol ........................................................................................ 61

Appendix II: The interview ................................................................................................................ 67

Appendix III: The use of Atlas.ti ......................................................................................................... 69

Appendix IV: Models of empirical data ............................................................................................. 72

FDOV .............................................................................................................................................. 72

BICEPS ............................................................................................................................................ 75

Rural Horizon ................................................................................................................................. 78

Appendix V: The formulated propositions ........................................................................................ 85

6

List of abbreviations

AC: Action competence

CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility

EDI: Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity competence

SIC: Stakeholder –interaction capability

SLC: Stakeholder –learning capability

SCC: Stakeholder –based change capability

MSE: Multi-stakeholder engagement

7

1 Introduction

1.1 Research background

Organizations’ role in society of being a rather independent-minded and solely profit-desired entity

has changed during the last decades. Many organizations realize that targeting broader goals in the interest of

others in society, alongside meeting shareholders’ financial goals, will be beneficial for their performance

(Sarkis, 2001). Specifically, creating value outside the organization itself increases chances of survival, as well as

it promotes their image and license to operate (Porter & Kramer, 2006). This increasingly induces organizations

to be concerned with aspects of their operations they include in their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

policy, such as their ecological footprint. One of reasons to focus on sustainable development is the realization

that in order to survive on the long run, it has to ensure its processes are done in an economic sustainable way

in to deal with the declining availability of resources. The environment and stakeholders put pressure on

organizations as those in the agri-food sector to meet their social responsibility expectations on ethical, social

and environmental issues (Hitchcock & Willard, 2009). Many scholars identified and discussed the development

of the concept of CSR in numerous articles. Some of these scholars investigated the ways in which

organizations can integrate sustainability in a profitable way (Veldhuizen, Blok & Dentoni, 2013).

One of the most common ways to achieve sustainable development is by collaborating with external

stakeholder entities in multi-stakeholder engagements, or so-called MSEs (Batie, 2008; Hult, 2011; Dentoni,

Blok, Lans & Wesselink, 2012a; Boström & Hallström, 2013; Dentoni, Bitzer & Pascucci, 2016). Whereas many

issues can be tackled by a single organization, sustainability requires a different approach. Sustainability is

considered being a so-called “wicked problem”, referring to the complex, multi-dimensional and dynamic

nature of the issues. Such wicked problems require approaches that differ from the traditional ways of dealing

with problems and opportunities (Batie, 2008) such as by collaborating in multi-stakeholder engagements or

entities. These diverse participating stakeholder entities often include stockholders, NGO’s employees, supply

chain partners, competitors, governments and local civil societies, all from various sectors. In these MSEs they

share and combine resources, competencies, knowledge and experiences to address such wicked problems

(Boström & Hallström, 2013). Such collaborations makes it more challenging to reach agreed outcomes

(Waddock, 2012), as it is likely that when working with many diverse stakeholders some hold conflicting beliefs

and attitudes (Dentoni, Hospes & Ross, 2012b). Organizations therefore need to orientate themselves on the

potential stakeholders that can join them in MSEs (Donaldson & Preston, 1995).

Recent studies on MSEs addressing wicked problems propose that organizations must possess several

so-called dynamic capabilities for stakeholder orientation (Dentoni et al., 2016). These capabilities are

considered as crucial for achieving sustainable competitive advantage, taken into account the complexity of

collectively tackling such multi-dimensional problems that occur in rapidly changing environments (Teece,

Pisano & Shuen, 1997). Organizations need certain capabilities that enable them to effectively collaborate with

other stakeholders and to ensure sustainable development. These are the capabilities to 1) sense, 2) interact

8

with, 3) learn from other stakeholders, and respectively to 4) change as a result of the MSE (Ferrell, Gonzalez-

Padron, Hult & Maignan, 2010; Dentoni et al., 2014). Organizations must possess the ability to identify the

stakeholders that are most concerned with (the same) social and environmental issues, and need to

understand the processes, attitudes and values of these stakeholders. The organization should be able to

interact and to learn from these stakeholders, and consequently respond by the change or adaptation of their

organizational processes. This focus of this research will be on the capability to learn from stakeholders, as this

important step enables organizations to actually learn from the partnership. Though other researchers

distinguish between similar capabilities such as the sense and respond-, and execution capabilities

(Ramachandran, 2011) and often use different terminology, all researchers consent these main capabilities are

required.

These researchers agree that the organizations’ capabilities for MSEs are related to human capital and

to employees’ competencies. Competencies are often referred to as individual managerial sets of knowledge,

skills and attitudes (Nijhof et al., 2006). The human and professional skills of individuals in the organization can

collectively contribute to the team’s abilities (Ramachandran, 2011), ultimately being the source of innovation

(Dentoni & Veldhuizen, 2012). Several individual competencies were found to be related to the four dynamic

organizational capabilities that promote effective multi-stakeholder orientation for sustainable development

(Dentoni & Veldhuizen, 2012; Wesselink, Blok, van Leur, Lans & Dentoni, 2015). The five main individual

competencies most found to contribute to the development of the four organizational capabilities are the:

System Thinking, Diversity and Interdisciplinary embracing, Interpersonal, Action, and Strategic Management

competence. Other researchers additionally propose two competencies that lend the organization or business

the necessary capabilities to tackle the challenges that agri-food firms often face while building the necessary

capabilities for sustainable development: Foresighted Thinking, and Normative competencies (Dentoni et al.,

2012a). Dentoni, Hospes and Ross (2012b) advice (CSR) managers to develop the required individual

competencies for effectively engaging with multi-stakeholders, though there might be more factors impacting

the relationship between individual competencies and organizational capabilities.

Researchers gathered empirical evidence for the translation of individual competencies to

organizational capabilities for multi-stakeholder orientation on sustainability (Wesselink et al., 2015; Dentoni,

et al., 2012a). Yet, the potential promoting or moderating role that organizational structure might play on this

translation has not been investigated. The (organizational) structure of both the MSEs itself and of the

individual participating stakeholders might have a determining role in the translation of the individual

competencies. One example relates to the structural elements of authority and task division. High self-

leadership or autonomy of teams is found to relate to higher team performance in teams that are engaged with

conceptual tasks (planning, deciding and negotiating of processes), compared to teams that are primarily

engaged in the execution of tasks (Stewart & Barrick, 2000). It seemed that in case these teams have either

very high or very low levels of interdependence they seem to have open communication and less conflict

between members, which is associated to higher team performance. In contrast, teams that execute

9

behavioural tasks seem to perform best when external leadership and moderate levels of interdependency are

in place. These results indicate that structural characteristics related to the elements of task division,

responsibility and authority influence team – and thereby organizational – performance (Stewart & Barrick,

2000). This research includes authority as one of the structural elements that is subject to investigation, as it

expects the stakeholder –learning capability is needed in order to successfully perform in the partnership and

thereby have higher organizational performance.

Other structural elements are found to be able to even harm the organizational performance (Probst

& Raisch, 2005). Several characteristics or elements in 40 large bankrupt companies are said to be the cause of

organizational failure and are related to organizational structure, insinuating organizational structures strongly

affect organizational performance. Among these indicators is the existence of a top-down culture and reward

practises. The researchers concluded that reward practices as fixed pay seem to result in underperformance of

employees and the organization, impeding a successful innovation culture. The sub-optimal culture also seems

to be caused by bureaucratic structures. They suggest that certain structural factors need to be in place

allowing organizations to make way for innovation, organizational performance and growth. Probst and Raisch

(2005) furthermore mention poor communication among employees as an element harming organization

performance. As the stakeholder –learning capability includes the ability to acquire, assimilate and

transforming knowledge from other stakeholders into once own processes, this research expects

communication to be essential for organizations to learn from the partnership. In particular the internal

communication within the participating organizations is therefore the second structural element subject to

investigation in this research. It can therefore be true that certain compositions and structures of members and

teams from organizations participating in MSEs affect whether or not the individual competencies can be

translated to organizational capabilities for MSEs. This research aims to address this assumed effect by

investigating the role organizational structures have on the translation of competencies to the stakeholder –

learning capability.

10

1.2 Problem definition

As the moderating role of organizational structures on the translation of individual competencies to

organizational capabilities has not been investigated, this explorative research aims to provide an initial

analysis of these structures at organizations engaging in MSEs. The organizational structures of collaboration

between the individual partner organizations in MSEs have been subject to a separate strand of previous

research. Scientists studied different forms of engagements and their purposes, such as informal - networks,

dialogues and relations -, and formal - alliances and partnerships - engagements (Nooteboom, 1999; Das,

2014). Results from other research discussed organizational structures in general (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Child,

1972; Mintzberg, 1979; Snow, Miles & Miles, 2006; Achcaoucaou, Bernardo & Castan, 2009; van Dam &

Marcus, 2012), including their effects on organizational performance (Stewart & Barrick, 2000; Miles & Miles,

2006), though not yet in the context of MSEs. The organizational structures and human processes of the

individual stakeholders are however yet to be investigated. The knowledge on - and the development of -

individual competencies will only assist organizations to deal with sustainability issues once the individual

stakeholders have the right organizational structure in place.

11

2 Conceptual design

2.1 Research objective

This research aims to address the knowledge gap by investigating the role of organizational structures

on the translation of individual competencies to organizational capabilities for MSEs on sustainability (figure 1).

In particular, the objective is to provide professionals and academics with more insights in the role that

structural elements play in enabling organizations to learn from multi-stakeholders. The deficiency of literature

on structures between the members that represent the individual organizations in MSEs demands explorative

research investigation. Information on the matter is gathered during the empirical- and literature research and

is subject to further analysis in favour of answering the main research question. These insights can assist

(change) managers in configuring facilitating structures for organizational learning, or could stimulate further

research on the enabling factors of organizational learning.

This research incorporates the following broad assumption that includes the aforementioned

relationships:

Main assumption: The organizational structure influences the translation of individual competencies to

organizational capabilities in MSEs for sustainability.

Organizational capabilities

Organizational structure

Individual competencies

Figure 1: The generic conceptual model, being the role of organizational structure on the translation of individual competencies and organizational capabilities.

12

2.2 Research framework

This chapter describes the adopted order of elaboration of the separate parts of the research. Figure 2

show the successive steps that this research takes to gather the necessary data aiming to answering the

research sub-questions and thereby main research question. An initial literature study on the competencies,

capabilities and organization structures and the structural elements of interest – being authority and

communication – provide a background for the study. Interviews with representatives at an organization

participating in a MSE are used to gain insights that are further analysed and translated into several case

specific propositions related to the main research question.

The next chapter discusses this main research question as well as the related sub research questions

this study aims to answer.

Literature study on competencies &

capabilities (Q1 & Q2)

Literature study on organizational

structure (Q1 & Q2)

Formulating broad assumptions (Q3)

Defining the structural elements

of interest

Refining the broad assumptions into case

specific propositions (Q4)

Performing empirical research

Case study selection

Design semi-structured interviews

Addressing main research question

Des

k r

esea

rch

Em

pir

ical

res

earc

hIn

tegr

atio

n

Figure 2: Research framework including the related sub questions

2.3 Research questions

This research aims to provide insights on the aforementioned problem statement. Both empirical data

and literature are gathered and subsequently analyzed to provide answer on the following main research

question:

What are the organizational structures that facilitate individual competencies to be translated to dynamic

organizational capabilities for MSEs for sustainability?

13

The main question can be split into separate sub-research questions. The investigation of the

relationships between these organizational elements requires initial consultation of literature to identify the

individual competencies, organizational capabilities for multi-stakeholder engagements, and different types of

organizational structures. The empirical part subsequently focusses on the configuration and role of several

structural elements in light of the translation of the individual competencies to organizational capabilities for

sustainability MSEs.

These separate research elements are investigated in the following chapters by adopting the following

sub-research questions:

1) What are the individual competencies, and the organizational capabilities for multi-stakeholder

engagements on sustainability?

2) What is the relationship between the individual competencies and the stakeholder –learning capability

at organizational level?

3) What are the organizational structure elements that are expected to influence the translation of the

competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability?

4) How are these organization’s structural elements in place in the empirical case study?

5) What is the role of the organizational structure elements of authority and communication on the

translation of individual competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability?

Following the next paragraph on the main definitions of terms used in this research, the theoretical

framework in chapter 3 provides insights required to answer the first, second and third research sub-question.

With the use of these insights, a conceptual framework is formulated to visualize the specific focus of the

research. The technical research design in chapter 4 elaborates on the methodology adopted to gather and

integrate data from both empirical interviews and literature research, in order to answer the fourth and fifth

research sub-question by the formulation of propositions in chapter 5, and successive additional findings in

favour of the fifth research sub-question in chapter 6. The latter chapter integrates literature findings with the

empirical results to assess whether this exploratory inductive research identified new concepts, relationships

and other insights, all answering the main research question.

2.4 Definitions

The following list includes all main definitions used throughout the research that can benefit from

further elaboration. All competences are mentioned that are found to be needed sustainable development in

MSEs, as well as the focal organizational capability of the research.

Action competence: The ability to actively involve oneself in responsible actions to

improve the sustainability (Wesselink et al., 2015).

Authority: The delegated power for decision making and exercising ascendancy

over others.

14

Communication: Information exchange by the process of using spoken or written language.

Dynamic Capabilities: “the ability to integrate, build and reconfigure internal and external

competencies to address rapidly changing environments” (Teece et al.,

1997: 516).

Embracing diversity and The ability to structure relations, recognize other viewpoints in

interdisciplinarity: decisions making processes, as well as to involve all stakeholders and

to maximize the exchange of viewpoints, ideas and learnings both

inside and outside the organization and disciplines (Wesselink et al.,

2015).

Foresight thinking The ability to use creativity, opportunity recognition to collect, competence:

evaluate and create images of the future in favour of

environmental, social and economic aspects (Wiek, Withycombe &

Redman, 2011; Wesselink et al., 2015).

Individual Competencies Individual managerial set of knowledge, skills and attitudes (Nijhof for

multi-stakeholder et al., 2006), that promote effective multi-stakeholder orientation

orientation: for sustainable development (Dentoni & Veldhuizen, 2012).

Interpersonal The ability to motivate, enable and facilitate collaborative and competence:

participatory activities and research in favour of sustainability, by

using the set of skills in communicating, collaborating, negotiating,

empathy and compassion (Wiek, Withycombe & Redman, 2011; van

Leur, 2013).

Normative competence: The ability to assess the unsustainability of social-ecological systems

based on the related values and principles. The ability helps to

ensure decisions-makers are held accountable for their decisions

made (Wiek, Withycombe & Redman, 2011; Wesselink et al., 2015).

Representative(s): The organizational member(s) that are to a certain extent involved in

the initiative/ project that are the link between the organization and

the MSE.

Stakeholder –learning The ability of acquiring, assimilating and transforming knowledge capability:

from stakeholders; establishing adaptive procedures and routines

that incorporate and codify knowledge from stakeholders into

organizational practices and processes (Dentoni et al., 2014, p. 12).

Strategic management The ability to collectively design projects and to implement

competence: interventions and strategies in favour of sustainable development.

Skills in planning, organizing, leading and inspiring, and controlling

should assist the sustainability professional to manage the

implementation of these strategies (Wiek, Withycombe & Redman,

2011; Wesselink et al., 2015).

15

Structural elements: The elements or characteristics that, together, configure the

organizational structure, and consist of e.g. hierarchy of authority,

span of control, work specialization, and communication lines.

System-thinking The ability to identify and analyse all relevant systems across competence:

different domains and their boundaries, as well as to understand and

reflect upon the interdependency of these systems (Wiek,

Withycombe & Redman, 2011; Wesselink et al., 2015).

16

3 Theoretical framework

In order to investigate organizational structures and their roles on the translation of competencies to

capabilities, several concepts need to be further investigated. The individual competencies and organizational

capabilities are therefore discussed in section 3.1, the organizational structure is investigated in section 3.2. The

demarcated structural elements of interest are discussed in paragraph 3.2.5, which are linked to the

moderating role in the translation of individual competencies to the stakeholder – learning capability, being

illustrated in the conceptual framework in section 3.3.

3.1 Individual competencies and organizational capabilities

As studies on sustainability issues proposed, organizations must possess four so-called dynamic

capabilities for stakeholder orientation (Ferrell, Gonzalez-Padron, Hult & Maignan, 2010; Dentoni et al., 2012a;

Dentoni et al., 2014). The first capability related to the first steps in collaborating with stakeholders is the

stakeholder -identifying and sensing capability. It enables the organization to identifying and understanding the

actors that share, or might be related to social and environmental concerns, and allows understanding of the

stakeholder’s values, objectives, attitudes and behaviours that can be valuable for the organization.

The successive stages relate to the remaining three capabilities that are required for effective

collaboration. The stakeholder -interaction capability (SIC) allows the organization to effectively initiate and

interact with the stakeholders to establish and strengthen ties, whereas the stakeholder –learning capability

(SLC) allows the assimilation, translation and incorporation of information and knowledge derived from the

interaction with stakeholders into the organization and its members (Dentoni et al., 2014). Dentoni et al. (2014)

adapted a more exhaustive definition of the SLC which is as follows:

“The ability of acquiring, assimilating and transforming knowledge from stakeholders; establishing

adaptive procedures and routines that incorporate and codify knowledge from stakeholders into

organizational practices and processes. (p. 12)”

The knowledge that has been transformed into the organization should subsequently be put into

practice in the organization, e.g. into its processes or culture, for which the stakeholder -based change

capability (SCC) is required. Though both the SIC, SLC and SCC seem to describe the collaboration process with

stakeholders by which knowledge can be assimilated and used for organizational change, the way Dentoni et al.

(2014) defined the SLC seem to grasps the focus of this research and will therefore be used. It focuses on the

ability to acquire, assimilate and subsequently use knowledge from stakeholders to successfully change the

organizational processes and practices of either the organization itself or of the MSE. This research particularly

focusses on this very capability of SLC, as capability focusses on the phase of the collaboration in which the

organization can benefit from the collaboration. Nevertheless, as the SIC and SCC seem to be significantly

related to the SLC and thus focus of the research, the final results of this research are likely to be of use for

investigation on the SIC and SCC as well.

17

The results from research from Dentoni (2012a) and Wesselink et al. (2015) on the competencies

contributing to the four dynamic capabilities indicated that two competencies were indirectly – via so-called

“core-activities” – found to be related to the focal SLC capability of this research. These are the Action

competence (AC) and Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity competence (EDI). Based on these results, we

expect that the translation of particularly these two competencies is most affected by the structural elements

that are subject in this research, that are discussed in section 3.2.5. As the other five competencies are to a

smaller extent found to be related to SLC as well, we include these as well, being the; System Thinking

competence (STC), Foresight Thinking competence (FTC), Normative competence (NC), Interpersonal

competence (IC), and Strategic Management competence (SMC). The resulting inclusion of all seven

competencies allows further investigation by giving an idea on the core-activities that translate the

competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability. By knowing these activities, we can predict which

structural elements might be central in order to facilitate this translation. Wesselink et al. (2015) found 19

core-activities to be of potential relation to either the competencies and/or capabilities, from which several

relate to the SLC. This research selected and includes both these activities and others that we expect to be

potentially related to SLC, which are: willingness to change; strategic decision making; operational decision

making; initiating changes; knowledge sharing and integrating; project management; dissimilating output;

creating ownership/ empowering internal change agents; and integrating approaches. The definitions of the

activities as well as their expected link with the two structural elements are further explained in chapter 3.2.5.

One of the individual competencies that are directly related to SLC is the Action competence (AC)

and seemed to be related to the activity of initiate changes. The competency can be described as the ability to

take responsibility for CSR challenges and to become engaged and proactively involved in the activities that are

aimed to promote sustainability (Osagie, Wesselink, Blok, Lans & Mulder, 2014; Wesselink et al., 2015).

Likewise, the Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity competence (EDI) can in favour of the capacity

be translated by executing the activities of integrating approaches, and knowledge sharing and integrating.

Though Wesselink et al. (2015) disregarded the core activity of disseminating output to be sufficiently related

to EDI, this research includes this competence as this activity is still – to a smaller extent – related to the

individual competencies and to the SLC.

The five remaining competencies are related to the SLC to a smaller extent. This research expects that

the executions of these are potentially affected by a certain organization structure. The reasoning is that they

are mainly related to stimulate active involvement in the MSE, as well as to decision making in favour of the

MSE. This research assumes organizational members involved in multi-stakeholder partnership request for

facilitating structures that allow them to execute these core-activities in favour of the SLC.

Based on the literature on the linkages between the core-activities, individual competencies and

organizational capabilities, this research investigates what organizational structures facilitate the translation of

the competencies. This however requires further investigation and clarification of the concept of organizational

structure.

18

3.2 Organizational structure

3.2.1 The need to structure

Many organizations have been built upon the principle that better performance could be achieved by

breaking down organization’s operations in relative small elements in an orderly fashion, clarifying the formal

rules, procedures, and command and control within the organization. For already a significant amount of time,

researchers acknowledged the importance of structuring organization’s resources and operations on

organizational performance, claiming that structures fitting or matching the organization’s environment

increases overall organizational performance (Mintzberg, 1979; Burns & Stalker, 1961; Barrick, Thurgood, Smith

& Courtright, 2014). The mismatch of structures has been identified to be related to the mal-functioning and

even bankruptcy of large companies (Probst & Raisch, 2005). It therefore seems essential to look into the

different approaches for structuring organizations in order to investigate the structures and their roles in the

translation in the setting of MSEs on sustainability.

3.2.2 Approaches to organizational structure

Practitioners and scientist have taken several approaches to the concept of organizations and their

structures. They attempted to find the best or most appropriate way to conceptualize organizational structures

that could assist organizations in choosing structures that lead to high performance. Several of these

approaches that have been developed along the way are discussed in this section.

A popular approach dominating the study of organizational design is the contingency theory, stating

there is no single best structure for organizations. This approach attempts to understand the organization by

separately analysing its elements (Meyer, Tsui & Hinings, 1993). According to this theory the optimal structure

depends on a set of situational factors or contingency variables such as the organization’s environment –

complexity and dynamics –, and internal elements – the organization’s size; complexity of operations and

technology; and characteristics of the knowledge within the organization (Mintzberg, 1979; Birkinshaw, Nobel

& Ridderstråle, 2002; Achcaoucaou et al., 2009). The contingency view on learning argues that a different way

of organizational learning can take place based on the nature of the organization, such as on aspects as

organizational culture and structure (Easterby-Smith, 1997). Formal structures, such as formal management

structures and knowledge management systems can lead to solid information sharing that can assist planning

and control. This information is often only shared via certain systems that solely include information that is

considered to be of significant importance. On the contrary, informal communication systems lead to

information and knowledge sharing with whoever is expected to benefit from it, potentially leading to learning

by many or even all organizational members (Easterby-Smith, 1997).

Other researchers perceived this contingency approach to lack the inclusion of an additional

influencing factor. Child (1972) criticises researchers on the fact that they ignore an internal factor which he

states to be of utmost importance to the choice of structures; the role of organizational agents. In his strategic

choice approach Child asserts that these agents, consisting of groups and individuals within the organization,

base their decision making process on their own values and beliefs, experience, knowledge, and vision when

19

external forces require decisions to be made (Achcaoucaou et al., 2009). Though this approach includes the

additional factor, other researchers find it still to lack another important aspect.

Some researchers claimed both approaches do not fully conceptualize the way organizations are

composed and how they operate, being the reason to propose a different approach. Miller (1981) asserts the

contingency approach solely views the organization to consist of loosely linked elements which solely focus on

a single dominant variable. As a response a rather holistic perspective is developed called the configuration

approach. This approach incorporates the previous two approaches and argues for the clustering of variables.

This alternative approach views the organization as “composed of tightly interdependent and mutually

supportive elements such that the importance of each element can best be understood by making reference to

the whole configuration” (Miller & Friesen, 1984, p. 1). The main contributions this approach offers are 1) it

considers the interaction between the different organizational traits (systemic fit) rather than solely pair-wise

relationships between point structural elements and external traits, and 2) it acknowledges the possibility that

more than one combination of organizational traits might be effective, operating under the same

circumstances (Grandori & Furnari, 2008). These elements are by others often defined as “attributes”,

“practices”, or “packages of techniques” (Grandori & Furnari, 2008, p. 462) related to structure, routinized

action and know-how. Grandori and Furnari (2008) introduced the idea and empirical evidence for the notion

of complementarity between the separate elements. Their results indicate that the application of a variety of

certain organizational elements raises the value of the others that are adopted.

This research adopts the perspective of the organization in accordance to the configurational

approach. Where the other approaches lack the inclusion of interrelationship between the different elements,

this approach allows us to conceptualize the organization as an entity constituted by the interdependent and

interacting elements. The difficulty in describing the organization derives from the complexity of relationships

between the many constructs that constitute the organization, as this theory assumes there are extensive

amounts of configurations of organizational elements such as the human resource practices. These constructs

were previously broken down into four major components, being: strategy, people, structure, and

management processes (Snow, Miles & Miles, 2006). Both the quality of alignment between these components

as well as the external fit between the organization and its environment are said to be the major determinants

for organizational performance.

As this approach emphasises the fit between the four components of strategy, people, structure, and

management processes, it is expected to provide a focus contingent to the subjects of this research: structure,

and individual competencies. Snow et al. (2006) suggested expanding the existing configuration model by

including a fifth component – organizational capabilities – for the reason that organizations require certain sets

of capabilities to function effectively. They state that “one must aggregate the knowledge and skills possessed

by individuals into an organizational or collective construct” (Snow et al., 2006, p.7). Several researchers

responded to Snow et al.’s suggestion (2006) by investigating the individual competencies that make up certain

organizational capabilities (Dentoni et al., 2012a; Osagie et al., 2014; Wesselink, et al., 2015). The aim of this

paper is to investigate the relationship between these components regarding the competences (people), the

20

organizational capabilities and structure. Snow et al. (2006) conclude that the process of achieving the

aforementioned fit is dynamic, implying there is no single and permanent organizational configuration leading

to a high organizational performance. This research therefore does not attempt to assess the best

organizational structure, rather the link or relationships between the aforementioned three components.

3.2.3 The facilitating structure

The aforementioned dynamic fit depends on several factors requiring a particular organizational

structure. The organization’s environment (complexity and dynamics) and internal elements (firm size,

complexity of operations and technology, and characteristics of the knowledge within the organization) call for

specific organizational structures. In stable and predictable environments bureaucratic organizational

structures seem to be most facilitating, whereas in unstable environments less formalized and less centralized

organizational structures are preferred to provide the required flexibility to deal with the environment

(Achcaoucaou et al., 2009). By focussing on an organization with the same characteristics though different sizes

of partnerships, the research strategy in chapter 4.2 takes these influencing factors into account.

To meet the requirements of the organization’s environment and internal elements, organizations can

choose to adopt organizational structures from a continuum between mechanic and organic systems. Based on

these needs the division of tasks, authority, and responsibility differs between the two distinctive

organizational systems (van Dam & Marcus, 2012). Comparable to a mechanistic system, the organization

operates in a way similar to that of a machine in that it works efficiently and rational. With regard to the three

general factors of complexity, formalization and centralization, this system will lead to a high efficiency and

performance in particularly stable environments. Organic system work best in a complex and changing

environments such as ones dealing with sustainability, in which informal communication flows in a

decentralized flat structure (Burns & Stalker, 1961). This system builds on more open relationships between the

organizational members, characterized by a flatter hierarchical structure opposed to the mechanistic system.

Likewise the flow of authority and decision making is on an intra-level or lateral base in which employees from

different departments from similar or other levels collaborate to reach a bigger goal. This rather lateral way of

decision making allows members of the organization to collaborate as a team. These individual members are

specialists, thought they operate and are responsible as a team and are considered to collectively control the

organization’s environment. Gupta and Govindarajan (1991) even conclude that high frequency and informality

of communication is essential to effective knowledge dispersion.

3.2.4 Structuring the organization

The different structural systems are distinguishable in the structural elements that they include which,

together, form the organizational structure. The traditional view on the definition of organizational structure

includes the formal relationships that exist within the organization, such as the complexity, formalization and

centralization that are explicitly defined and written down. These relationships make up the so-called formal

organization. There are more inclusive definitions for organizational structures, such as “the pattern of

relationships between roles in an organization and its different parts” (McMillan, 2002, p. 124), or “the ways

that an organization’s parts are related to each other to make up the whole” (van Dam & Marcus, 2012). In

addition to the formal organization the so-called informal organization refers to the pattern of personal and

21

societal relationships between members of the organization that emerges from interaction that are not defined

nor written down (Gulati & Puranam, 2009). To include this invisible part of connections between members of

the organization as well, this research adopts a more comprehensive and inclusive definition of the

organizational structure which can be formulated as:

Many practitioners and researchers introduced several methods for distinguishing between different

organizational forms and to visualize the different groups of the organization’s members, by making use of the

so-called organizational diagram (figure 3). These simplified charts depict the formal division of activities

between individuals and/or departments; in the case of figure 3 the separation between the CEO, the different

(support staff) departments, product groups and area groups. In this diagram both the vertical and horizontal

task division is depicted which often includes the task- and job descriptions, as well as manuals and procedures

of the organization’s members (van Dam & Marcus, 2012). As this simplified chart of the formal organizational

structure is written down, it is considered to be a “formal” diagram.

Figure 3: The basic organizational diagram (McMillan, 2002)

Though it depicts the formal relations between the departments, groups and/or individuals, many

informal relationships can additionally exist in a certain setting. This research therefore recognizes both formal

and informal structural elements that are expected to impact the translation from competencies to capabilities.

The next section elaborates on structural elements that configure the organizational structure and focuses on

two structural elements in particular that are expected to be most important in the research context.

3.2.5 Structural elements

Both formal and informal structural elements configure the organizational entity. These elements

generally include the criteria that specify the organization’s units and the forms in which they are connected,

which often include the teams; hierarchy; liaison roles; rules and procedures; and communication (Mintzberg,

1979); or incentives; (flexible) job assignments; and knowledge management (Laursen & Manke, 2001). By

assessing the practices embodying these individual elements, Grandori and Furnari (2008) investigated the

relationships between a diverse set of organizational elements that shape the “chemistry of the organization”

“the both visible and invisible architecture of the organizational elements that

configure the entity that is the organization”

22

(p. 460). They introduced the distinction between four different types of organizational elements: market-like,

bureaucratic, communitarian, and democratic elements. These four categories are types of elements; not to be

confused with types of organizations. Organizations are likely to have combinations of the separate practices in

place embodying the different elements to various degrees. It seemed that organizations that have practices of

the different elements in place perform better on both efficiency and innovation compared to organizations

that rather have practices of the same kind (Grandori & Furnari, 2008). Several practices from the different

types of elements are subject to this research, which are chosen based on their presumed impact on the ability

to execute the individual competencies in order to develop the organizational capabilities for multi-stakeholder

orientation; in particular the stakeholder –learning capability. Particularly the structural elements related to

these practices are expected to be related to the two competencies that were found by Wesselink et al. (2015)

to be most related to the stakeholder –learning capability. Though not exclusive, the two structural elements

that this research investigates are; authority and communication.

Authority

One of the activities that were found to be related to the SLC is the activity of initiate changes, being

described as the practical execution of strategic decisions regarding its implementation in the collaboration

process (van Leur, 2013). This research predicts this activity to be related to the elements of authority,

responsibility and control, as it can be expected that in order to bring the competencies into practice people

should be authorized to make decisions and steps they perceive to be necessary. The same is expected with

several other previously mentioned activities. The strategic decision making, described as impacting the

strategy of the organization by taking informed decisions; operational decision making, being the conscious

decision making and selection between practical options to pursue the initiative’s objectives; and project

management, described as the planning and controlling of collective action in favour of the collective

initiative’s objectives, all relate to each other as they share the assumed necessity of empowerment for the

representative in order to make decisions in the partnership. Organizations delegate tasks and associated

authority and responsibility, which can be done at various degrees. In some cases members of the organization

are required to solely “get the facts” and report back, whereas at the other side of the delegation-continuum

others are to get the facts and take action themselves (van Dam & Marcus, 2012). Organizations or particular

relationships can therefore be rather supervisor-centred or employee-centred.

The span of control is a major determinant of the organizational structure (van Dam & Marcus, 2012).

In case managers have a large span of control the organization has a rather flatter organizational structure.

Opposed to steep organizational structures, in such structures managers have many more subordinates to

manage. In case managers are unable to manage and coordinate all their subordinates they can either adapt

the span of control or decide to involve other bodies into the organization, such as support staff (van Dam &

Marcus, 2012).

Considering the dynamic nature of sustainability (Dentoni, Bitzer & Pascucci, 2016), this research

predicts individual organizations of MSEs to have a rather organic systems in place regarding their involvement

in the MSE. The related decentralized flow of authority, responsibility and control, organic systems could allow

23

them to take the necessary decisions and steps in favour of achieving the initiative’s objectives (Osagie et al.,

2014) by the execution of the related activities of initiating changes, strategic decision making, operational

decision making, and project management (Wesselink et al., 2015). Taking into account that managers or

directors informally allow one another to perform certain tasks or to exert some level of authority, this

research expects the informal task- or authority delegation to be of importance to the translation of

competencies as well. Considering the aforementioned aspects of decision making, span of control, task

delegation, and responsibility, this research adopts the notion of authority as “the delegated power for

decision making and exercising ascendancy over others”.

Related to the aforementioned three activities related to decision making is the activity of creating

project ownership / empowering internal change agents, focusing on the selection and management of

specialists and cross-functional teams who should lead the way in the implementation phase of the

collaborative outputs into the organization’s primary processes (van Leur, 2013). It is therefore expected that

organizations engaging in successful multi-stakeholder engagements have, to some extent, chosen and

stimulated specialists and/or cross-functional teams to be involved in the MSE. Just as with the other

expectations that are mentioned or will follow, this broad assumption guides the inclusion of structural

elements in the interviews that assist to gain data that can support the analysis in favour of proposition

formulation.

Another factor that is assumed to have a major role in the translation from competencies to

capabilities is the structural element of communication.

Communication

The activity of integrating approaches is said to be related to dialogue, communication, and

information exchange of what has been gained from the interaction with other stakeholders (Wesselink et al.,

2015). These aspects of the communication flow are furthermore related to the activity of disseminating

output. This activity is defined as the internal and external communication on the process of collaboration with

stakeholders, the MSE’s objectives and/or the outputs of the collaboration with the stakeholders (van Leur,

2013).

As is mentioned in the previous paragraph, this research predicts that organizations in MSE’s have a

rather informal communication flow. Nevertheless, as the communication on MSE matters are of great

importance to inform the organization’s members it is likely that representatives are requested to additionally

include a more formal flow of information to overcome potential communication constraints and promote

elaborated knowledge integration. Both formal and informal communication could therefore be observed and

is therefore included in the analysis.

In addition to the internal communication, the activities of disseminating output and knowledge

sharing and integrating emphasise on the external dispersion of information with other stakeholders. The

latter activity is defined as the diffusion and accumulation of information among stakeholders in the MSE

setting to facilitate and stimulate the realization of the common objective (Wesselink et al., 2015). Both include

the activity of including and engaging other stakeholders to exchange ideas, and being open to their ideas and

24

viewpoints. It could therefore be the case that the representatives are stimulated to involve the stakeholders in

the discussion and to promote the sharing of different viewpoints and ideas the stakeholders might have.

3.3 Conceptual framework

This research investigates the role of the structural elements of authority and communication on the

translation of the individual competencies to the SLC. Figure 4 depicts this link together with a synthesis of the

related literature findings. Though this research solely investigates the two structural elements, there are many

more which configure the organization collectively with other structural elements and components, according

to the configuration approach.

Individual competencies

Embracing diversity and interdisciplinarity competence

Action competence System thinking competence Foresight thinking competence Normative competence Interpersonal competence Strategic management competence

Organizational capability

Learning from stakeholders

Structural elements

Authority Communication

Figure 4: Conceptual framework including the assumed link of the structural elements on the translation

between the two individual competencies and the organizational capability.

Depicted on the left hand side of the conceptual framework are two individual competencies –

Diversity and Interdisciplinary Embracing competence and Action competence – that are found to be indirectly

related to the capacity of interest (Dentoni et al., 2012a; Wesselink et al., 2015). Being depicted at the right

hand side, both these two and the five remaining competencies are collectively found to – either directly or

indirectly – form the stakeholder –learning capability (Ferrell, Gonzalez-Padron, Hult & Maignan, 2010; Dentoni

et al., 2014). Depicted at the top is the role of the organizational structure elements of authority and

communication as possible promoters or moderators on the translation of the aforementioned competencies

to the capability.

In more detail, the contexts in which the elements of authority and communication are in this research

investigated are depicted in figure 5, which has been constructed by Yang and Maxwell (2011) as the result of

their review on information exchange. In order to provide an inclusive picture of the structural elements of

authority and communication of the empirical case study, this research investigates these elements between

the individual representatives in the organization involved in the MSEs (interpersonal) as well as between the

representatives and other members, groups and departments of the organization (intra-organizational).

25

Figure 5: Context of authority and communication analysis, as derived from Yang and Maxwell (2011)

26

4 Technical research design

This section of the research design elaborates on the methods of data collection that contributes to the

analysis of the subject and related research questions and formulation of propositions. The method chosen

relates to the characteristics of information that was to be obtained as the different steps in the research call

for different approaches, as is depicted in figure 2 in section 2.2. After the initial research method of literature

study, the following sections will discuss the reasoning and application of the research method of inductive

research approach (4.1), respectively interviewing and its related sample selection (4.2).

4.1 The use of the inductive analysis approach

To investigate the presence of the organizational practices and elements that are subject in this

research, this study works according to an approach similar to that of the grounded theory and the inductive

research approach (Thomas, 2006; Gioia, Corley & Hamilton, 2013). In line with reasoning on the sequential

steps of grounded theory building, this research opts for the creation of an inductive model of the empirical

data. This aspect of qualitative research emphasizes on the collection of data on the research subject that has

yet not been investigated to a significant extent (van de Ven, 2007), being the case with the deficiency of

literature on organizational structures at individual participating stakeholders in the context of MSEs.

Gioia, Corley and Hamilton’s (2013) methodology of labeling enables the creation of grounded theory

by starting from the data set into first order labels, second order labels and subsequently aggregated

dimensions. This procedure of labelling and model creation, being explained in chapter 5.2, facilitates the

presentation of the empirical findings in a way that describes the linkages among data and related concepts.

Coincident with the initial labelling of data, the analysis includes switching between creating the

emerging concepts, themes and related literature found in the initial stage of the research. The results and

discussion stage of the research holds this and additional literature on the emerging concepts against the

relevant literature to see whether the propositions found have ground in literature or whether new concepts

or relationship have been discovered.

It is very likely that in one or several of the stages of Gioia, Corley and Hamilton’s (2013) inductive

approach used in this research a certain degree of bias is present as people are expected to hold their own

initial presumptions and perspectives (Suddaby, 2006; van de Ven, 2007). The extent to which people interpret

the data via their theoretical viewpoints can differ. By testing hypotheses they constructed without any prior

research, researchers’ work might still be affected by the confirmation bias, while missing out other possible

patterns during the research (Gioia, Corley & Hamilton, 2013). A better option – being adopted in this research

– is to have a set of initial ideas and broad assumption(s) by which the data can be held against in the analysis

stage. The related rationale is perfectly described by Gioia et al. as that “some combination of knowing and not

knowing amounts to another fine balancing act that allows for discovery without reinventing the well-ridden

wheels” (2013, p.21). Prior to the empirical part, this research consulted literature on organizational structures

27

to select and demarcate on the structural elements that were found to be most interesting for the focus and

aim of the study, being authority and communication. This furthermore assisted the segmentation of these

elements into smaller measurable aspects. Nevertheless, this consultation only served the creation of semi-

structured interviews by a set of initial ideas and a general assumption of the situation, rather than

demarcating the questions and answers possible, as the next section 4.2 further explains. The latter section

furthermore elaborates that data from the consecutive interviews are initially analysed to offer possible

conjectures or even to potentially pinpoint relationship or patterns that seem to be present in the research

context but were not anticipated on beforehand in the initial broad assumptions.

By relating existing literature to the empirical data, this approach contributes to the analysis and

subsequent formulation of propositions on organizational structures that seem to facilitate and enable the

individual competencies to be translated to the stakeholder –learning capability. Recognizing these results are

the first step of grounded theory building, they invite other researchers to further investigate and redefine

them to hypotheses and subsequently theories.

4.2 Interviews

By investigating the practices and thereby organizational structures of the initiative and programs in

the empirical study, this study aims to derive a preliminary model of facilitating organizational structures based

on the findings of the interviews. The analysis relates the empirical findings to the literate research and related

expectation concerning the translation of individual competencies to stakeholder –learning capability for MSE

on sustainability issues. This analysis does not focus on specific but rather a few broad, initial assumptions.

Having a broader focus and analysis can result in new, sometimes even unexpected insights, as the following

explains.

The use of semi-structured interviews with several members of the individual organization

participating in MSEs is intended to gather data by which an initial impression can be made on possible

organizational structures of individual stakeholders and its representatives. Several managers that are involved

in the initiative are requested during these interviews to answer several questions relating the two elements of

interest. These responses provided this research with data on the organizational structures that are present in

the case study or that are expected by the managers to be facilitating in the competencies – capabilities

translation. Aspects of the subject structural elements – such as communication intensity and formality – and

their related indication variables – once per day/week/month/flexible, respectively (not) scheduled and with

(out) pre-set agenda – are however not formulated as clear-cut interview questions, as they are part of

questions that emerged during the individual interviews. Based on the interviewee’s experience and

explanation, these and other unanticipated related aspects and indication variables enabled the research to

create a more inclusive description of the structure. This line of thinking is in accordance to Gioia and Thomas’s

study (1996), as they found different concepts than they anticipated at forehand. During the interview, the

experiences and responses from the interviewee and previous interviewee(s) opened possibilities to raise

further questions. Findings of every single interview were therefore integrated in the subsequent semi-

28

structured interviews, as these insights allowed the research to compare certain organizational aspects that

have been found during the first interview(s). Each single interview was thereby likely to contribute to the

creation of a more structured and comparable interview, also on the inclusion of additional aspects and

therefore questions on matters that emerged from the preceding interview(s). To justify the potential

difference between the interviews, the companies were requested to be contacted for any further information

or clarification following the research when necessary, which was needed in only a single case with one single

respondent. The words used in the interview are therefore carefully chosen to exclude and somewhat hide the

specific focus of the interview and questions.

4.2.1 Case selection

The amount of cases desired was difficult to predict on forehand, as the necessary amount to come up

with distinctive aspects of the subject is rather unpredictable (Boeije, 2010). In this research, these aspects

refer to the multiple organizational practices and elements that might be present at the organizations that

were mentioned to affect the translation of individual competencies. The criteria for reaching the saturation

level of cases depends on the required data in favour of the research; on the accessibility of enough interest,

time and participation on the side of the organization and managers; the suggestions of the initial contact

person(s) and the limited availability of time reserved for the research. At the point that the within-case

analysis yielded no differences in organizational structures in various situations, the saturation level seemed to

be reached. This research conducted several semi-structured interviews at only one single organization in order

to visualize a more elaborate illustration of the organization structure of a MNE involved in MSEs on

sustainability. As said, another factor determining the amount of interviewees was related to the time available

for this research.

The organization chosen for the case study is one of the four food- and agribusiness multinational

enterprises (MNEs) that has been included in previous related research done on MSEs for sustainable

development at the Wageningen University (Dentoni & Veldhuizen, 2012; Veldhuizen et al., 2013; Dentoni et

al., 2014; Osagie et al., 2014). The reason is that these researches have the same selection criteria as this

research, focusing on agri-food organizations that have several stakeholder partnerships on sustainable

development. The organization that met the aforementioned requirements and that was willing to cooperate

was Royal FrieslandCampina and is therefore included as the case study.

The following sections elaborate on the subject organization‘s background (4.2.2) and on the

organization’s programs and initiative that are subject to the investigation (4.2.3-4.2.5). Table 1 (4.2.6)

mentions the pool of interviewees and a brief description of their official or formal roles which are set out

against the initiative or program in which they are involved.

4.2.2 Background on Royal FrieslandCampina

The case study selected for the empirical part of the research is that of Royal FrieslandCampina, as the

MNE operating in the food- and agribusiness has several initiatives and programs running aiming to ensure the

organization’s sustainability goals. The multinational cooperative produces and markets dairy products and

ingredients exported to over 100 countries (Royal FrieslandCampina, 2014). With the help of 19,054 member-

29

dairy farmers and 22,000 employees employed in offices in 32 countries, the organization ensured in 2014

annual revenues of 11.3 million euro. As the organization mentions on both the cooperate website as well as in

the annual reports, Royal FrieslandCampina is dedicated to work towards a sustainable future.

Therefore the organization formulated its so-called Route2020 strategy, being characterized by

sustainable growth and value creation. By investing in innovative and sustainable solutions, it aims to reduce its

environmental impact at the farms, processing facilities and transportation/ distribution of the dairy products.

The support and the knowledge sharing with many of its small farmers in for instance Southeast Asia and

Nigeria are aimed to assist the organization in achieving its sustainability goals set. In favour of this strategy,

Royal FrieslandCampina formulated its purpose statement as: nourishing by nature, by “better nutrition for the

world, a good living for our farmers, now and for generations to come”. For every of the three global challenges

it recognizes, the organization created a purpose statement and corresponding CSR pillar. One of its pillars is

“better nutrition for the world”, which is said to deal with the challenge of a growing world population. The

challenge of having enough farmers to feed the world and its population is included in its “good living for our

farmers” pillar. To respond to the climate change and increasing scarcity of natural resources, the organization

relates to its statement of “now and for generations to come”. Part of its strategy to approach these three

challenges is by focusing on its stakeholder management by working with projects and initiatives that focus on

the three pillars, which should assist in achieving its Route2020 strategy. In favour of this research one initiative

and two programs are analyzed in the empirical part, which are chosen in consultation with the organization’s

Director Communication, Sustainability & FrieslandCampina Institute for Dairy Nutrition, Frank van Ooijen.

4.2.3 Background on the FDOV program

Part of the pillar of “good living for our farmers”, the organization started its so-called Dairy

Development Programme (DDP) in 6 countries in Asia and one in Africa (Nigeria) (Royal FrieslandCampina,

2014). This program aims to increase farm productivity; support farmers in getting a market for their milk; and

to raise raw milk quality and safety. Funded for 40% by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the organization

started a project within the larger DDP program being called the Facility for Sustainable Entrepreneurship and

Food Security (FDOV) program. Partners of this program are its subsidiary company Frisian Flag Indonesia, KPBS

Pangalengan, KPSBU Lembang, The Friesian, DLO/Wageningen University and the NGO Agriterra.

Royal FrieslandCampina aims to achieve a win-win situation by focusing on the three pillars of less &

better; simple and effective, and; sustainable welfare. One of the activities related to this program by which the

organization pursues to reach its goals is the Dairy4Development Project. Part of this project is the creation of

Milk Collection Points (MCPs); training programs; and Dairy Villages in Indonesia (Royal FrieslandCampina,

2014). Considering its multi-stakeholder collaboration aspect, the FDOV program is subject to this research.

4.2.4 Background on the BICEPS Network initiative

The logistics department of Royal FrieslandCampina initiated a project called the BICEPS - Boosting

Initiatives for Collaborative Emission-reduction with the Power Shippers – Network (Huntsman, n.d.). In this

BICEPS Network five major companies joined their forces to stimulate shipping companies to operate more

sustainable. AB InBev, AkzoNobel, DSM, Royal FrieslandCampina and Huntsman all share the mission of

operating more sustainable within their organizations and value chains (Sustainable Life Media, 2015). They

30

started the collaboration to initiate sustainability change in the freight sector by setting the standard for their

carriers. As FrieslandCampina’s Category Procurement Manager Logistics stated, they are “doing this because

we just want to boost the speed and adoption rate of proven processes and technologies, to make the impact

bigger and faster” (Huntsman, n.d.). The sector has already taken some measures to combat the increasing CO2

emission by implementing new processes and technologies. By engaging in the network, the organizations aim

to collectively have a larger impact on the CO2 emission reduction by involving all the supply chain parties to

implement such clean technologies.

Part of this network’s activities is to adapt the carrier selection procedure. Their approach is to create

an assessment tool which suppliers and carriers within the shipping industry have to fill in that includes

requirements and targets related to the reduction of CO2 emission. Subsequently, the procuring companies

can decide upon the supplier or carrier that meets their requirements or scores best in the assessment. Among

the partners the current best practices are shared, and is decided which practices to adapt or adopt in the

network’s tool. Furthermore the network aims to work closely together with the shipping sector in persuading

other sector partners to initiate similar or additional sustainability initiatives aiming to reduce CO2 emission.

4.2.5 Background on the Rural Horizon program

Royal FrieslandCampina’s subunit FrieslandCampina Riedel B.V. started in 2014 a four year, joint

program to improve sustainable fruit growing for FrieslandCampina’s juice brands of Appelsientje and CoolBest

(Solidaridad, 2015). As for the Appelsientje brand it was sought to make the long-term relationships with its

suppliers more sustainable, FrieslandCampina Riedel B.V. initiated dialogue with the NGO. By this initiative

both parties aim to increase the farmers’ strength, flexibility and sustainability in the production of mango,

banana, passion fruit and oranges in seven countries.

One of the projects that are included in this Rural Horizon program is the collaboration between the

parties that started in 2015 to support the orange farmers in Brazil for the brand of Appelsientje (Appelsientje,

n.d.; Royal FrieslandCampina, 2014). At the beginning of the collaboration Solidaridad had already created a

Rural Horizon tool which had been used on for instance the sugar cane industry (Pauwels, 2016). In favour of

this industry which is one of the organizations’ biggest fruit supply, the organizations opted to customize the

tool for the oranges in Brazil. The tool, being a questionnaire with over a 100 questions on different areas of

farmers’ production process, aims to provide the organizations with insight on possible gaps to improve in

(Pauwels, 2016). These areas relate to financial aspects as bookkeeping, as well aspects as planting, chemicals

used and so on. As Solidaridad already had a global network of experts on location, it was agreed that they do

the self-assessment together with the farmers by using the tool. Such outcomes of these assessments are

subsequently shared and discussed with its initiating partner (Haasen, 2015). Once the two partners discuss the

outcomes, Solidaridad continues the dialogue with the farmers to decide on the focal issues to work on that

are of interest to FrieslandCampina Riedel B.V. as well. This dialogue between the parties has started and is still

going on as is communicated on the unit’s website (Appelsientje, n.d.).

4.2.6 The interviewees

The sampling method used is snowballing by which the initial telephone conversation with the

companies’ Director Communication & Sustainability led to avenues for further investigation; the sub-cases

31

being one initiative and two programs. The first interviews or telephone conversations with the ones most

involved or responsible for the individual sub-cases led to suggestions for others to be interviewed, being in

line with snowballing sampling method in which participants are chosen after the preceding interview has been

conducted. The order of the listing of the employees involved is based on the perceived extent of involvement

or authority. All the respondents interviewed were to some extent involved in the initiative or programs;

ranging from approval and/or decisions lines, to someone having either a broader overview or limited overview

over the initiative or program. In table 1, the initiative and two programs are linked with the individual

representatives related; either from Royal FrieslandCampina (FC) or the NGO Solidaridad (NGO).

Initiative/ program

FDOV BICEPS Rural Horizon

Sybren Attema

Regional Manager Dairy Development Asia and Africa

Walter Vermeer Manager Category Procurement Logistics

Piet Haasen Manager NPD Juices & Fruit Based Drinks, & Senior Innovation Manager

Most involved from FC

Femke de Jong Project Manager Dairy Development

Felix Schoenemann Director Category Procurement

Indirect Materials & Services

Raymond Pauwels Category Procurement Manager

Akhmad Sawaldi DDP & Project FDOV Manager

Tiny de Mol Category Procurement Manager Sea Container Logistics

Amal Kamar Product Group Manager Ambient Juices (Appelsientje, DubbelFrisss, Taksi)

NGO Annelot van Leeuwen

Programme Officer Sustainable Fruit & Vegetables (Solidaridad)

Table 1: Interviewees of FrieslandCampina and the NGO Solidaridad

4.2.7 Interview protocol development

In order to develop the semi-structured interview protocol, the organizational elements had to be

determined. By breaking down these two elements into minor aspects, the aspects of interest were asked

upon, or being used as guidance for potential signal words used to follow-up on. The following two lists display

the operationalization of the organizational elements of authority and communication by providing both

aspects with the indication variables related. Following the operationalization is the procedure used to come to

the interview protocol that is used during the interviews.

4.2.7.1 Operationalization of the organizational elements

Authority

In order to determine the authority aspects to be investigated or to be possibly found, literature on

authority assisted in creating the list below. This study deals with the authority aspects of: the level of

representatives’ authority; extent of authorization to make decisions with- and without consultation on both

32

their involvement in the MSEs and the extent of using formal authorization rules. The inclusion of related issues

related facilitates the investigation of the authority aspects during the empirical research.

- The level of authority of the representatives (e.g. director sustainability, (regional) manager from a

certain department, or even “secretaris raad van bestuur”);

o Possible differences in the level of authority between the representatives (horizontal- vs

vertical task/authority diffusion).

- The extent to which the representatives are authorized making decisions with(out) consultation or

consent with superiors, regarding their own involvement in the MSEs;

1) The cases;

2) The kind of topics and decisions;

3) Who/ how many people have to be consulted before the representative can make the decision;

4) The hierarchical levels these people are from (e.g. through how many hierarchical levels does a

decision have to be approved (e.g. only the supervisor of the representative, or also his/her

superior)).

- The extent to which the representatives are authorized to make decisions with(out) consultation or

consent with superiors, regarding their authority over the other members within the organization;

5) The cases;

6) The kind of topics and decisions;

7) Who/ how many people have to be consulted before the representative can make the decision;

8) The hierarchical levels these people are from (e.g. through how many hierarchical levels does a

decision have to be approved (e.g. only the supervisor of the representative, or also his/her

superior)).

- Formal rules; the extent or what is written down how the responsibilities and authorizations are

allocated (= the so-called formal organization).

Communication

The following list is used in investigating the communicational element of the case organization, and

contains all the the inter-organizational communication aspects that are deemed to provide the research with a

comprehensive few on the element. As mentioned before, these aspects guide the interview in gathering the

information in the deal with the aspects of: communication- channels, intensity, formality, encouragement,

patterns and direction, levels, categories, topics, and barriers, as well as knowledge managements systems

used.

- Communication channels (written, verbal, systems) Among others;

1) Written (in-house newsletters (“bedrijfsblad”), department memos, notice, emails)

2) Verbal (as well as in which setting, e.g. meeting-room, office, phone, presentation, boards,

balance sheets, quality reports, etc.).

3) Knowledge management systems used.

- Communication intensity:

For the measure of overall communication, each group member is asked to indicate “How frequently

did you communicate with X during the project?” on a five-point scale (1: never, 2: monthly, 3: weekly,

4: daily, 5: hourly) where X represents the other person or group of individuals.

- Formality/ informality of communication. (= the so-called formal organization)

1) High formality (Scheduled, arranges participants, participants in role, pre-set agenda,

impoverished content, one-way, formal Language);

2) Low formality (Not scheduled, no arranged participants, not in role, no agenda, rich content,

interactive, informal language).

- Encouragement for communication:

33

1) (Not) being encouraged / forced by others – or by the organization’s values, norms, and culture –

to share information on the initiative/program;

2) Possible rewards for information sharing.

- Communication patterns and direction: Interaction players:

1) People in the CSR and/or team of representatives;

2) The department where they are from;

3) Members of other departments;

4) Superiors (and from what department);

5) The way of communication between these four types of players (vertical (supervisor-subordinate)

vs. horizontal (peer) communication);

6) One- or two-way interaction, and if so; what is communicated back to the representatives

(remarks, questions, confirmation/ rejection, etc.).

- Levels of communication (Tushman, 1979);

1) Decentralized (that is, fully connected);

2) Centralized (that is, intra-unit communication mediated by the supervisor).

- Interaction categories (McGrath, 1984, p. 141):

1) Social- emotional/ expressive ((do not) show solidarity & tension release, and agreement);

2) Task/ instrumental (Giving/asking for suggestions, opinions).

- Communication topics:

1) General information vs. specific information;

2) Explicit and tacit;

3) Outcomes or proceedings on and during/ after the MSEs.

- Communication barriers:

1) Laws and regulations (e.g. information system usage, sensitive information).

4.2.7.2 Protocol

In order to acquire the requested information on the structural elements, the related aspects are used

to come to the interview protocol used during the interviews. The procedure used was to create an elaborated

overview in which the structural elements were divided into separate tables – general questions; authority;

communication; and MSE outcomes – as can be seen in Appendix I (Interview structure protocol). Separating

the structural elements – communication into collaboration with fellow representatives and/or supervisors, and

collaboration with the rest of the organization, as well as barriers and improvements – facilitated creating clear

and specific questions on the aspects of the structural elements. In these tables, the questions are furthermore

linked to both the aforementioned aspects of authority and communication, as well as with the related

objectives of the interview questions. These objectives often consist of the related indication variables, which

were used to verify no single aspect is skipped in the final interviews. The questions were either asked precisely

as mentioned in the overview, or were customized during the interview in correspondence to the answers

given. After conducting a pilot study on the semi-structured interview with an employee at FrieslandCampina

who not necessarily worked in the area of interest, it was tested whether the questions were clear and

significant comprehensive, or needed some additional questions or alterations. The same applies for the first

interview with the representative that was interviewed, though hardly any alteration had to be made. The main

additions were the questions focussing on the interviewees’ opinion on alterations at the organization in order

for them to fully deploy their individual competencies, being the end of the interview.

34

5 Results

In order to investigate how the structural aspects of interest are organized at the organization, the

activities related to authority and communication (section 4.2.7.1) are used to create semi-structured

interviews. Information gathered during and after conducting these interviews resulted in interview transcripts

that were subsequently analysed. The results of the interviews on these programs and initiative are discussed in

section 5.1. This section explains the conversion of interviewees’ statements to 1st

codes, 2nd

order codes and

subsequently aggregated dimensions. The subsequent tables provide an indication of the latter conversion.

These results of are furthermore depicted in elaborated models in Appendix IV, which are used in section 5.2

(Model Integration) in answering research questions 4 and 5 on the structural elements at the case study.

5.1 Data structured models

Data gathered during the interview phase and the follow-up questions via personal contact with a

single respondent, resulted in a data collection pending for analysis. The analysis phase included the extensive

use of the data analysis tool Atlas.ti. The usage of the program as means of analysis is further explained in

Appendix III. The method of analysis used is similar to that of Gioia, Corley and Hamilton (2013). Starting with

the data set, this inductive method begins with the creating of labels that grasp all data related to certain

concepts, followed by the clustering of these labels into the higher abstraction level being aggregated

dimensions. This procedure of labelling and model creation supports the presentation of the empirical findings

in a way that describes the linkages among data and the related concepts, all serving the aim of the resulted

grounded theory.

By uploading the interviews into the Atlas.ti tool, and subsequently coding the answers given by the

respondents, this research adopted an addition initial clustering of data, being the formulation of initial order

labels prior to the clustering of Gioia, Corley and Hamilton’s (2013) so-called first order codes. Breaking down

the large amount of data into smaller fragments facilitated the formulation of the data into initial order labels.

These first order codes entail all the interview statements of all the interviewees on the same imitative or

program. By relating these codes together based on similarities or anticipated or possible linkages, the second

order codes gave a rather abstract definition of the construct found. In a later stage, these second order codes

are held against the current literature on the issue of authority and communication at individual organizations.

The final phase of modelling the interviews involved clustering the second order terms into higher dimension

definition, being the aggregated dimensions. These dimensions encapsulate the second order terms that are

most related and that focus on the same element and related aspect of either authority or communication.

The following chapters discuss the data accumulated during the interviews on the individual initiative

and programs. By guiding through the separate phases of the analysis, the final model derived gives an

overview of the main findings on the structural elements in the initiative or program. As these models are quite

elaborated and big in size, these are for overview reasons included in the Appendices as Appendix IV.

35

5.1.1 FDOV program

The first program of analysis is the FDOV program for which three employees of FrieslandCampina are

interviewed. The first interview conducted was with the Regional manager Dairy Development Asia and Africa,

Sybren Attema. This telephone interview shed light on the overall program of DDP and FDOV, as well as

explained the roles the different representatives of FrieslandCampina perform in the partnership that is part of

the program. Following this first interview, was the Skype session with the DDP & Project FDOV Manager

located in Java, Akhmad Sawaldi. The manager explained how the program is organized in Asia, how the

representatives of FrieslandCampina are organized in the team that he is leading, and his experience on

authority and communication issues that involve any of the fellow representatives or higher management

levels. The Project Manager Dairy Development, Femke de Jong, was subject to the third interview. Data

gathered during this interview revealed the coordination of the program’s aspects and representatives, and

went more in-depth on the lines of communication between the ones involved. Both prior interviewees

suggested De Jong to be contacted for the third interview, as was believed she would have the bigger picture

on the ones representing FrieslandCampina on rather management levels.

The interview data gathered is labelled with the use of Atlas.ti sequentially, after which the initial

order levels were connected and clustered into first order codes. Several of the clusters and related linkages

are depicted in table 2, in which the interviewees’ original statements related to the first order codes are set

out against the second order codes. As the linkages between the first order, second order, and aggregated

dimensions are better depicted in the program’s model in Appendix IV, table 2 solely depicts several of the

codes related to the aggregated dimension of Formal and Informal Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms to give an

impression on the method of model construction.

Data supporting Interpretations of the Structural Elements

Theme Representative Quotations

Formal and Informal Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms

Internal communication on the program and in-house capabilities

“Yeah, yeah when we give presentations for others, we use this document/presentation as well, but we never send it to anyone. It’s an internal document, concerning this” (Regional Manager)

“Hm, it’s like everybody is so focused on their own job, and maybe they are just hiring a very expensive consultant, while we have the knowledge in-house… but, yeah I think people are not aware of how much knowledge we have here in FrieslandCampina…” (Coordinator)

Preference for face to face visits “We send email to the cooperatives and people not always directly reply soon, that is

not the culture in here, so we have to go there, to discuss directly face to face” (DDP Manager)

“I think you always have a barrier of not being face to face, I wish I could be there for a month and just work with them for a month and to see exactly what he is doing” (Coordinator, FDOV)

Formal multi-level communication “Quarterly it is with a total DDP team so with nine people, including the DDP

supervisor. And then with the two directors, that is the HR director and the operational director, and then with the head of corporate affairs we have monthly meetings as well” (DDP Manager)

“The schedule of the meeting between me and my four managers … so we start with

36

the opening, the safety part, etc etc. Each people will speak were present in the meeting, so all involved people. Because sometime each people ask for a decision, is it a “go” or “not go” sometimes" (DDP Manager)

“I think we should meet or have contact more often, because once a year is not that often, so I’m now thinking on having like a DDP managers call twice a year as well, in addition, so to exchange more information” (Coordinator, FDOV)

Table 2: Data supporting the construction of FDOV’s Formal and Informal Knowledge Sharing Mechanisms dimension

5.1.2 BICEPS Network initiative

The second initiative of analysis is the initiative called BICEPS Network. In line with the previous FDOV

program, the first interview was conducted with the one most involved in the initiative according to the

organization’s Director Sustainability. This interviewee, Walter Vermeer, is first contacted by telephone in

which he was asked which sustainability projects he could think of that included the engagement of multi-

stakeholders. The one that included the most interaction with other stakeholders was that of the BICEPS

Network. Considering the Manager Category Procurement Logistics explained he is significantly involved in the

initiative, an additional interview in person was scheduled. On the same date of this interview, two subsequent

interviews were scheduled with fellow colleagues that are involved in the initiative, though to a significantly

smaller extent. The first one mentioned was his superior, Felix Schoenemann. Being the Director Category

Procurement Indirect Materials & Services of the organization, Schoenemann is responsible for the

procurement of indirect materials and services of the organization, of which logistics is one of the seven

categories of indirects. Though Vermeer has to report to Schoenemann, Schoenemann indicated to know

hardly any detail of the initiative, by which he mainly explained Vermeer’s decision making span and the flow

of decisions making within the department. The last interviewee that followed that day was with Tiny de Mol.

As Category Procurement Manager Sea Container Logistics, De Mol is part of Vermeer’s logistics team.

Considering the initiatives focusses on partnering with fellow sea freight procurers, De Mol is involved in the

initiative though not as much as Vermeer. De Mol is aware of the focus of the initiative and which stakeholders

it involves, though has just an informal advisory role towards Vermeer. Different than in the aforementioned

program and the following initiative, in the BICEPS network there is only a single interviewee that provides

most insights on the program’s content. On the other hand, all three interviewees of this initiative shared their

opinions on the current and preferred extent of involvement.

Just as is done for the other program and initiative, the interview data gathered is labelled with the

use of Atlas.ti. The clustering of the interviewees’ original statements that form the first order codes, are set

out against the second order codes and aggregated dimensions, as is partly depicted in table 3. The table solely

depicts a part of the dimension of Learning Fostering Mechanisms, which is one of the five dimensions related

to the initiative.

37

Data supporting Interpretations of the Structural Elements

Theme Representative Quotations

Learning Fostering Mechanisms

Availability of necessary resources “I also would like to make sure that it is not only me, because it tends now to be only

me predominantly… … two people hear different things, that is also important for the learning to see what is exactly happening” (Manager Category Procurement Logistics)

“that means that I have the liberty to do so as long as it's doesn't consume all of my time” (Manager Category Procurement Logistics)

“that also means that of course in this means that I left work less hours, on the contrary quite a lot of it is in evening time” (Manager Category Procurement Logistics)

Initiative fostering and supporting culture for learning

“So the policies, the liberty of the the regulations, the alignment with the strategy of the company, these are very important elements” (Manager Category Procurement Logistics)

“that helps, it is also fostering a culture... … to have a culture where taking initiatives is seen as a positive element” (Manager Category Procurement Logistics)

“I feel it is important, I don't care if it is in my target or not, who cares, targets are something that someone puts in for outperformance review, but how I want to look herself in the mirror at the end of the day, and believe that I have done the right thing” (Manager Category Procurement Logistics)

Table 3: Data supporting the construction of BICEPS’ Learning Fostering Mechanisms dimension

5.1.3 Rural Horizon program

The third collaboration of analysis is that of on the Rural Horizon tool. It was proposed to get into

contact with Piet Haasen as first interviewee, as he is said to be most involved in the collaboration between

FrieslandCampina’s BU in Riedel and the NGO Solidaridad. During the interview with this Manager NPD Juices &

Fruit Based Drinks and Senior Innovation Manager at Riedel information was provided on the different roles his

fellow colleagues play in the partnership. Out of these other representatives, he proposed to speak to two

others that have different roles in the partnership. Raymond Pauwels was subject to the next interview in

which he elaborated on his daily role as Category Procurement Manager for the BU in Riedel. Among the topics

discussed, he sketched the collaboration between the organization and the stakeholders related to the

program and elaborated on his experience on this collaboration. Just as Haasen, Pauwels he denoted the

internal communication on the program with his fellow representatives and others in the larger organization.

The third interviewee is from the marketing department. As Product Group Manager Ambient Juices

(Appelsientje, DubbelFrisss, Taksi), Amal Kamar is related to the program from the moment the initial steps

were made. The collaboration with stakeholders and challenges related, as well as internal procedures and her

opinion on the latter were the focus of the interview.

Similar to the interviews on the FDOV program, for an extensive overview on the Rural Horizon

program a representative of the partnering NGO was additionally interview. Annelot van Leeuwen, working as

Programme Officer Sustainable Fruit & Vegetables at Solidaridad is closely involved in the program for a while.

One of her roles in the program was to investigate the current situation in the BU’s supply chain and discussion

the related outcomes with the BU’s representatives. The information she provided included the description of

the start and follow up phases of the partnership, as well as her experience on how FrieslandCampina’s BU is

organized regarding the elements of authority and communication.

38

By interviewing these representatives from different backgrounds with different views on the

organization of the program and of FrieslandCampina’s BU, the data gathered enabled to create a well-defined

analysis of the structural elements of the program.

Similar to the previous tables, table 4 portrays how the original statements of the interviewees are

related to the second order labels and aggregated dimensions. Whereas the table solely mentions several

second order codes from one of the five dimensions from both the BU and the NGO – Decentralized Decision

Making and Task Differentiation Across Levels – the models that follows depicts how the initial order codes

from the two partners relate to second order terms and aggregated dimensions.

Data supporting Interpretations of the Structural Elements

Theme Representative Quotations

Decentralized Decision Making and Task Differentiation Across Levels

Internal reporting mechanisms on program’s progress (FrieslandCampina)

“the nice thing is that you get all of the room to do it on your own way, as long as you keep them on board, if you keep them informed and they see the progress, then they just let you fly” (Senior Innovation Manager)

“now we should together to get more aligned and to make also the reporting more the same, because we have different reporting lines, so we said “ok we need to have one system consistent for as well corporate as well as Riedel, so this is what we made, so also the timelines are now known by both parties” (Category Procurement Manager)

Priority misalignment across levels (FrieslandCampina)

“we are missing sometimes the commitment that we think is necessary and uhm, sometimes, uhm, this let’s say, is is translated in the resources, available resources that can be FTE’s, or that can be financially, and that is what we see, of course the higher you go, where there are some barriers” (Category Procurement Manager)

“they have other priorities, especially for the moment with the huge volume of members milk coming our way. Maybe there are too many people between us and the EB (I guess he means Executive Board). Maybe a presentation made by the people who are directly involved would help” (Category Procurement Manager)

Misalignment between corporate’s sustainability vision, objectives and targets and those of the BU (Solidaridad)

“you know sustainability, that that is quite well embedded in Riedel, the people that I work with for sustainability or people in R&D and in procurement, so it's really part of the business. So already, there it's quite embedded, but then in corporate it’s again different” (Programme Officer, NGO)

“what I said before that alignment, that vision, it’s very important, also for your company identity I think” (Programme Officer, NGO)

“you need to separate the the the objectives, their commercial objectives from the sustainability objectives” (Programme Officer, NGO)

Availability of necessary resources (Solidaridad)

“when it comes to decision making, I don't feel like we have been, the program has been held back or so by decisions really between us… … so I think we are quite well right to the core of where the decision making is” (Programme Officer, NGO)

(regarding factors that might hinder learning at the BU)“ it's not so much capacity to learn, but rather capacity... , just really time of staff to devote to sustainability or money put into dialogue with their suppliers, starting programs etc” (Programme Officer, NGO)

Table 4: Data supporting the construction of Rural Horizon’s Decentralized Decision Making and Task Differentiation Across Levels dimension

39

5.2 Model integration

Whereas the previous sections discuss data gathered from the interviews and the creation of

respective models, the following sections elaborate on the integration of the separate models. This integration

of the individual cases offers argumentation for answering the fourth- and fifth research sub question,

respectively being:

4) How are the organizational structures of authority and communication in place in the empirical case

study?

5) What is the role of the organizational structure elements of authority and communication on the

translation of individual competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability?

Starting from the aggregated dimensions found, the dimensions of the individual models that most

relate to each other are combined and subject to further analysis in this chapter. The analysis elaborates on –

and compares – the second order codes related to these dimensions between the initiatives and the program,

often by referring to (parts of) the first order codes. Such comparison and analysis assists with identifying

potential patterns in the gathered data and thus contributes to the formulation of the propositions. These

propositions answer the fourth research sub question as is previously mentioned. These propositions include

the role these elements seem to have on the translation of individual competencies to the stakeholder –

learning capability, answering the fifth research sub question.

Though the dimensions’ titles are not explicitly mentioned, the following sections elaborate on the

constructs related to similar aggregated dimensions of the three cases investigated. The analysis starts with the

constructs related to the formal and informal communication between representatives. Thereafter follow the

constructs related to: communication to the rest of the organization; communication on the program between

levels involved; and decision making process. For simplicity reasons all the propositions do not explicitly

mention the topic of conversation, as they all include the phenomenon of communication on the initiative or

program. The last section focusses on constructs related to aspects that are not directly related to either

authority or communication, though are deemed to be necessary to the ability to translate the competencies

to capabilities.

The data and consequently constructs related to the stakeholder partnership management and

external communication might appear to be less valuable for the formulation of the propositions. However, the

aggregated dimensions of Learning (Fostering) Mechanisms and Stakeholder Partnership Management (BICEPS

and FDOV), External Communication With Stakeholders (RH), and Sustainability Strategy Commitment (NGO)

offer some insights on constructs and first order codes related to the elements of authority and

communication. These constructs are therefore further analysed in the following sections as well.

5.2.1 Communication between representatives

This section is dedicated to discussing the constructs (second order codes) found across the three

models that relate to the aspect of communication between the employees that are involved in the initiative or

program, being the representatives. Answering to the question how the communication on the initiative or

40

program can be described, most of the interviewees described communication on updates and the progress of

the initiative or program as something that often involves planning and scheduling. Often they additionally

communicate on issues related to the initiative or program by a variety of means of communication.

In the case of the FDOV program, the construct of Formal multi-level communication refers to formal

meetings that are attended by fellow representatives of the program. In turn, local teams have their own

formal meetings planned on updates, progress, best practices and Q&A’s regarding the program. On the higher

level, local DDP managers have formal meetings scheduled with the Regional Manager and Coordinator,

though the outcomes indicate that there is a need for more frequent formal contact. One of the suggestions is

to schedule more internal phone calls on matters that are to be addressed or information that should be

shared (Coordinator, FDOV).

Both in the BICEPS case between the representative and either his team, superior or external working

groups (construct of Multi-level updates on the initiatives), and in the Rural Horizon program (construct Formal

meetings and need-based team communication) similar formal meeting are held. The latter program

additionally has alignment and decision making on the agenda. Though BICEPS’ representative asserts to have

additional bilateral meetings with each individual team members on additional updates on the program, his

superior and Manager Sea Container Logistics indicate to know nothing about the program but its very

existence.

Although extra team communication on a need-base exists at the Rural Horizon case, the results

indicate it is preferred to organize more formally planned communication on the aforementioned topics. It is

furthermore desired to involve not only the representatives at the beginning of the program that are requested

to take steps necessary in this early stage, but all representatives that by that time are – or will be – involved

with the program in a later stage.

Whereas in all cases the data reveals formal meetings to be essential to the extensive knowledge

sharing, data from two cases point out there is room for improvement by scheduling more formal meetings.

One interviewee proposes to “meet or have contact more often, because once a year is not that often… ... to

exchange more information. I think that will be very valuable, because if you don’t know what the other is

doing, then you have no clue of what they are learning” (Coordinator, FDOV). It therefore seems frequent

formal meetings on the initiative or program is one possibility to promote information exchange, and thereby

learning.

The representatives take additional measures for improved alignment and knowledge sharing

between representatives by additional information communication between each other. As the construct of

Informal and need-based communication channels reveals, FDOV’s representatives frequently use a broad

range of informal need-based communication channels on such matters. In addition to face-to-face meetings

and small conversations, the representatives often communicate via e-mail, telephone, and What’s App.

According to the construct of Openness of inter-level communication, BICEPS’ representative seem to

communicate in an informal manner to a different extent, as he solely communicates findings to his fellow

41

colleagues and representatives that he deems interesting for them to be informed on. Though the construct of

the Rural Horizon program of Easy informal in person team communication on the spot does not directly seem

to insinuate, ad hoc matters are often discussed by telephone and email as well. It seems that the

representatives have – and highly value – both formal and informal communication between each other,

however none reported any interplaying effect of the combination of formal and informal communication.

There are several competencies that are assumed to have a relationship with both the frequency of

formal meetings, and the several forms of informal contact. The Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity,

Interpersonal and Strategic Management competencies all have in common they involve (actively stimulating)

collaboration and information exchange between representatives on issues related to the initiative or program.

The latter competence furthermore involves the evaluation of plans and policies that are shared among the

ones involved in the interactions. As both the Strategic Management- and the Action competence describe the

ability to be actively involved in the process of improvement and implementing interventions, these

competencies are related to the stakeholder –learning capability in the initiative or programs.

These findings and related assumptions therefore provide support for the proposition of:

Proposition 1: The frequency of formal and informal communication between the representatives has

a positive effect on the translation of the Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity, Interpersonal, Action, and

Strategic Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

Differences in communication channels

As FDOV’s Informal and need-based communication channels, and Rural Horizon’s Easy informal in

person team communication on the spot concept denote, there is a difference in preference of communication

channels. As the local DDP manager supports with “We send email to the cooperatives and people not always

directly reply soon, that is not the culture in here”, the choice of the communication channels have to be made

based on the characteristics of the other party, such as culture. An argument for the tendency of preferring

telephone contact over means as What’s App and email is the urgency of the matter at hand, as the DDP

manager argued. The Rural Horizon’s Category Procurement Manager added that written communication can

have the additional disadvantage that there are “multiple ways to interpret what is on paper, so and if you are

talking to somebody then you get more depth more out of the conversation about the topic”. This implies a

rather flexible choice of communication channel(s) – e.g. telephone, What’s App, email – customized to others

characteristics can lead to clear communication and thereby information exchange. The aforementioned

arguments relate to the competencies that allow and stimulate representatives to collaborate and

communicate successfully and clearly to others on issues regarding the initiative or program, being again the

Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity, Interpersonal and Strategic Management competencies. The same

applies to the subsequent argumentation on the Strategic Management- and the Action competence as related

42

to the previous proposition. The proposed relationship between the flexibility in communication channels and

the competencies can therefore be formulated as:

Proposition 2: Flexibility in the choice of informal communication channels for communication

between representatives has a positive effect on translating of the Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity,

Interpersonal, Action, and Strategic Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

Preference for face to face visits

The most preferred means of both formal and communication between representatives over many

others are face to face visits and meetings. As is argued before, characteristics related to culture and the topic

of conversation affect the method of communication the representatives prefer. To promote quick

correspondence and alignment between the others, meetings in person are often preferred over the use of the

telephone in case the situation allows. It is even argued and desired to have from all meeting at least a single

one in person, as this is said to already support better communication (Coordinator, FDOV). In particular

representatives from the Rural Horizon program stress the importance and use of face to face contact as is

aggregated in the construct of Easy informal in-person team communication on the spot, by referring to the

advantage of working on the same location: “this is why we are here, that is why it is one of the reasons that

we are here, to meet each other, to talk and we are all at the same floor. So I never used the phone here”

(Category Procurement Manager, RH). Together with the arguments and related competencies from the

second proposition, the latter arguments lead to the formulation of the following proposition:

Proposition 3: Face to face communication, in particular by working from the same location, has a

positive effect on translating the Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity, Interpersonal, Action, and Strategic

Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

5.2.2 Communication on the program to rest of the organization

In addition to the aforementioned team of representatives and their superiors, others within the

organization can – and should be – informed on the initiative or program. The representatives from the BICEPS

network initiative internally communicate verbally on the existence of the initiative with the other employees,

whereas the FDOV’s representatives communicate on the program’s proceedings via online documents and

presentations for internal use.

Representatives of the Rural Horizon program inform the rest of the organization – as well as they

have extra team communication – on a need-based fashion. The BICEPS representative communicates to any

other colleague in a similar need-based or need-to-know-based fashion, both with regard to the moments of

communication and topics of conversation. The representative explained he only shares information on the

initiative e.g. on the initiative’s current stage and proceedings on moments and topics he perceives to be of

useful. However, as the construct of Information asymmetry on the initiative entails, both his superior and

Manager Sea Container Logistics report to know nothing but the existence of the initiative.

Giving representatives the freedom to communicate on a need-base regarding aspects of MSE seems

to enable or even stimulate them to exchange ideas and learnings across different individuals or groups inside

43

the organization. This latter attempt to involve and inform others by knowledge exchange is one of the main

characteristics of the Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity competence. It is likely this need-base

communication enables them to use their competencies to communicate, lead, and to involve oneself in the

MSE, which is part of the Interpersonal, Action, and Strategic Management competence. Taken into account

the aforementioned arguments, the following proposition is consequently formulated:

Proposition 4: Enabling representatives to communicate when, what and to whom they find necessary

has a positive effect on the translation of the Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity, Interpersonal, Action,

and Strategic Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

BICEPS’ representative acknowledges the importance of sharing information on the team’s learnings.

He proposes it is likely that others gain more benefit by being informed on more than solely the results of the

initiative. He argues sharing detailed descriptions of the processes that lead to the results of the partnership

will promote internal shared knowledge and thus learning, being defined in the construct of Process learning.

Similar is said by the NGO’s representative, who argues internal communication on details of the program

could inspire other employees, as well as it ensures they are informed on the sustainability efforts made. These

arguments can be combined in the following proposition:

Proposition 5: Communication on both the initiative/program and related processes or steps to many

employees has a positive effect on the translation of the Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity,

Interpersonal, Action, and Strategic Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

5.2.3 Communication on the program between the ones involved

Relating to the aforementioned need-based communication to others within the organization than the

representatives is the communication between the ones involved in MSEs. In addition to informal

communication or communication on a need-base, representatives reported to communication via certain

inter-level reporting lines. The interviewees indicate they support the concept of reporting in order to keep

superiors aligned on the program’s process. They therefore strongly opt for an internal reporting system, as is

embedded in FDOV’s construct of Shift to integrated reporting.

Reporting

As the BICEPS representative’s superior is not the program’s budget holder, the manager elaborates

that the relevant parties that “have to pay the bill” are to be informed and requested for approval on certain

issues, as the construct of Cost-centre focused communication represents. Representatives from the other

cases have rather strict reporting lines.

The lowest management level of the FDOV program reports or informs their local DDP managers by

email, and often put others from for instance other departments in the email’s Carbon Copy (CC). On the

middle management level the DDP Managers either directly report to – or CC – the Coordinator and Regional

Manager on the program in their region, as well as to their (local) superiors. In turn, the Regional Manager is

requested to report to the Global DDP Director, whom subsequently informs the CEO. The Coordinator has a

special role; assisting the Regional Manager and ensuring alignment between the different representatives, and

44

does not need to report on a regular basis to anyone. The Coordinator and Regional Manager rather

communicate to each other on a need-base via several means of communication. It appears parts of this

program involve a matrix-form pattern of reporting to other parties within the organization.

Representatives from the Rural Horizon program have to inform their superiors and other levels within

the BU and organization on their program. The program’s construct of Multi-level communication hierarchy

acknowledges the multi-level reporting, however the interviewees indicate there is still room for improvement.

They assert it is crucial having bottom-up communication such as reporting from the BU’s representatives. This

need is related to the possible cause of having “too many people between us and the EB” (Category

Procurement Manager, RH), hindering alignment in commitment between the different levels. By reporting to

various levels throughout the organization, employees such as managers can be informed on the learnings. This

is likely to enable them to take subsequent action, which is an activity related to the stakeholder –learning

capability and most probably the stakeholder –based change capability as well. This rather involves learning-

and subsequent potential action based on these learnings on the side of employees (mostly superior

managers). Additionally, the bottom-up reporting lines are said to stimulate between-level alignment. In turn,

this alignment promotes the translation of the competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability, as is

discussed in the following sections. This research therefore expects that the structural element of reporting

positively affects the translation of all competencies. Considering this way of reporting stimulates between-

level alignment, its effect can likely be found at both the representatives as well as their superiors. With the

aforementioned relationships and proposed effects, the following proposition can therefore be formulated:

Proposition 6: Multi-level and bottom-up reporting promotes between-level alignment, by which it has

a positive effect on the translation of the competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

Alignment

Related to the previous construct on information asymmetry, data from all cases demonstrate the

importance of alignment throughout all levels. The representative from the BICEPS network stresses

misalignment can create barriers to learn from partnerships. FDOV’s Coordinator furthermore emphasizes on

the organization’s focus in alignment as being part of their Triple A – Alignment, Accountability, and Approval –

approach. Rural Horizon’s representatives experience within-team vision- and commitment alignment. The

constructs of Information asymmetry across levels and Priority misalignment across levels however refer to

misalignment between the team, higher management levels within the business unit (BU) and rest of the

organization. This misalignment is said to be caused by the broader picture of the ones at higher management.

The issue has caught the attention of Rural Horizon’s NGO as well. The NGO’s Programme Officer Sustainable

Fruit & Vegetables proposes to have overall internal alignment on the program and the possibilities it offers the

organization, as is demonstrated in the construct of Clear internal communication in the BU and organization

on the program. The Officer argues that the BU’s team of representatives has a significant different vision and

thereby different objectives compared to corporate. The objective and target should be to have between-level

alignment within the organization, and to continuously improve the sustainability performance rather than

solely focusing on commercial objectives. Such misalignment in vision, objectives and related targets most

45

likely acts as a barrier to successful deployment of all individual competencies. One of the problems reported in

all cases but the FDOV is that misalignment causes a deficiency in the availability of necessary resources.

Though several of Rural Horizon’s representatives express a sufficiency in resources required, the

Category Manager argues misalignment in commitment to the objectives “is translated in the resources,

available resources that can be FTE’s, or that can be financially”. Other essential issues related to the

(mis)alignment are the following supporting necessities mentioned by the manager: “liberty of the

regulations”; internal procedures on external communication; work stress; and freedom in setting up the team.

This need for supporting resources is supported by the NGO’s construct of Availability of necessary resources,

resembling the many factors that challenge the representatives to have dialogue with stakeholders or to work

on the program.

The (main) representative of the BICEPS also reports challenges related to the construct of Availability

of necessary resources: “I also would like to make sure that it is not only me, because it tends now to be only

me predominantly”. He argues more people might hear more things, which promotes organizational learning.

The manager explains to work during evening hours as he is running out of time due to the time necessary for

his normal objectives, though he elaborates he is fine in doing so as it provides him with a higher level of self-

fulfillment. This might however not be an option for all representatives, e.g. in case they do not have the ability

to work on MSE in their spare time. The deficiency of resources might hinder representatives’ involvement and

abilities to engage successfully in the MSE. This deficiency seems to negatively affect the extent to which

representatives can deploy all seven competencies in favour of the stakeholder –learning capability, and

probably the other three capabilities as well. The resulting proposition can therefore be formulated as:

Proposition 7: Misalignment between the representatives and higher management levels has a

negative effect on the translation of the competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

5.2.4 Decision making process

Another factor affecting the representatives’ ability to work on the sustainability initiative and

programs is the span of control and authority granted. The representatives engaged in the MSEs are to a

certain degree free to work and to make autonomous decisions. Reporting on its own solely includes the act of

informing others, though does not involve the degree of autonomy of the representatives. This section

focusses on the degree of the representatives’ autonomy in the decision making process, and subsequently on

the approval lines that the representatives are required to follow.

Autonomy in the decision making process

A first glance at the data reveals a similarity among cases, being all representatives have only a limited

freedom to operate. Similar to FDOV’s DDP managers, the BICEPS’ representative is required to request for

approval on many decisions but can make autonomous decisions on minor issues. The related prerequisite in

both cases is that the representatives ensure their normal objectives are met. In the case of the Rural Horizon

program the prerequisite is explained by “the nice thing is that you get all of the room to do it on your own

way, as long as you keep them on board”, referring to the higher management levels (Senior Innovation

46

Manager, RH). The NGO’s Programme Officer supports this assertion with the construct being The major

decision makers are aligned and on board. The same applies to the BICEPS’ representative, though in an

alternative fashion. Though the manager runs the initiative, he is required to ask for approval as is incorporated

in the construct of Vertical and cost-center based approval line hierarchy. The approval lines are clear: the

bigger the decision to be made (e.g. related to budget), the higher is the management level from which

approval is to be granted. In the case of the FDOV program the extent of freedom is a bit more particular.

There is no approval required on minor matters that involve their local DDP teams and processes such as

decision making on budgets, which is related to the Accountability that is part of the organization’s focal Triple

A approach. One exception is the autonomy of the FODV’s Coordinator. This representative has a rather

informal role description to support the Regional Manager in the program, resulting in significant freedom to

operate. For many decisions regarding varying representatives, the Coordinator states she aligns with her

Regional Manager and in case necessary, with local DDP managers prior to her decision making. This role does

not seem to be present in the other initiative and program, which raises the question whether such a role can

be valuable to the facilitating structural elements of authority and communication in other (e.g. smaller or

bigger) partnerships.

It seems that all cases have in common that the ones that can give approval are either the budget

holders or the ones responsible on a higher management level. The related degree of autonomy to make

decisions is said to enable the representatives to make the steps they find necessary. This degree is therefore

related to the translation of competencies related to one’s ability to engaging, decision making and taking

action in favour of the partnership. As all but the Strategic Thinking- and Foresight Thinking competencies are

related to the latter, it is proposed that the structural element of authority provision has effect on the

translation of these competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability. The data previously discussed

reveals the ability to operate autonomously to a certain degree, resulting in the proposition of:

Proposition 8: The level of autonomy granted to representatives to take steps they find necessary has

a positive relationship with the translation of the Normative, Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity,

Interpersonal, Action, and Strategic Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

External communication

In all three cases the representatives note a similar line of approval on external communication on

their initiatives and program. The representatives are required to get Corporate Communication on board for

external communication on the MSEs, regardless of who is the one being responsible for its content. Corporate

Communication checks whether the content is aligned with the organization’s internal standards, being in line

with the Alignment pillar of the organization’s Triple A approach.

Representatives in all cases are allowed to communicate with their partnering stakeholders on aspects

of the partnership they find necessary to align or discuss on, being demonstrated in the models’ constructs

related to the stakeholder partnership management. They communicate during in-person meetings, telephone

calls, and need-based extra informal communication. In the BICEPS network, solely the initiating Manager

47

Category Procurement Logistics can freely contact partners when needed. Only the Manager Sea Transport is

allowed communicating externally on the general existence of the program with the procurement’s suppliers.

The extent to which the representatives in the other two cases are allowed to externally communicate is less

clearly mentioned in the interviews. However, it does not seem to form a barrier in the communication,

collaboration and learning.

The possibility to have formally planned meetings as well as need-based informal meeting with

partnering organizations is covered in both FDOV’s Formal meetings and informal need-based stakeholder

communication construct and in Rural Horizon’s Discussion and decision making mechanisms construct. This

freedom can allow representatives to communicate with the frequency, means of communication, and choice

of partners they find necessary or valuable to the initiative or program. Though it is not explicitly mentioned by

the representatives, it can be expected that it facilitates the translation of the Embracing Diversity and

Interdisciplinarity, Interpersonal, and Strategic Management competence to the stakeholder –learning

capability. The consequential proposition capturing these proposed relationships can be stated as follows:

Proposition 9: The level of autonomy granted to representatives in external communicating with

partners has a positive effect on the translation of the Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity, Interpersonal,

and Strategic Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

Learning supporting cultures

The suggestive title of this section refers to aspects other than the ones already mentioned in the

aforementioned sections and related. Many aspects do not seem to necessarily relate directly to either

authority or communication, nevertheless they seem to be essential in the translation of the individual

competencies.

The importance of this aspect being the organizational culture is best described by BICEPS’ main

representative, the Manager Category Procurement Logistics. In addition to the aforementioned necessary

resources and autonomy in decision making and communication, he argues for a supporting culture as

proposed in the concept of Initiative fostering and supporting culture for learning. Such a “culture where taking

initiatives is seen as a positive element” (Manager Category Procurement Logistics, BICEPS) should in particular

stimulate the translation of the competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability. As the manager asserts,

the organization should stimulate by e.g. acknowledgement and other non-financial rewards bottom-up

interest of employees to engage in – and learn from – the MSE(s). The manager emphasises as motivator: “I

want to look myself in the mirror at the end of the day, and believe that I have done the right thing”. This

culture very much seems to refer one’s Normative competence: the ability to map, apply and incorporate

sustainability values and targets based on these values and principles, and helps to ensure the person is held

accountable for the decisions made. The Interpersonal competence which enables, motivates and facilitates

collaboration is very much related to the culture’s aspect of active and motivated engagement. A stimulating

open culture is therefore assumed to promote the translation of in particular this competence, as well as of the

Normative competence.

48

The effects of the stimulating culture therefore lead to the following, last proposition:

Proposition 10: Organizational cultures supporting and stimulating active engagement in MSEs have a

positive effect on the translation of all but in particular the Normative and Interpersonal competence to the

stakeholder –learning capability

49

6 Discussion

Whereas the previous chapter elaborates on the empirical findings and related propositions, this

chapter mentions and relates the key empirical findings against the literature findings. This chapter aims to

contribute to the literature on organization structures at the individual stakeholders by comparing the 10

formulated propositions with the literature mentioned in the literature sections of the research. The

implications these finding are successively discussed, which will assist managers of Royal FrieslandCampina and

other (change) agents in similar fields of MSEs to structure their organization in a way that facilitates the

translation of individual competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability. The elaboration on the

limitations faced offers argumentation for the internal and external validity and thereby generalizability of the

conclusions. These limitations open avenue for further research that can assist in testing and expanding the

formulated propositions and can serve both managers in the field and the scientific literature on the

development of organizational capabilities for stakeholder orientation.

Introducing literature to the empirical findings

Communication between representatives

Proposition 1: The frequency of formal and informal communication between the representatives has

a positive effect on the translation of the Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity, Interpersonal, Action, and

Strategic Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

The first proposition argues the positive effect of the frequency of both formal- and informal contact

on the development of the stakeholder –learning capability. The significance of communicating via kinds of

formal methods is acknowledged by Easterby-Smith (1997), arguing formal management structures assist

planning and control, and is often embedded in certain communication systems. Veldhuizen, Blok and Dentoni

(2013) additionally support the notion of formal communication lines to ensure knowledge to be shared

throughout many levels and departments. They stress hierarchical structures in which employees from

different levels are involved is a driver for successful integration or implementation of knowledge regarding

sustainability dialogue. Both studies offer support for the use of formal communication structures, though our

results found evidence on its argued effect on the (stakeholder) –learning capability. This offers new insights, in

particular on the relation with the translation of individual competencies in the settings of MSEs.

Proposition 2: Flexibility in the choice of informal communication channels for communication

between representatives has a positive effect on translating of the Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity,

Interpersonal, Action, and Strategic Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

Proposition 3: Face to face communication, in particular by working from the same location, has a

positive effect on translating the Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity, Interpersonal, Action, and Strategic

Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

The first, second and third proposition mention a positive effect of the frequency of informal

communication and the flexibility in choice of communication channels (e.g. telephone, email, face-to-face

conversations) on the translation of the competencies to the competencies. The representatives reported to

50

choose from a broad variety of communication channel or method to communicate with each other. They

argue they base their choice on either their own individual preferences or characteristics of the other party.

Literature on the different types of organizational structure seems to be in line with these three

propositions, in that organic systems are preferred in environments similar to that of sustainability. Burns and

Stalker’s (1961) assert that organic systems that have informal communication flows in decentralized flat

structures are most useful for organizations that operate in dynamic, changing, and complex environments.

The partnerships or MSEs that are subject to this research are considered to work in such complex

environments, as sustainability is considered being such a “wicked problem” (Dentoni, Bitzer & Pascucci, 2016).

Considering the initiative and programs indeed seem to have similar flat structures on the informal

communication flow on the MSEs, the findings seem to be confirmed Burns and Stalker’s assertion.

Furthermore, Gupta and Govindarajan (1991) confirm the influence of high frequency and informality of

informal communication described in the models on successful knowledge dispersion. Pinto and Pinto’s (1990)

confirm the influence of this frequent informal communication on the high performance of cross-functional

cooperating project. The latter research also affirms the empirical results being the asserted importance of high

diversity of informal communication methods. They also affirmatively argue the importance of communication

on the spot by their suggested so-called “open door” policies that allow team members to have accessible

communication on location. Others found that organizations with flexible, open communication channels learn

faster than ones with explicit procedures and centralized information systems, supporting our proposition on

flexible communication channels (Rzevski & Prasad, 1998). Though all previously mentioned researchers

support our findings, none investigated these effects specifically on the translation of individual competencies,

neither in the context MSEs. Our results seem to provide new insights.

Communication to the rest of the organization

Proposition 4: Enabling representatives to communicate when, what and to whom they find necessary

has a positive effect on the translation of the Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity, Interpersonal, Action,

and Strategic Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

The fourth proposition stresses the importance of the possibility to communicate to others within the

organization on a need-base rather than on fixed moments and fixed issues. Though it can be understood that

the provision of the ability to decide who to communicate certain information or knowledge to has the

potential advantage the right persons can be informed, there is no literature on the importance of this for

organizational learning.

Though Easterby-Smith (1997) stresses on the use of rather informal communication systems that lead

to information and knowledge sharing with whoever is deemed to benefit, his research does not relate the

success of learning as a result of one’s ability to choice whom to communicate to on learnings; in particular in

the context of MSEs. It therefore seems the proposition provides new insights on the matter of need-based

communication in the particular case of learning in MSEs.

51

Proposition 5: Communication on both the initiative/program and related processes or steps to many

employees has a positive effect on the translation of the Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity,

Interpersonal, Action, and Strategic Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

The fifth proposition provides interesting insights on the topics of communication. It emphasises on

the arguments from representatives from Royal FrieslandCampina and the NGO. It suggests representatives

should additionally communicate on the process that led to stakeholder –learning and to the final state of the

initiative or program, to many employees. This is said to stimulate stakeholder –learning even more. As this has

not been covered in literature yet – in particular not on the learning in MSEs – it proposes a new finding on

communication.

Proposition 6: Multi-level and bottom-up reporting promotes between-level alignment, by which it has

a positive effect on the translation of the competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

The sixth proposition defines the representatives’ ideal internal communication lines on MSEs matters,

being that communication in the form of reporting flows between levels, starting from the lower levels and

working bottom-up. The analysis of this proposition in relation with previous literature is rather challenging. To

facilitate this analysis, we will break down and discuss the proposition into the two aspects of multi-level- and

bottom-up reporting.

The multi-level aspect of reporting seems to be in line with Burns and Stalker’s (1961) assertion to

having lateral, inter-department communication. However, the researchers did not investigate nor mention

how in particular reporting lines- and directions could or should flow in organizations that work on issues as

sustainability or working in MSEs.

The bottom-up aspect however has some support in literature. The representatives argued that rather

formal methods of bottom-up communication on updates and learnings from MSEs. Methods such as

integrated reporting most likely promote stakeholder –learning, as it said to improve the between-level

alignment on the MSEs. This assertion is confirmed by Easterby-Smith’s (1997), stating that formal

management- and knowledge sharing systems lead to solid information sharing that can assist planning and

control. Others as Beer, Voelpel, Leibold and Tekie (2005) add that bottom-up communication from lower

management levels enables higher management levels to become aware of potential barriers, such as poor

coordination and inadequate leadership skills. We can therefore state this proposition can be confirmed by

previous research, though it offers some initial observation of alternative reporting lines in addition to the

bottom-up ones.

Alignment

Proposition 7: Misalignment between the representatives and higher management levels has a

negative effect on the translation of the competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

The reporting lines from proposition 6 seem to lead to challenge and potentially resolve misalignment

between the representatives and higher management levels. This misalignment acts as a barrier by

endangering the provision of representatives with the resources necessary to act in favour of the stakeholder –

52

learning capability, as argued by the seventh proposition. The representatives indicated that one of the points

of misalignment is that in commitment between the representatives and higher management level. They argue

this is caused by a different, broader view of the latter. The empirical results indicate that alignment between

the representatives and higher management on vision and related resources is therefore essential. This is

supported by Serge (as cited in Beer, Voelpel, Leibold & Tekie, 2005), stating that building a shared vision on

the organization’s goals enables organizations to enable and promote organizational learning. Considering this

and other research did not focus on the effect or importance of (mis)alignment in the context of MSEs or on

sustainability, this research contributes by emphasizing on ensuring between-level alignment in favour of

MSEs.

The aspect of alignment relates to the next key finding of this research; empowering cultures.

Empowering culture

Proposition 10: Organizational cultures supporting and stimulating active engagement in MSEs have a

positive effect on the translation of all but in particular the Normative and Interpersonal competence to the

stakeholder –learning capability

One of the biggest key findings relates to organizational cultures. The tenth proposition includes the

representatives’ argumentation that a stimulating open organizational culture significantly promotes the

translation of all, but in particular the Normative and Interpersonal competence. Several researchers support

the notion of the significance of a stimulating culture for participating or engaging in MSEs. Van Leur’s (2013)

research argued one of the core activities related to stakeholder orientation is Empowering internal change

agents, which supports our asserted importance of empowering employees in favour of stakeholder

orientation. In his study, van Leur (2013) found a significant link between the core activity and the

implementation of the outcomes of the MSE’s; however not with the active stimulation of representatives to

engage in stakeholder dialogue and stakeholder –learning. Tushman and Nadler’s (1996) concluded critical

management roles should include the active provision of platforms for innovation as a process of

organizational learning. Veldhuizen, Blok and Dentoni’s (2013) successively stress the importance of an ‘open

culture’ at higher management levels. In this culture, managers or decision makers need to sincerely commit

themselves to stakeholder orientation by giving priority and allocate resources towards sustainability and

related MSEs. Though we previously indeed mentioned the necessity of such resources and found that

commitment at higher levels are essential, this research expands Veldhuizen et al.’s findings (2013). We

additionally argue the importance of the representatives’ request for a supporting and stimulating open culture

at the side of the representative – or lower management – level, in which these aforementioned resources

should be provided.

Proposition 8: The level of autonomy granted to representatives to take steps they find necessary has

a positive relationship with the translation of the Normative, Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity,

Interpersonal, Action, and Strategic Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

53

Proposition 9: The level of autonomy granted to representatives in external communicating with

partners has a positive effect on the translation of the Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity, Interpersonal,

and Strategic Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

Another aspect of such enabling cultures is the ability to take steps representatives find valuable or

necessary to act in favour of the MSE and its related initiative or program, as the eighth and ninth proposition

describe. Such a culture is said to entail an organizational environment free from for instance strict regulation

or rules. Beer, Voelpel, Leibold, and Tekie (2005)already noted the requisite of a culture that has a “fit” with

elements as environment, strategy and leadership, though they did not relate this fit to the potential of

organizational or stakeholder –learning. Likewise there are others that support the propositions’ notion of

granting project members autonomy, e.g. for decision making or the topics, lines and frequency of external

communication. Scarbrough et al. (2004) found a strong link with high project autonomy and high knowledge

integration, similar to Van Leur’s (2013) core activity of Creating project ownership/ empowering internal

change agents that was found to be related to the implementation of results and learnings of the MSE into the

organization. Whereas these researchers examined the link between autonomy with knowledge or learning

integration, the empirical results observe a link between autonomy and the activity of successful stakeholder –

learning as well.

Implications for managers

The deepened understanding of the proposed construction of the structural elements of authority and

communication offers insights for both scientific literature and research, as well as for (change) managers of

organizations participating in MSEs for sustainability. This research’s results can assist managers is setting out

strategies and structures that facilitate the translation of individual competencies to the stakeholder –learning

capability. One of the most interesting findings is that frequent communication via the combination of both

formal and informal lines between the representatives is found to promote the aforementioned translation.

Another facilitating factor is face to face communication, in particular by working from the same location.

Misalignment between representatives and higher management levels in for instance commitment

should be prevented, as it has negative effects on the translation. It is suggested to striving to align between

these levels by means as both bottom-up and multi-level reporting to inform on the MSEs. By such reporting

and communication they can furthermore inform their superiors on the manifestation of barriers such as strict

regulations and procedures hindering effective engagement in the MSE. It is suggested by several

representatives to communicate to other employees not solely on updates of the MSEs, but also to

communicate on the processes or steps taken that led to the initiative- or program’s final state, as this

facilitates the translation on learning.

The results furthermore emphasise on the importance of granting representatives a significant level of

autonomy. Providing representatives the autonomy to take steps they find necessary in favour of the MSEs can

act in favour of the translation. One of these steps could be to communicate when, what information, and to

whom they find necessary. Other related facilitating factors are to allow representatives the flexibility to

choose informal communication channels to communicate between each other. Regarding the external

communication with stakeholders partnering in MSEs, the translation can be facilitated by granting

54

representatives to externally communicate with partnering stakeholders. At last, is seems that in addition to

the aforementioned granting of autonomy the translation of individual competencies to the stakeholder –

learning capability can be facilitated by setting an open organizational culture with real commitment at higher

management levels that supports and stimulates active engagement in MSEs. Such a culture should enable

representatives to deploy and translate their competencies.

It can be concluded that alignment between higher- and lower management levels should create

platform in which all levels have the same vision, mission, objective and commitment for effective stakeholder

orientation and, in particular stakeholder –learning. The following figure 6 summarizes the key factors that are

both directly and indirectly related to authority and communication in three overarching elements that

facilitate the translation:

Research limitations

Though the empirical data offers several contributions to literature on organization’s structural

elements for stakeholder –learning on MSEs, caution is warranted in interpreting the propositions. This section

suggests some alternative justification on the findings, in favour of the internal and external validity and

thereby generalizability of the conclusions. Foremost, though empirical data is used for the proposed link

between the structural elements and stakeholder –learning, the related individual competencies affected are in

most cases solely based on its definition from previous literature. The way this research interpreted these

Facilitating the translation of individual competencies to the stakeholder -learning capability

Alignment between levels

in e.g. commitment

and necessary resources

Cultures stimulating employees' engagement

Autonomy in (formal & informal)

internal and external

communication

Figure 6: The key factors related to authority and communication facilitating the translation

55

definitions is the basis to the formulated link between the individual competencies and the structural elements

in the propositions. The related level of these competencies of the representatives of the empirical research is

however not assessed, due to time limitations. This implies that while the respondents indicated certain

structures will likely enable the organization to learn more effectively or efficiently from stakeholders, they

might score low on the level of competencies needed and – or – related.

In addition to the inability to measure the aforementioned levels of competencies, the respondents’

descriptions could not be triangulated by methods such as observation. The propositions are exclusively based

on the proposed links on the representatives’ explanation from one single organization which could lead to

biases. This could be caused by organizational factors such as power differences, legal structure on for instance

what can be shared in interviews, and certain organizational cultures. Both these and social desirability biases

could hinder objective data gathering for which triangulation methods would offer a solution. The biggest

social desirability biases that could affect objective gathering relates to the relationships between the

representatives, as from one initiative and one program representatives from different management levels

have been interviewed. Though it was told the transcripts and names remain confidential, there exists a chance

representatives showed social desirable behavior.

The last limitation that possibly could have affected the interview results was the unintended and

undesired use of the interviewer of certain terminology, such as the words “barriers” and “abilities to fully

employ your potential”. Thiscould have led to provoking answers that would not normally be mentioned or

even experienced to be a potential hinder or barrier.

Even while taking into account all the aforementioned limitations, caution is essential in implementing

the research findings and suggested structures. As the configuration approach argues, organizations consist of

different organizational and external constructs that interact with other, rather than having simply pair-wise

relationships between point structural elements and external traits (Snow et al., 2006; Grandori & Furnari,

2008). This thesis’ acknowledgement of the interdependence of the constructs of strategy, people, structure,

management processes, and organizational capabilities, has implications for the usability of the propositions.

For this research, the notion of complementarity implies that specific facilitating structural elements can

enhance or reduce the value of the other components adopted. Therefore, there is a possibility that the

individual propositions do not always result in successful translation of the individual competences, as one or

more of the five components – perhaps even another structural element – might be suboptimal.

Future research

The limitations offer potential opportunities for future research to test the explorative propositions,

and can attempt to overcome the aforementioned barriers. Such research should test the argued relationship

between the introduced structural component being the elements of authority and communication, and

stakeholder –learning. The theoretical argumentation on the link between the latter relationship and the

individual competencies could benefit from the provision of additional empirical argumentation. Future

research should attempt to overcome the barriers mentioned by covering for instance multiple partnerships

and partners such as NGO’s. They should include triangulation methods such as having additional observations.

56

Hereby they can test the following: 1) the organization’s performance on the stakeholder –learning and the

remaining SSC, SIC and SCC capabilities by the use of objective measurements and partner triangulation; 2) the

representatives’ score on the individual competencies; and 3) diminish the social desirability bias by not

informing higher management who the respondents are. As this research was exploratory in nature, others

should elaborate on the results by addressing multiple initiatives or programs. Representatives from these

MSEs should score differently on of the individual competencies so that the effect of the structural elements on

the translation can be assessed more precisely. This can offer findings that empirically link the individual

competencies to the structural elements, which could for instance prove or disprove the proposed translation

linkages of this research.

This research furthermore invites further research to investigate the importance and ideal

descriptions of ideal organizational cultures. Similarly they should investigate the proposed related effect of

autonomy provision on the stimulation of the translation of competencies to the stakeholder –learning

capability. Future research investigating the linkages of the same and other structural elements to not only the

stakeholder –learning, but also the other three capabilities for stakeholder orientation can lead to interesting

insights. This research can serve as a sound start, as it expects more capabilities can be affected by investigated

elements. Though it is showed the right configuration of all (structural) elements are essential to successful

stakeholder orientation for sustainability, an interesting revenue for future research is to include the potential

presence of not only linear but alternative – such as U-shaped – relationships.

57

References

Achcaoucaou, F., Bernardo, M., & Castan, J. M. (2009). Determinants of Organisational Structures: An Empirical

Study. Review of International Management, 10(3), 566-577.

Appelsientje. (n.d.). Duurzame teelt [Internal news release] Retrieved from

https://www.appelsientje.nl/duurzaamheid/onze-duurzame-aanpak

Barrick, M., Thurgood, G., Smith, T., & Courtright, S. (2014). Collective Organizational Engagement: Linking

Motivational Antecedents, Strategic Implementation, and Firm Level Performance. Academy of Management

Journal, amj. 2013.0227.

Batie, S. S. (2008). Wicked problems and applied economics. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 90(5),

1176-1191.

Beer, M., Voelpel, S. C., Leibold, M., & Tekie, E. B. (2005). Strategic management as organizational learning:

Developing fit and alignment through a disciplined process. Long Range Planning, 38(5), 445-465.

Birkinshaw, J., Nobel, R., & Ridderstråle, J. (2002). Knowledge as a contingency variable: do the characteristics

of knowledge predict organization structure? Organization science, 13(3), 274-289.

Boeije, H. (2010). Analysis in Qualitative Research (Vol. 26): Sage Publications Ltd.

Boström, M., & Hallström, K. T. (2013). Global multi-stakeholder standard setters: how fragile are they? Journal

of Global Ethics, 9(1), 93-110.

Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2003). The effect of stakeholder preferences, organizational structure and

industry type on corporate community involvement. Journal of Business Ethics, 45(3), 213-226.

Burns, T. E., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. University of Illinois at Urbana-

Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.

Burton, R. M., Obel, B., & DeSanctis, G. (2011). Organizational design: A step-by-step approach: Cambridge

University Press.

Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology,

6(1), 1-22.

Das, T. K. (2014). Strategic Alliances for Value Creation: IAP.

Dentoni, D., Bitzer, V., & Pascucci, S. (2016). Cross-sector partnerships and the co-creation of dynamic

capabilities for stakeholder orientation. Journal of business ethics, 135(1), 35-53.

Dentoni, D., Blok, V., Lans, T., & Wesselink, R. (2012a). Developing Human Capital for Agri-Food Firms’ Multi-

Stakeholder Interactions. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 15(B), 61-68.

Dentoni, D., Hospes, O., & Ross, R. B. (2012b). Managing wicked problems in agribusiness: the role of multi-

stakeholder engagements in value creation. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 15(B).

Dentoni, D., & Veldhuizen, M. (2012). Building Capabilities for Multi-Stakeholder Interactions at Global and

Local Levels. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 15(B), 95-106.

de Mol, T. (2016, January 15). Personal interview

58

Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and

implications. Academy of management Review, 20(1), 65-91.

Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of organizational learning: contributions and critiques. Human relations,

50(9), 1085-1113.

Ferrell, O., Gonzalez-Padron, T. L., Hult, G. T. M., & Maignan, I. (2010). From market orientation to stakeholder

orientation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 29(1), 93-96.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach: Pitman Publisher.

Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research notes on the

Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31.

Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. B. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic

change in academia. Administrative science quarterly, 370-403.

Grandori, A., & Furnari, S. (2008). A chemistry of organization: Combinatory analysis and design. Organization

Studies, 29(3), 459-485.

Gulati, R., & Puranam, P. (2009). Renewal through reorganization: The value of inconsistencies between formal

and informal organization. Organization science, 20(2), 422-440.

Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (1991). Knowledge flows and the structure of control within multinational

corporations. Academy of management review, 16(4), 768-792.

Haasen, P. (2015, December 15). Personal interview

Hitchcock, D. E., & Willard, M. L. (2009). The business guide to sustainability: Practical strategies and tools for

organizations: Earthscan.

Hult, G. T. M. (2011). Market-focused sustainability: market orientation plus! Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 39(1), 1-6.

Huntsman. (n.d.). Shippers join forces for more sustainable shipping in BICEPS-network [Internal news release].

Retrieved from

http://www.huntsman.com/polyurethanes/Applications/itemrenderer?p_rendertitle=no&p_renderdate=no&p

_renderteaser=no&p_item_id=990634020&p_item_caid=1103

Kamar, A. (2016, January 6). Personal interview

Kraut, R. E., Fish, R. S., Root, R. W., & Chalfonte, B. L. (1990). Informal communication in organizations: Form,

function, and technology. Paper presented at the Human reactions to technology: Claremont symposium on

applied social psychology.

Laszlo, C., & Zhexembayeva, N. (2011). Embedded sustainability: The next big competitive advantage:

Greenleaf Publishing.

Laursen, K., & Mahnke, V. (2001). Knowledge strategies, firm types, and complementarity in human-resource

practices. Journal of Management and Governance, 5(1), 1-27.

McMillan, E. (2002). Considering organisation structure and design from a complexity paradigm perspective.

Tackling industrial complexity: the ideas that make a difference. University of Cambridge: Institute of

Manufacturing, 123-136.

59

Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy

of Management Journal, 36(6), 1175-1195.

Miles, R. E., Snow, C. C., Meyer, A. D., & Coleman, H. J. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process.

Academy of management Review, 3(3), 546-562.

Miller, D. (1981). Toward a new contingency approach: The search for organizational gestalts. Journal of

management studies, 18(1), 1-26.

Miller, D., Dröge, C., & Toulouse, J.-M. (1988). Strategic process and content as mediators between

organizational context and structure. Academy of Management Journal, 31(3), 544-569.

Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Structural change and performance: Quantum versus piecemeal-incremental

approaches. Academy of management Journal, 25(4), 867-892.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. University of Illinois at

Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in

Entrepreneurship.

Nooteboom, B. (1999). Inter-firm alliances: Analysis and design: Psychology Press.

Osagie, E., Wesselink, R., Blok, V., Lans, T., & Mulder, M. (2014). Individual Competencies for Corporate Social

Responsibility: A Literature and Practice Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-20.

Pauwels, R. (2016, January 6). Personal interview

Pinto, M. B., & Pinto, J. K. (1990). Project team communication and cross‐functional cooperation in new

program development. Journal of product innovation management, 7(3), 200-212.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). The link between competitive advantage and corporate social

responsibility. Harvard business review, 84(12), 78-92.

Probst, G., & Raisch, S. (2005). Organizational crisis: The logic of failure. The Academy of Management

Executive, 19(1), 90-105.

Ramachandran, V. (2011). Strategic corporate social responsibility: a ‘dynamic capabilities’ perspective.

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 18(5), 285-293.

Royal FrieslandCampina. (2014). Annual Report 2014. Retrieved from

https://www.frieslandcampina.com/app/uploads/sites/2/2015/08/FrieslandCampina-Annual-Report-2014.pdf

Rzevski, G., & Prasad, K. (1998). The synergy of learning organisations and flexible information technology. AI &

SOCIETY, 12(1-2), 87-96.

Sarkis, J. (2001). Manufacturing’s role in corporate environmental sustainability ‐ Concerns for the new

millennium. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(5/6), 666-686. doi:

doi:10.1108/01443570110390390

Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., Laurent, S., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., & Newell, S. (2004). Project-based learning and

the role of learning boundaries. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1579-1600.

Schoenemann, F. (2016, January 15). Personal interview

Snow, C. C., Miles, R. E., & Miles, G. (2006). The configurational approach to organization design: four

recommended initiatives Organization Design (pp. 3-18): Springer.

60

Solidaridad. (2014). Quenching the thirst for sustainable juice production [Internal news release]. Retrieved

from https://en.ruralhorizon.org/news/

Stewart, G. L., & Barrick, M. R. (2000). Team Structure and Performance: Assessing the Mediating Role of

Intrateam Process and the Moderating Role of Task Type. The Academy of Management Journal, 43(2), 135-

148. doi: 10.2307/1556372

Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4),

633-642.

Sustainable Life Media. (2015). Ahoy! Five Global Shippers Collaborate to Drive Sea Freight Sustainability

[Internal news release] Retrieved from

http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/collaboration/brynn_mcnally/ahoy_five_global_shippers

_collaborate_drive_sea_freight_s

Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic

management journal, 509-533.

van Dam, N., & Marcus, J. (2012). Organization and management: An international approach. Routledge.

van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: a guide for organizational and social research: a guide for

organizational and social research: Oxford University Press.

van Leur. (2013). Individual Competences allowing the firm’s Dynamic Capability for Stakeholder Orientation

(Unpublished master’s thesis). Wageningen University, The Netherlands

Veldhuizen, M., Blok, V., & Dentoni, D. (2013). Organisational drivers of capabilities for multi-stakeholder

dialogue and knowledge integration. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 13(2), 107-117.

Vermeer, W. (2016, January 15). Personal interview

Verschuren, P., Doorewaard, H., & Mellion, M. (2010). Designing a research project (Vol. 2). The Hague: Eleven

International Publishing.

Waddock, S. (2012). More than Coping: Thriving in a World of Wicked Problems. International Food and

Agribusiness Management Review, 15(B).

Wesselink, R., Blok, V., van Leur, S., Lans, T., & Dentoni, D. (2015). Individual competencies for managers

engaged in corporate sustainable management practices. Journal of Cleaner Production.

Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011). Key competencies in sustainability: a reference framework

for academic program development. Sustainability science, 6(2), 203-218.

Yang, T.-M., & Maxwell, T. A. (2011). Information-sharing in public organizations: A literature review of

interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors. Government Information Quarterly,

28(2), 164-175.

61

Appendices

Appendix I: Interview structure protocol The following list depicts how the research used the interview questions to provide information on the

aspects of authority and communication by relating the questions to the indication variables mentioned in

section 4.2.2.2 (“protocol”). As is explained in the first rows of the table, the first column is reserved for the

interview questions, as well as the sub questions or aspects that can and should be discussed in order to obtain

the necessary data to create a comprehensive model on the initiative or programs. The second column

focusses on the related objectives of the interview questions, by mentioning the indication variables

mentioned in section 4.2.2.2. It furthermore gives an indication of time reserved for the parts of the interview.

Adding the amount of minutes reserved will result in an interview of over an hour, though many of the issues

mentioned in the different parts of the overview are closely related; therefore assumed to be covered in one

part of the interview or the other. Organizing the interview structure protocol in this fashion promotes the

construction of an elaborate interview protocol. This interview protocol entails all the questions the

interviewees were asked, and is included in Appendix II.

Overview of the interview, with the order of topics and questions being:

Orange: The context of the situation, being: during a MSE meeting, with fellow representatives and/or

superiors, with the rest of the organization.

Purple: The questions. Often, there is an alternative question/ explanation of the questions added in italics.

Darker blue: Issued to be assessed

Lighter blue & white: The aspects of these issues to be assessed, often not to be directly asked but looked for

in their answer. These can be used as a checklist. On the right hand side the indication variables are given.

62

Start of the interview: General info about official role, department etc.:

Related goal (OR: General questions on the interviewee and project)

When did you start working at FrieslandCampina, and when with your current function? “Relaxing” question

What is your formal role in the company? Daily formal responsibility

What has been your role from the beginning? - Communication with others outside their representatives; - Communication with their fellow representatives; - Communication with others in their company, such as supervisors/ managers.

Daily formal and informal responsibility

Which employees from FrieslandCampina where involved in the project/initiative during the period in which the initial dialogue with stakeholders has already been started? (person, department)

General questions on collaboration within FrieslandCampina

Questions on communication: Related aspect: During a MSE meeting:

Time reserved for these questions: 2 or 3 minutes

What was the role you played during the MSE meetings? If needed, ask for their part in the interaction and communication with the other stakeholders.

General question, to set the “mood” for the presentation

So how did you interact/communicate (again, not so important) Objective = for further research it could be a starting point, or point of interest.

- The interaction (who, how much, how, invited/self-initiative)

- The content (the topics, opinions/ideas, questions)

63

Questions on communication: Related aspect: The collaboration with fellow representatives and/ or supervisors:

Time reserved for these questions: 20 minutes

Can you describe the collaboration and communication process between the representatives from FrieslandCampina, including yourself? If needed, start by asking; How did the communication between all the representatives look like, regarding both the topics as well as the communication itself.

Research question Sharing knowledge within the sustainability team:

Find out on: The interaction (how) (who, how much, how, invited/self-initiative) Objective

- When (before/during/after MSE meetings) Different scenarios (-Communication topics/ interaction categories)

- Who communicates, and when (after asking/ self-initiative) -Communication patterns and direction, incl. interaction players -Encouragement for communication

- The way/ method of communication -Communication channels (written, verbal, systems) -Formality of communication

- To what extent is this all written down in your (group) tasks -Formality of communication

- What is communicated (discussions points/ information) -Interaction categories -Communication topics

- Frequency of communication -Communication intensity

Found out on: The content (what) (the topics, opinions/ideas, questions) Objective

- What: general/specific, proceedings & outcomes, explicit/implicit. - And: social-emotional (agreement, solidarity), task/instrumental (suggestion/opinion)

-Communication topics -Interaction categories -Formality of communication

- So e.g. ; What is communicated (discussions points/ information) -Interaction categories -Communication topics

To your opinion: Are there any aspects related to the interactions itself, which could be improved in order to facilitate the knowledge exchange within the team of representatives?

-Barriers (all aspects)

Find out on: barriers/ improvements in the interaction

To your opinion: Are there any aspects/hinder related to the content of the interactions, which could be improved in order to facilitate the knowledge exchange within the team of representatives?

-Barriers (all aspects)

Find out on: barriers/ improvements in the content

Can you describe the role of you as representatives from FrieslandCampina in the process of interaction internally to your supervisors/ superiors? If needed, ask for their part in the interaction and communication with the others.

Research question Sharing knowledge with supervisors/ superiors:

Find out how the representatives interacted/communicated: Objective

- The interaction (how) (who, how much, how, invited/self-initiative) -Communication patterns and direction, incl. interaction players

64

-Communication channels -Encouragement for communication -Formality of communication

- The content (what) (the topics, opinions/ideas, questions) -Communication topics -Interaction categories -Formality of communication

The collaboration with the rest of the organization:

Time reserved for these questions: 20 minutes

Did you have internal meetings or communication on the MSE (such as its outcomes) with the rest of the organization? If so, how did these meetings or conversations look like?

- Who participated -Communication patterns and direction, incl. interaction players

- Who took the lead (roles), and how did the participation of the others look like -Communication patterns and direction, incl. interaction players -Formality of communication

- How did people communicate/ how was the setting of the meeting -Communication channels (written, verbal, systems) -Formality of communication

- Discussions points -Interaction categories -Communication topics & barriers

- How frequent did you communicate by discussions -Communication intensity -Formality of communication (possibly)

How was the initiative diffused to all relevant units in the company? (E.g. by guidelines, manuals, decisions, support tools, training programs etc)

All aspects, e.g. Communication channels (written, verbal, systems)

Potential barriers regarding communication Time reserved for these questions: 5 minutes

- How did you experience this diffusion with regard to the ease and way of communication?

-Barriers to employing competencies: Communication barriers: channels / intensity (and time)/ Formality of communication (e.g. not connected (communication) to the right person) / encouragement / patterns and direction (opportunity to talk to the right people)/ level (centralization) of communication / interaction categories / communication topics

- With regard to your abilities, do you have the idea you can work to your full potential?

- Same options (communication barriers)

- Are there any barriers you experience by which you cannot fully employ your qualities and strengths?

- Same options (communication barriers)

65

Questions on authority The following questions relate to your role as [one of] the representatives of FrieslandCampina in the partnerships.

Time reserved for these questions: 20 minutes Overall objective

Which aspects about your involvement in the partnership were, formally and informally, written down by your superior and/or yourself?

- Cases/ topics, - situations, - ways of communication, - people to talk to, - amount of time to spend, - who to report to (their hierarchical levels)

Could you describe the decision making process of - and between - all the people from FrieslandCampina that were involved in the stakeholder partnership? Aim is to assess the extent of autonomous decisions making.

-Enabling

- Cases, topics & decisions, - way of decision making (line of people asked for permission, so extent of

consulting/asking permission), - and why (for all 3 points)

Potentially I can ask something like: Where there any cases in which you did/did party/ did not have to ask permission to others? Where there any restrictions or things you were not allowed to do, regarding the involvement with the stakeholders?

- In cases they had to do so, who had to be consented? (hierarchical levels are these people) and why, you think, did you had to consult someone first?

-Vertical line of command / authority structure

The next question is related to the ability to learn from the other stakeholders from the partnership. To what extent were you able to move freely in doing everything needed in order to facilitate that FrieslandCampina can acquire and use aspects learned from the stakeholders?

To what extent “was” and “was not”. - Which aspects; - Which cases; - Why

In case they answered they were not: What is the disadvantage of being not able to do these things you mentioned? (and/or the next question “barriers/improvements”)

-Barriers -Point of improvement -Link to competencies -Link to learning

66

Possibly ask for barriers and/or improvements; What are important factors, from your side, that let the dialogue with the members be or become effective? (rules, authority, relationships, communication)

Questions on the MSE outcomes (what has been learned) Time reserved for these questions: 10 minutes

What benefits did you achieved or gained by the partnership with stakeholders on sustainability? (To which changes does it lead?)

Alternative question: What sustainable activities exist or what have been learned from these stakeholder interactions?

The next questions focus on the ability to use your competencies or skills in the partnership that is the focus of this interview. - How should the communication be organized, so that you can perform to your full potential in order to learn from the stakeholders? - How should the decision making be organized so that you can work to your full potential in order to learn from the stakeholders?

Knowing the main issues struggling the integration gives a better view of elements which are needed

Which difficulties did you experience by integrating the insight from the dialogue into the organization?

Knowing the main issues struggling the integration gives a better view of elements which are needed

67

Appendix II: The interview The first part of the interview schedule below entails the introduction of the interview, which is

explained at the beginning of the interview to inform the interviewee on the content and the anonymity of the

interview.

This is followed by the actual interview questions. The overview contains all the questions that were of

great importance in order to gather all the data necessary for the research. The questions were either asked

precisely as mentioned in the overview, or were customized during the interview in correspondence to the

answers given. Therefore this semi-structured interview rather used the order of questioning that fitted the

answers given, to be able to gather the data that was not only necessary for the research, but also that the

interviewees deemed to be important. By this approach, it is aimed that concepts can be found that were not

anticipated at forehand, as was the case in for instance Gioia and Thomas’s study (1996).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction of the interview

First of all, I’d like to thank you for both your time and willingness to participate in this interview. As I am aware

of your schedule, I am very pleased with the amount of time you were able to reserve for this conversation.

Therefore I would like to inform you that this interview will last no longer than one and an half hour. During this

time, we have several questions that we would like to cover. If time begins to run short, it may be necessary to

interrupt you in order to continue to the remaining questions and topics.

To facilitate our note-taking, we would like to audio tape our conversations today. For your information, only researchers of the research project within the Management Studies Department of the Wageningen University will have access to the documentation of today’s transcribed interview. Therefore we [would like to request/ requested] you to sign this document which states that (1): all information will be held confidential, and (2): that your participation is voluntary and you may stop at any time if you feel uncomfortable Thank you for your agreeing to participate.

You have been selected for this interview, as [provide reason: their involvement, etc. See also the pre-interview

letter]. This interview is part of our research on multi-stakeholder partnerships. This research predicts there is a

link between the internal organizational structure of the stakeholder, and the extent in which the potential of the

skills are deployed. The research therefore aims to investigate this link, by focussing on certain structural aspects

of the team of FrieslandCampina members that have been involved in [that we have discussed earlier]

stakeholder project. Therefore all the questions have the goal of identifying the structure of these members of

FrieslandCampina in the stakeholder project. This involves the structure of these members during the period in

which the project had already been started, so after the initial interaction between the stakeholders.

In addition to this structure itself, we are interested in these members opinion about this structure during the

projects. This does not include the organizational structure between the stakeholders, as this is not of the interest

of this particular thesis. In other words, we are interested in understanding more about the organization of

employees of FrieslandCampina in the duration of the project.

The information you provide in this interview will be used to identify how members of participation stakeholders

are internally organized. This should assist organizations such as FrieslandCampina to improve its internal

organization in the context of stakeholder partnerships.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The interview itself

Interviewee Background

68

Ask questions that are both “relaxing” the interviewee, as well as give me some background on the person that

might be of importance for the context or research (perhaps previous positions in the company, amount of

years worked).

Questions:

1) When did you start working at FrieslandCampina, and when with your current function?

2) What is your formal role in the company?

3) What has been your role from the beginning?

4) Which employees from FrieslandCampina where involved in the project/initiative during the period in

which the initial dialogue with stakeholders has already been started? (person, department)

Introduction on communication (also to seed the mood for the rest of the interview)

5) What was the role you played during the MSE meetings?

6) So how did you interact/communicate (again, not so important; solely to set the mood and might

become a starting point for further/ other research)

Questions on communication

The collaboration with fellow representatives and/ or supervisors:

7) Can you describe the collaboration and communication process between the representatives from

FrieslandCampina, including yourself? (interaction=how, content=what, and it’s barriers)

8) Or: Are there to your opinion any barriers that hinder the exchange of acquired knowledge from the

stakeholders?

9) Can you describe the role of you as representatives from FrieslandCampina in the process of

interaction internally to your supervisors/ superiors? (interaction=how, content=what)

The collaboration with the rest of the organization:

10) Did you have internal meetings on the MSE with the rest of the organization? If so, how did these

meetings look like?

11) How was the initiative diffused to all relevant units in the company?

Potential barriers regarding communication:

12) How did you experience this diffusion with regard to the ease and way of communication?

13) With regard to your abilities, do you have the idea you can work on your full potential?

14) Are there any barriers you experience by which you cannot fully employ your qualities and strengths?

Questions on authority

The following questions relate to your role as [one of] the representatives of FrieslandCampina in the

partnerships.

15) Which aspects about your involvement in the partnership were, formally and informally, written down

by your superior and/or yourself?

16) Could you describe the decision making process of and between all the ones from FrieslandCampina

that were involved in the stakeholder partnership?

17) Potentially I can ask something like: Where there any cases in which you did/did party/ did not have to

ask permission to others?

The next question is related to the ability to learn from the other stakeholders from the partnership.

69

18) Were you able to move freely in doing everything needed in order to facilitate that FrieslandCampina

can acquire and use aspects learned from the stakeholders?

19) In case they answered they were not: What is the disadvantage of being not able to do these things

you mentioned? OR this question: What are important factors, from your side, that let the dialogue

with the members be or become effective?

The following questions also relate to your role your colleagues from FrieslandCampina, both in and outside of

the MSE meetings.

20) And to what extent were you NOT allowed to make decisions yourself?

Some additional - rather direct - questions on the stakeholder –learning capability

21) Do you, or your fellow colleagues learn from the partnership? In case so; can you give an example of

learnings in the partnership?

Ask more questions on the answers given, depending on the information they provide. 22) Do you think there are (other) ways of improvement in order to learn more from the partners and/or

the partnership? In case so: can you give examples? 23) Do you think there are (other) ways of improvement in order that fellow colleagues, departments or

the organization as one, could learn more from the partners and/or the partnership? In case so: can you give examples?

In conclusion

What is the core factor that enables you to help FrieslandCampina in their collective learning?

At the end of the interview

Provide contact information, as well as request the interviewee to be contacted in case necessary for

clarification, or to ask additional questions (once another interview has been conducted).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix III: The use of Atlas.ti The analysis of the empirical data has been facilitated by the use of the coding program Atlas.ti. This

appendix illustrates the usage of this program in favour of this research.

Prior to the actual analysis, all the individual interview data were uploaded per initiative or program

which enabled coding of the interviews in the same document or folder. During the reading process of the

interviews, chunks of text that seemed related to the elements of interest as well as chunks that seemed to

provide (new) interesting insights were selected and given an initial order code. Once all interviews related to a

single case were initially coded – depicted at the right hand side of figure 7 below- the initial order codes were

assembled into first order codes – being depicted at the left hand side as so-called families.

70

Figure 7: The assembling of initial order codes into first order codes in Atlas.ti

71

The first order codes were successively combined in network, as is depicted in figure 8. Once these

codes where shifted around in accordance of its related aspects, they were assembled in the second order

codes that relate to several first order codes. These codes, or constructs, were subsequently connected to

overarching aggregated dimensions, being the last step of the coding process.

Figure 8: Assemblage of initial order codes into first order codes in Atlas.ti

72

Appendix IV: Models of empirical data

FDOV

Figure 9: FDOV's interview data on formal and informal knowledge- sharing mechanisms

73

Figure 10: FDOV's interview data on autonomous operation and decision making (dis)ablers, and on learning mechanisms

74

Figure 11: FDOV's interview data on stakeholder partnership management

75

BICEPS

Figure 12: BICEPS' interview data on multi- level knowledge sharing mechanisms

76

Figure 13: BICEPS' interview data on learning fostering mechanisms, and on learning aspects

77

Figure 14: BICEPS' interview data on decision making mechanisms, and on stakeholder partnership management

78

Rural Horizon

Figure 16: NGO's interview data on hierarchical multi-level communication

Figure 15: Rural Horizon's interview data on hierarchical multi-level communication

79

Figure 17: Rural Horizon's interview data on de-centralized decision making and task differentiation across levels

80

Figure 18: NGO's interview data on de-centralized decision making and task differentiation across levels

81

Figure 19: Rural Horizon's interview data on formal and informal knowledge-sharing and task differentiation mechanisms

82

Figure 20: Rural Horizon's interview data on external communication with stakeholders

83

Figure 21: NGO's interview data on external communication with stakeholders

84

Figure 22: NGO's interview data on sustainability strategy commitment

85

Appendix V: The formulated propositions This appendix provides an overview of the proposition formulated as a result of the data analysis.

These 10 propositions mostly relate to the structural elements of internal communication and the authority

granted to the supervisors of the three cases.

Proposition 1: The frequency of formal and informal communication between the representatives has

a positive effect on the translation of the Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity, Interpersonal, Action, and

Strategic Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

Proposition 2: Flexibility in the choice of informal communication channels for communication

between representatives has a positive effect on translating of the Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity,

Interpersonal, Action, and Strategic Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

Proposition 3: Face to face communication, in particular by working from the same location, has a

positive effect on translating the Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity, Interpersonal, Action, and Strategic

Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

Proposition 4: Enabling representatives to communicate when, what and to whom they find necessary

has a positive effect on the translation of the Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity, Interpersonal, Action,

and Strategic Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

Proposition 5: Communication on both the initiative/program and related processes or steps to many

employees has a positive effect on the translation of the Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity,

Interpersonal, Action, and Strategic Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

Proposition 6: Multi-level and bottom-up reporting promotes between-level alignment, by which it has

a positive effect on the translation of the competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

Proposition 7: Misalignment between the representatives and higher management levels has a

negative effect on the translation of the competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

Proposition 8: The level of autonomy granted to representatives to take steps they find necessary has

a positive relationship with the translation of the Normative, Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity,

Interpersonal, Action, and Strategic Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

Proposition 9: The level of autonomy granted to representatives in external communicating with

partners has a positive effect on the translation of the Embracing Diversity and Interdisciplinarity, Interpersonal,

and Strategic Management competencies to the stakeholder –learning capability

Proposition 10: Organizational cultures supporting and stimulating active engagement in MSEs have a

positive effect on the translation of all but in particular the Normative and Interpersonal competence to the

stakeholder –learning capability