motivations for environmental collaboration within the building and construction industry
DESCRIPTION
Motivation for environmental collaboration within bldg and const industryTRANSCRIPT
Managerial Auditing JournalMotivations for environmental collaboration within the building and constructionindustryTerese Fiedler Craig Deegan
Article information:To cite this document:Terese Fiedler Craig Deegan, (2007),"Motivations for environmental collaboration within the building andconstruction industry", Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 4 pp. 410 - 441Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02686900710741946
Downloaded on: 20 July 2015, At: 10:14 (PT)References: this document contains references to 56 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2176 times since 2007*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Deborah Hughes, Trefor Williams, Zhaomin Ren, (2012),"Differing perspectives on collaboration inconstruction", Construction Innovation, Vol. 12 Iss 3 pp. 355-368Gopal Kumar, Rabindra Nath Banerjee, (2014),"Supply chain collaboration index: an instrument to measurethe depth of collaboration", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 21 Iss 2 pp. 184-204 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-02-2012-0008Kelly E. Proulx, Mark A. Hager, Kimberly C. Klein, (2014),"Models of collaboration between nonprofitorganizations", International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63 Iss 6 pp.746-765 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-06-2013-0121
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:534288 []
For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald forAuthors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelinesare available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The companymanages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well asproviding an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committeeon Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archivepreservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
Motivations for environmentalcollaboration within the building
and construction industryTerese Fiedler
Faculty of Business, University of Southern Queensland,Toowoomba, Australia, and
Craig DeeganSchool of Accounting and Law, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose – This paper sets out to document a review of environmental collaborations in theAustralian building and construction industry and to identify a number of motivations that appear todrive particular environmental groups and building and construction companies to collaborate onspecific projects.
Design/methodology/approach – The research involves a series of in-depth interviews withindividuals from building and construction companies and from environmental groups, and utilises anumber of theoretical perspectives to explain the various perspectives being adopted by the interviewees.
Findings – The results indicate that corporate managers seek to collaborate with environmentalgroups as a result of pressures exerted by particular stakeholder groups, particularly government, andby the desire to be aligned with an organisation that has “green credentials” – something that isvaluable in enhancing the reputation and legitimacy of the company and the related building project.There was also a related financial motivation for collaborating. The representatives from theenvironmental groups indicated that motivations for collaboration included developing a project thatcould be used as a vehicle for “educating” the public, generating positive environmental outcomes,complying with the expectations of their constituents, and setting an example for other building andconstruction companies to follow.
Originality/value – Little research has been done in the area of environmental collaborations. In thisstudy, environmental collaborations were considered as a vehicle for both the environmental groupsand the companies to further meet their organisational objectives and were generally considered assuccessful initiatives from each organisation’s perspective.
Keywords Environmental management, Construction industry
Paper type Research paper
IntroductionFor some time now it has been acknowledged by various authorities that theenvironment is in crisis (Suzuki and Dressel, 1999). Increasingly, people within Australiaand elsewhere are becoming concerned about the environmental implications of currentconsumption and production patterns (for Australian evidence seeAustralian Bureau ofStatistics, 1999). Profit-seeking corporations are generally considered to be the drivers ofthe majority of the environmental degradation, typically with the approval (at least,tacitly) of their respective governments. Whilst governments are often criticised forbeing silent in their condemnation of corporate practices that are perceived asdetrimental to the environment, non government organisations (NGOs), such asenvironmental groups, are often vocal opponents of particular activities and can act, at
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-6902.htm
MAJ22,4
410
Managerial Auditing JournalVol. 22 No. 4, 2007pp. 410-441q Emerald Group Publishing Limited0268-6902DOI 10.1108/02686900710741946
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
times, to stop corporations pursing particular ventures that are perceived as harmful. Asa recent Australian example (2001), after a concerted campaign, Greenpeace Australiawas able to initially stop the Stuart Oil Shale Project that was being progressed by theAustralian companies Southern Pacific Petroleum N/L and Central Pacific Minerals N/Lin partnership with Suncor Energy (Canada). Greenpeace Australia was particularlyconcerned about the highly carbon intensive production methods used in making oilfrom shale, relative to conventional oil production.
Whilst Greenpeace and other NGOs have been successful in stopping certainenvironmentally “unfriendly” projects, many instances can also be shown where NGOshave worked with (or collaborated with) corporations in the pursuit of particular goals.Whilst early interaction between NGOs and business entities appeared to be basedmore on a confrontational approach, it has been argued that in general there has been ashift across time in how NGOs tend to interact with business. Stafford and Hartman(1996) explain the evolution of the interaction between business entities and theconservation movement in terms of three perceived “waves” of activity. The “firstwave” was deemed to have occurred under US President Roosevelt. Under Roosevelt”sadministration, there was recognition of the need to protect wilderness and to establish“protected” areas. At that time, NGOs were typically small and relatively non-militant.The “second wave” followed around the 1960s, and according to Stafford and Hartman,was fuelled by the expansion and speed of economic growth and the resultantenvironmental damage this was causing. At this time there was growth inenvironmental laws and citizen activism. NGOs were getting larger and betterorganised and direct confrontation with business became one of their key strategies.Following this period, a “third wave” was deemed to have commenced and this wasdescribed as an era in which many groups used their expertise to developmarket-based programs that were of benefit to both the environment and business.According to Stafford and Hartman (1996, p. 51), “this mind-set has diminished conflictbetween business and environmentalists, and the two are now turning to one anotherfor cooperation”. This perspective was consistent with Elkington (1994, p. 91) who alsoconsidered that there had been an apparent move away from the “anti-industry,anti-profit, and anti-growth orientation of much early environmentalism”.
Whilst there has perhaps been a general movement from confrontation tocollaboration as Stafford and Hartman (1996) and Elkington (1994) suggest, it isarguable that not all NGOs have moved towards collaboration and the classificationscheme provided above will have varying degrees of applicability to specific NGOs.Some groups such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) appear to have aparticular propensity to collaborate whereas some other groups, such as Greenpeace,would arguably be more confrontational in approach (although Greenpeace hasnevertheless been involved in a number of collaborative efforts, for example, withIKEA). Which approach is more effective for conserving the environment(confrontation or collaboration) is not something that we address in this paper.Rather, we focus on collaborations involving environmental NGOs, but we stress thatnot all NGOs actively engage in collaboration. Nevertheless, it is interesting thatdifferent organisations with a concern for preserving the environment appear to choosequite different mechanisms in an endeavour to protect the environment. We will nowbriefly consider some specific examples of collaborations between environmentalgroups and corporations, or their respective industry bodies.
Motivations forenvironmental
collaboration
411
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
Examples of collaborationsAs indicated in Deegan and Blomquist (2001), and as noted above, one environmentalgroup that is involved in a number of collaborations is the WWF, which is known tofrequently collaborate on various projects with business. For example, the ForestStewardship Council involved the collaboration of the timber industry and WWFto develop a timber certification scheme. This international certification scheme provides arating, which appears on “approved” timber to indicate it is being sourced from what isperceived to be a sustainable source. This scheme is believed to provide both economicbenefits to the timber industry, as well as environmental benefits. Other WWF-relatedinitiatives include the Endangered Seas Campaign and the Marine Stewardship Council,which involves collaboration between WWF and the large multi-national companyUnilever. Also, within Australia in the late 1990s, the large multi-national mining companyRio Tinto funded an extensive review by WWF of frog conservation in Australia.
Within the USA there have been a number of high profile collaborations betweenenvironmental groups and business entities including: a collaboration between theConservation Law Foundation, a New England-based environmental organisation, andthe New England Electric System (Hemphill, 1994); the Wildlife Habitat Council whichinvolved a collaboration between seven large corporations (including Du Pont) and fourenvironment groups (Cardskadden and Lober, 1998); and, a collaboration betweenSan Francisco-based Pacific Gas and Electric and the Natural Resources Defence Council(a New York-based environmental group), together with the Rocky Mountain Institute(a western regional environmental organisation), to identify cost-effective ways toimprove efficiency in energy use (Hemphill, 1994). A number of other collaborationshave been identified by Hartman and Stafford (1998) and Baker (1996). Whilst our list isfar from exhaustive, it is clear that collaborations between environmental groups andbusiness entities are not an isolated phenomenon and indeed the evidence suggests thatthe initiation of environmental collaborations is increasing. However, there is a generallack of research on the “drivers” behind establishing environmental collaborations.
If we accept that environmental collaborations can have positive implications forthe environment by enabling or encouraging business entities to embrace moreenvironmentally responsible business practices, and this seems to be what theliterature is indicating (Hemphill, 1994; Cardskadden and Lobber, 1998; Hartman andStafford, 1998), then it is interesting to determine what motivates corporations andenvironmental groups to enter environmental collaborations in the first place. This isthe aim of this research. If these pre-collaboration motivations are subsequentlysatisfied by the actual outcomes of the collaborations (and we asked the participants inthis study whether their expectations were met as a result of the outcomes of therespective collaboration), then promoting the results of research, such as that includedwithin this paper, might provide impetus for further environmental collaborations.
In this study, we have elected to study environmental collaborations in theconstruction and building industry. We have done this for a number of reasons[1]. Thebuilding and construction industry within Australia is of significant national economicimportance, and it is a major contributor to environmental damage (Best, 1997)[2].This in turn has created a need for positive environmental strategies to be used withinthe industry. One such strategy is to form an environmental collaboration. However,and as noted above, there is limited research on environmental collaborations and whyorganisations might elect to be involved in such an initiative.
MAJ22,4
412
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
Theoretical perspectives on why environmental collaborations might occurOur review of the literature indicates that there has been very little research onenvironmental collaborations. For the purposes of our study, we define environmentalcollaborations as: two or more parties working together in relation to naturalenvironmental issues, where at least one of the parties is an organisation from industry,and another, a non-profit organisation that has an objective of environmental conservation.
Where research has been undertaken on environmental collaborations, it is generallydescriptive in nature (as is the case for the majority of studies referred to above with theexception of Cardskadden and Lober, 1998), lacking theoretical bases to explain themotivations that could drive respective parties to collaborate. Further, no research couldbe found that investigates environmental collaborations in the building andconstruction industry – the focus of our study. However, it was apparent that there isa large volume of research, which explores collaborations in general (as opposed to thespecific collaborations, which we refer to as environmental collaborations)[3].
Given the lack of research in the area of environmental collaborations, this researchis necessarily exploratory in nature. At this stage we do not intend to develop a theorythat has any form of general applicability for explaining environmental collaborations(and some people might argue it is difficult, or inappropriate, to do so with a limitednumber of cases anyway), but nevertheless, the results of this research wouldconceivably be useful to researchers seeking to achieve this aim. As will be indicatedshortly in our section on research methods, we adopt an open ended interviewing stylewith the aim of identifying determinants for environmental collaborations. We alsoperform a review of the literature to identify the determinants that have beensuggested by other researchers as driving collaborations generally (and, as we havealready noted, environmental collaborations can be considered to be a subset ofcollaborations). Such a review reveals that a number of motivations have beenadvanced to explain collaborations in general.
Arguably, reviewing past research on collaborations provides a useful initial basisfor understanding environmental collaborations. Whether the identified motivationsapply to environmental collaborations is something that should, hopefully, be reflectedwithin the interviews. A review of the prior literature on collaborations inform anumber of the questions we ask in our interviews. As will be demonstrated later in thispaper, our interview procedures should also allow for motivations, other than thosesuggested by previous collaboration research, to also be uncovered.
Auster (1994) and Gray and Wood (1991) provide overviews of the various theoriesthat have been used to explain collaboration. What is apparent is that a number oftheories have been applied to explain the decision to collaborate[4]. Reviewing thesetwo papers, as well as undertaking our own review of the literature on collaboration,indicates that eight main theoretical perspectives are used to explain collaboration. Notall of these theories can be considered as totally distinct from the others – in fact thereis a degree of overlap between some of the eight theories being used to explaincollaboration[5]. We do not intend to apply each of these theories individually to findwhich theory “best” describes environmental collaborations. Rather, and as alreadynoted, we review the respective theories to identify the various determinants that havebeen suggested as motivating factors for collaborations in general. These determinantsare then used as an initial basis for informing some of the questions we will be askingin the interviews conducted in this study.
Motivations forenvironmental
collaboration
413
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
Table I provides an overview of the various theories that have been used to explaincollaborations. Only one of the theories has been applied specifically in relation toenvironmental collaborations, namely, stakeholder theory, which was applied byCardskadden and Lober (1998)[6]. Table I also provides the respective theoreticalexplanations for why collaborations occur. The foundations of the respective theory,the seminal researchers applying the theory, and references to research that hasapplied the particular theory to collaboration are also provided. It is not the intention ofthis paper to provide a detailed account of each of the theories and our explanations arerestricted to the contents provided in Table I. It should be appreciated that thesetheories have been used to explain a variety of organisational activities, other than justthe decision to form a collaboration. Readers seeking additional information aboutparticular theories can refer to various references provided in Table I.
A review of the various theories and related research (as described in Table I) identifiedseveral determinants that appeared to explain the decision to collaborate[7]. The differencebetween theories often lies in their underlying assumptions and these assumptions arereflective of the ontology of the users of the theories. Rather than becoming preoccupiedwith different ontologies, and a multitude of hypotheses testing, it is the intention here toconcentrate on the determinants of collaboration. Some of these determinants werecommon to a number of the theories. Consistent with our own research, Oliver (1990) alsocame to the conclusion that the various theories generated a reasonably small number ofdeterminants. She found that when collated, all known research on the motivations forcollaboration, regardless of theoretical viewpoint, lead to just six determinants. Thesedeterminants were necessity, asymmetry, reciprocity, economic efficiency, stability, andlegitimacy[8]. These determinants will be further explained shortly.
Sofaer and Myrtle (1991) undertook a similar approach to Oliver (1990) in describingthe motivations behind collaboration. They suggested that there has been considerableresearch in the area of collaboration which addresses the determinants of collaboration.Without specific reference to the mass of theories attempting to explain collaboration,they discussed several of the determinants, such as the need to acquire scarce and valuedresources, both economic and non-economic (information, political support, legitimacy)from other organisations; a desire to reduce uncertainty; a desire to prevent, control orpredict uncertainty; to control the strategic behaviours of different organisations; thepursuit of operational efficiencies; the reduction of transaction costs; and, the jointpursuit of goals and projects. These determinants corresponded with those found in theliterature and as confirmed by Oliver (1990). For example, the desire to reduce, prevent,control or predict uncertainty and the desire to control the strategic behaviours ofdifferent organisations corresponds with the determinant of stability. The pursuit ofoperational efficiencies and the desire to reduce transaction costs relate to the efficiencydeterminants. The joint pursuit of goals and projects matches reciprocity.
Following from the above discussion, this research will investigate thedeterminants of asymmetry, reciprocity, economic efficiency, stability, andlegitimacy. Specifically, we investigate whether the determinants can explain thedecision of organisations to form an environmental collaboration. As already noted,these determinants are supported by the various theories for collaboration and wereconfirmed by other researchers (Oliver, 1990; Sofaer and Myrtle, 1991; Logsdon, 1991).Table II, provides a summary of the source (supportive theory) of each determinantand whether particular research supported it as a motivation for collaboration.
MAJ22,4
414
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
Th
eory
Ex
pla
nat
ion
Fou
nd
atio
ns
orli
nk
sS
emin
alre
sear
cher
s
Ap
pli
cati
onto
coll
abor
atio
nre
sear
ch
Eco
log
yth
eory
Th
isth
eory
isg
rou
nd
edin
ab
len
dof
soci
olog
yan
db
iolo
gy
;th
eb
asic
fou
nd
atio
nof
ecol
ogy
theo
ryre
sts
ona
thre
est
age
evol
uti
onar
yp
roce
ssof
var
iati
on,
sele
ctio
nan
dre
ten
tion
wh
ich
isre
ferr
edto
asth
en
atu
ral
sele
ctio
np
roce
ss(A
ldri
ch,1
979;
Ald
rich
and
Pfe
ffer
,19
76).
Rel
ies
up
onth
eid
eaof
“nat
ura
lse
lect
ion
”to
des
crib
eth
ep
roce
ssof
org
anis
atio
nal
chan
ge.
Org
anis
atio
ns
chan
ge
tosu
rviv
eex
tern
alen
vir
onm
enta
lco
nd
itio
ns.
Itis
assu
med
that
the
env
iron
men
tal
con
dit
ion
sca
nn
otb
em
anip
ula
ted
by
the
org
anis
atio
nb
ut
the
org
anis
atio
nm
ayta
ke
acti
ons
toin
crea
seit
sch
ance
sof
surv
ival
,su
chas
coll
abor
atin
gw
ith
anot
her
org
anis
atio
n
Bel
iev
edto
be
com
ple
men
tary
tore
sou
rce
dep
end
ence
theo
ryan
dp
olit
ical
econ
omy
theo
ryas
they
giv
eat
ten
tion
toin
tern
alor
gan
isat
ion
ald
ecis
ion
mak
ing
Ald
rich
(197
9)an
dA
ldri
chan
dP
feff
er(1
976)
Bar
net
tan
dC
arro
ll(1
987)
,H
ann
anan
dF
reem
an(1
977)
and
Min
eret
al.
(199
0)
Ex
chan
ge
theo
ryU
nd
erco
nd
itio
ns
ofre
sou
rce
scar
city
exch
ang
esb
etw
een
org
anis
atio
ns
are
esse
nti
alto
goa
lat
tain
men
t,w
her
eex
chan
ge
isd
efin
edas
any
vol
un
tary
acti
vit
yb
etw
een
two
org
anis
atio
ns
wh
ich
has
con
seq
uen
ces
actu
alor
anti
cip
ated
,fo
rth
ere
alis
atio
nof
thei
rm
utu
alg
oals
orob
ject
ives
.Org
anis
atio
ns
wil
lfo
rmco
llab
orat
ion
sto
gai
nes
sen
tial
scar
cere
sou
rces
from
the
oth
erp
arty
orp
arti
esin
vol
ved
inth
eco
llab
orat
ion
Bas
isof
reso
urc
ed
epen
den
ceth
eory
and
pol
itic
alec
onom
yth
eory
(Coo
k,
1977
)
Lev
ine
and
Wh
ite
(196
1),
Bla
u(1
964)
and
Em
erso
n(1
962)
Lev
ine
and
Wh
ite
(196
1)
Inst
itu
tion
alth
eory
Att
emp
tsto
exp
lain
the
hom
ogen
eity
ofor
gan
isat
ion
alfo
rms
and
pra
ctic
es.
Org
anis
atio
nal
fiel
dsa
exer
tp
ower
ful
infl
uen
ces
onin
div
idu
alor
gan
isat
ion
sth
rou
gh
two
kin
ds
offo
rces
:m
ark
et/c
omp
etit
ive
forc
esan
din
stit
uti
onal
dem
and
sp
lace
don
org
anis
atio
ns
by
gov
ern
men
tor
the
pro
fess
ion
s.In
stit
uti
onal
forc
esca
nex
ert
pre
ssu
res
for
stru
ctu
ral
con
form
ity
thro
ug
hm
ech
anis
ms
such
asin
du
cem
ents
,re
war
ds,
and
san
ctio
ns.
“Org
aniz
atio
ns
com
pet
en
otju
stfo
rre
sou
rces
and
cust
omer
s,b
ut
for
pol
itic
alp
ower
and
inst
itu
tion
alle
git
imac
y,f
orso
cial
asw
ell
asec
onom
icfi
tnes
s”(D
iMag
gio
and
Pow
ell,
1983
).O
rgan
isat
ion
sm
igh
tco
llab
orat
eb
ecau
seof
pre
ssu
refr
omin
stit
uti
ons
toco
nfo
rmto
par
ticu
lar
rule
sor
nor
ms.
To
app
ear
leg
itim
ate
toth
ese
inst
itu
tion
s,an
dto
red
uce
pre
ssu
re,
org
anis
atio
ns
mig
ht
ente
rco
llab
orat
ion
s
Con
sid
ered
the
“in
stit
uti
onal
trad
itio
n”
inle
git
imac
yre
sear
ch(S
uch
man
,19
95).
DiM
agg
ioan
dP
owel
l(1
983)
Sh
arfm
anet
al.
(199
1)
Leg
itim
acy
theo
ryIn
ord
erto
surv
ive,
org
anis
atio
ns
seek
leg
itim
acy
.O
rgan
isat
ion
sm
ayb
ep
erce
ived
asle
git
imat
ew
hen
thei
rac
tiv
itie
sar
ep
erce
ived
asb
ein
gco
ng
ruen
tw
ith
the
goa
lsof
soci
ety
inw
hic
hth
eyop
erat
e.A
nor
gan
isat
ion
mig
ht
alig
nit
self
wit
hon
eor
mor
eor
gan
isat
ion
s,w
hic
har
eal
read
yp
erce
ived
by
soci
ety
asb
ein
gle
git
imat
e,an
dth
eref
ore
gai
n“l
egit
imac
yb
yas
soci
atio
n”
Con
sid
ered
the
“str
ateg
ictr
adit
ion
”in
leg
itim
acy
rese
arch
(Su
chm
an,
1995
)
Dow
lin
gan
dP
feff
er(1
975)
and
Sh
ock
eran
dS
eth
i(1
973)
Sch
erm
erh
orm
and
Sir
lan
d(1
981)
and
Wie
wel
and
Hu
nte
r(1
985)
(continued
)
Table I.The most widely used
theories to explaincollaboration
Motivations forenvironmental
collaboration
415
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
Th
eory
Ex
pla
nat
ion
Fou
nd
atio
ns
orli
nk
sS
emin
alre
sear
cher
s
Ap
pli
cati
onto
coll
abor
atio
nre
sear
ch
Pol
itic
alec
onom
yth
eory
Org
anis
atio
ns
seek
anad
equ
ate
sup
ply
ofm
oney
and
auth
orit
yto
fulfi
lp
rog
ram
req
uir
emen
ts,
mai
nta
inth
eir
dom
ain
,en
sure
thei
rfl
owof
reso
urc
es,
and
exte
nd
and
def
end
the
org
anis
atio
n’s
par
adig
mor
way
ofd
oin
gth
ing
s.R
esou
rces
are
acq
uir
edfr
omth
ep
olit
ical
econ
omy
ban
dit
isth
rou
gh
thes
eex
chan
ges
that
the
org
anis
atio
nis
able
tom
axim
ise
its
sup
ply
ofm
oney
and
auth
orit
y.
Pol
itic
alec
onom
yth
eory
reco
gn
ises
the
pow
erco
nfl
icts
wit
hin
soci
ety
.C
olla
bor
atio
nw
ith
oth
eror
gan
isat
ion
sm
igh
tcr
eate
ap
ower
shif
tin
fav
our
ofth
eor
gan
isat
ion
and
ther
eby
red
uce
the
neg
ativ
ep
ress
ure
sw
hic
hit
mig
ht
enco
un
ter.
An
exte
nsi
onof
exch
ang
eth
eory
(Coo
k,
1977
).C
omp
lem
enta
ryto
ecol
ogy
theo
ry(A
ldri
chan
dP
feff
er,
1976
).O
ften
lin
ked
wit
hth
eori
essu
chas
leg
itim
acy
and
stak
ehol
der
theo
ry(G
rayet
al.,
1996
)
Ben
son
(197
5)B
enso
n(1
975)
and
Hal
let
al.
(197
7)
Res
ourc
ed
epen
den
ceth
eory
No
org
anis
atio
nis
ind
epen
den
tan
dth
eref
ore
mu
sten
gag
ein
exch
ang
esin
ord
erto
attr
act
nec
essa
ryre
sou
rces
and
tosu
rviv
eas
wel
las
tog
ain
aco
mp
etit
ive
adv
anta
ge.
Org
anis
atio
ns
that
con
trol
cert
ain
reso
urc
esw
ill
hav
e“p
ower
”ov
erth
ose
org
anis
atio
ns
that
nee
dth
ere
sou
rces
.C
olla
bor
atin
gm
ayp
rov
ide
am
ean
sof
acce
ssto
nec
essa
ryre
sou
rces
and
hen
cecr
eate
afo
rmof
“pow
ersh
ift”
infa
vou
rof
the
org
anis
atio
n.R
esou
rce
dep
end
ence
theo
ryid
enti
fies
the
nee
dto
app
ear
“leg
itim
ate”
tok
eyst
akeh
old
ers
asw
ella
sth
en
eed
tofo
rm“s
tab
le”
rela
tion
ship
sw
ith
key
reso
urc
ep
rov
ider
s
An
exte
nsi
onof
exch
ang
eth
eory
(Coo
k,
1977
)
Coo
k(1
977)
and
Pfe
ffer
and
Sal
anci
k(1
978)
Ald
rich
(197
9)an
dL
ogsd
on(1
991)
Sta
keh
old
erth
eory
Org
anis
atio
ns
hav
est
akeh
old
ers.
Th
ese
can
be
sup
pli
ers,
cust
omer
s,sh
areh
old
ers,
env
iron
men
tal
gro
up
s,cr
edit
ors,
etc.
Str
ateg
ical
ly,
anor
gan
isat
ion
mu
stm
anag
eth
ed
eman
ds
ofth
ese
stak
ehol
der
s.O
rgan
isat
ion
sm
igh
tco
llab
orat
eto
sati
sfy
the
exp
ecta
tion
sof
par
ticu
lar
stak
ehol
der
gro
up
sw
ho
may
,or
may
not
be,
the
oth
erp
arty
toth
eco
llab
orat
ion
Leg
itim
acy
theo
ryan
dp
olit
ical
econ
omy
theo
ry(G
rayet
al.,
1996
)
Fre
eman
(198
3)G
ray
and
Hay
(198
6)
Tra
nsa
ctio
nco
stth
eory
Org
anis
atio
ns
seek
tofi
nd
the
mos
tco
st-e
ffici
ent
tran
sact
ion
sto
enh
ance
com
pet
itiv
enes
s.T
hey
may
coll
abor
ate
“to
ach
iev
eg
reat
erle
vel
sof
effi
cien
cyth
anth
eyco
uld
ach
iev
ein
div
idu
ally
”(F
leis
her
,19
91).
Th
atis
,co
llab
orat
ion
mig
ht
occu
rto
red
uce
cost
s
Neo
-cla
ssic
alec
onom
ics
Wil
liam
son
(197
5)K
ogu
t(1
988)
Notes:
aB
yor
gan
isat
ion
fiel
ds
DiM
agg
ioan
dP
owel
l(1
983,
p.
148)
mea
nt
“th
ose
org
aniz
atio
ns
that
,in
the
agg
reg
ate,
con
stit
ute
are
cog
niz
edar
eaof
inst
itu
tion
alli
fe:k
eysu
pp
lier
s,re
sou
rces
and
pro
du
ctco
nsu
mer
s,re
gu
lato
ryag
enci
es,a
nd
oth
eror
gan
izat
ion
sth
atp
rod
uce
sim
ilar
serv
ices
orp
rod
uct
s”;
bT
he
pol
itic
alec
onom
yis
des
crib
edb
yG
ray
,O
wen
and
Ad
ams
(199
6,p
.47)
as“t
he
soci
al,
pol
itic
alan
dec
onom
icfr
amew
ork
wit
hin
wh
ich
hu
man
life
tak
esp
lace
”
Table I.
MAJ22,4
416
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
Det
erm
inan
tsE
colo
gy
theo
ryE
xch
ang
eth
eory
Inst
itu
tion
alth
eory
Leg
itim
acy
theo
ryP
olit
ical
econ
omy
theo
ry
Res
ourc
ed
epen
den
ceth
eory
Sta
keh
old
erth
eory
Tra
nsa
ctio
nco
stth
eory
Asy
mm
etry
Det
erm
inan
tn
otfo
un
dto
be
sup
por
ted
by
this
theo
ry(L
evin
ean
dW
hit
e,19
61)a
.
Det
erm
inan
tsu
pp
orte
db
yth
isth
eory
(Oli
ver
,19
90).
Det
erm
inan
tsu
pp
orte
db
yth
isth
eory
(Oli
ver
,19
90).
Rec
ipro
city
Det
erm
inan
tsu
pp
orte
db
yth
isth
eory
(Han
nan
and
Fre
eman
(197
7).
Th
eyal
soco
nn
ecte
dex
chan
ge
theo
ryw
ith
ecol
ogy
theo
ry
Det
erm
inan
tsu
pp
orte
db
yth
isth
eory
(Oli
ver
,19
90)
Sta
bil
ity
Ori
gin
ally
,n
o,b
ut
Th
omp
son
(196
7)ad
ded
toex
chan
ge
theo
ryth
en
eed
for
org
anis
atio
ns
to“r
edu
ceu
nce
rtai
nty
”cr
eati
ng
reso
urc
ed
epen
den
ceth
eory
and
Ben
son
(197
5)ex
ten
ded
exch
ang
eth
eory
top
olit
ical
econ
omy
theo
ry
Det
erm
inan
tn
otsu
pp
orte
db
yth
isth
eory
(Sh
arfm
anet
al.,
1991
)
Det
erm
inan
tsu
pp
orte
db
yth
isth
eory
(Oli
ver
,19
90;
Gu
lati
,19
98;
Sh
arfm
anet
al.,
1991
)
Det
erm
inan
tsu
pp
orte
db
yth
isth
eory
(Ast
ley
and
Fom
bru
n,
1983
)
(continued
)
Table II.The relationship between
the determinants forcollaboration and the
theories of collaboration
Motivations forenvironmental
collaboration
417
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
Det
erm
inan
tsE
colo
gy
theo
ryE
xch
ang
eth
eory
Inst
itu
tion
alth
eory
Leg
itim
acy
theo
ryP
olit
ical
econ
omy
theo
ry
Res
ourc
ed
epen
den
ceth
eory
Sta
keh
old
erth
eory
Tra
nsa
ctio
nco
stth
eory
Eco
nom
icef
fici
ency
Det
erm
inan
tn
otsu
pp
orte
db
yth
isth
eory
(Sh
arfm
anet
al.,
1991
)
Det
erm
inan
tsu
pp
orte
db
yth
isth
eory
(Ast
ley
and
Fom
bru
n,
1983
)
Det
erm
inan
tsu
pp
orte
db
yth
isth
eory
(Oli
ver
,19
90)
Leg
itim
acy
Det
erm
inan
tsu
pp
orte
db
yth
isth
eory
(DiM
agg
ioan
dP
owel
l,19
83;
Sh
arfm
anet
al.,
1991
)
Det
erm
inan
tsu
pp
orte
db
yth
isth
eory
(Oli
ver
,19
90;
Sch
erm
erh
orn
and
Sir
lan
d,
1981
;W
iew
elan
dH
un
ter,
1985
)
Alt
hou
gh
Gra
yet
al.
(199
6)li
nk
pol
itic
alec
onom
yth
eory
wit
his
sues
ofle
git
imac
y,
rese
arch
inco
llab
orat
ion
did
not
mak
eth
isli
nk
.
Det
erm
inan
tsu
pp
orte
db
yth
isth
eory
(Oli
ver
,19
90;
Log
sdon
,19
91)
Note:
aS
omet
imes
the
lite
ratu
rew
ould
actu
ally
ind
icat
eth
atth
ed
eter
min
ant
was
not
sup
por
ted
by
ap
arti
cula
rth
eory
.It
isco
nsi
der
edju
stas
imp
orta
nt
toin
dic
ate
lack
ofsu
pp
ort
asit
isto
hig
hli
gh
tp
osit
ive
rela
tion
ship
sb
etw
een
det
erm
inan
tsan
dth
eori
es
Table II.
MAJ22,4
418
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
Having noted that prior research has led to the identification of five determinants thatmight apply to environmental collaboration, we now describe each of thesedeterminants. We rely predominantly on how they have previously been describedwithin the literature. Again, please note that as with theories, there is also some degreeof overlap between the various determinants.
Determinants for collaborationAsymmetryAsymmetry refers to the motivation of organisations to collaborate because of theirdesire to exercise power or control over another organisation or its resources (Oliver,1990). Asymmetry relates to the uneven distribution of power within a relationship andindicates some form of domination of one party over another. Pfeffer and Salancik(1978, p. 258) explained that organisations require resources to survive and becauseorganisations do not control all the resources they need, “resource acquisition may beproblematic and uncertain”. Following that notion, Pfeffer and Salancik (1978, p. 258)suggested:
Organizations transact with others for necessary resources, and control over resourcesprovides others with power over the organization. Survival of the organization is partiallyexplained by the ability to cope with environmental contingencies; negotiating exchanges toensure the continuation of needed resources is the focus of much organizational action.
Both political economy and resource dependence theory support this determinant(Oliver, 1990).
ReciprocityReciprocity is the opposite of the asymmetry determinant. Oliver (1990, p. 244)explained that:
Motives of reciprocity emphasize cooperation, collaboration, and coordination amongorganizations, rather than domination, power, and control.
Under this perspective, there will be an incentive to collaborate for the purpose ofpursuing common or mutually beneficial goals or interests (Oliver, 1990, p. 244). Themain theory supporting this perspective is exchange theory (Levine and White, 1961;Hall et al., 1977). Exchange theory purports that exchanges between organizations area means to achieve organisational objectives. Levine and White (1961) argue that ifresources are not scarce, the need for interorganisational relationships would not exist.However, they accepted the notion that resources are scarce and interorganisationalrelationships are essential for mutual goal attainment.
StabilitySome literature on collaborations has indicated that collaborations are formed as anadaptive response to environmental uncertainty (Oliver, 1990). Cook (1977) explainedthat environmental uncertainty is generated by resource scarcity and a lack of perfectknowledge about environmental fluctuations, available exchange partners, andavailable rates of exchange in an interorganisational field. In order to cope with thisuncertainty, organisations may be motivated to collaborate to “forestall, forecast, orabsorb uncertainty in order to achieve an orderly, reliable pattern of resource flowsand exchanges” (Oliver, 1990, p. 246). Oliver (1990, p. 256) believed that collaboration
Motivations forenvironmental
collaboration
419
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
mitigates uncertainty “because risk and accountability are shared and a greater sum ofexpertise can be brought to bear on the social problem”. The desire to gain specialisedknowledge is related to the desire to reduce uncertainty and hence gain stability.Expertise is therefore deemed to be a subset of stability and we will also investigatewhether gaining expertise might motivate collaborations.
Resource dependence theory supports the determinant of stability, as it predicts thatin times of resource scarcity organisations may seek to collaborate in order to gainneeded resources and hence reduce the instability caused by a resource scarcity.Stakeholder theory can also be seen to be supporting the determinant of stability.Since, stakeholder theory suggests that managers can strategically manipulate theirenvironment, then in times of uncertainty it is believed that they will formcollaborations to reduce the uncertainty.
Economic efficiencyUnder this determinant, an organisation will be motivated to form collaborationsthrough its desire to increase organisational economic wealth. Williamson (1975)proposed that firms choose how to transact according to the criterion of minimising thesum of production and transaction costs. Transaction cost theory is the main theoryapplied to collaboration that supports the determinant of economic efficiency.
LegitimacyThe legitimacy determinant for collaboration suggests that organisations will collaboratein order to be seen by others as legitimate. Oliver (1990, p. 246) suggested that certainpressures from the institutional environment “motivate organizations to increase theirlegitimacy in order to appear in agreement with the prevailing norms, rules, beliefs, orexpectations of external constituents”. Institutional theory supports the determinant oflegitimacy. This theory explains that organisations are faced with institutional pressuresand as a result of these pressures; organisations within a field become similar in theirforms and practices. The pressure to collaborate may be one type of institutional pressureand organisations may react to this pressure and form collaborations.
The legitimacy determinant is also supported by legitimacy theory. This theorysuggests that organisations attempt to find congruence between the perceived socialvalues and norms connected with its operations and the social values and norms ofsociety at large because the existence of the firm is dependent on its acceptanceby society. Stakeholder theory also helps explain the legitimacy determinant as thosestakeholders that the organisation deems powerful need, for the benefit of theorganisation, to see the organisation as legitimate from their perspective.
The environmental collaborations reviewed in this studyThe unit of analysis in this research is the environmental collaboration. Six instances ofenvironmental collaborations were initially revealed as a result of discussions withmembers of both the building and construction industry and environmental groups. Themedia also played an important role in identifying two of the projects(Koala Beach Residential Development and The Green Building Project). The projectsrepresented the entire population of environmental collaborations within the building andconstruction industry known to the researchers at the timeof research (May 1999-February2000)[9]. Therefore, no sampling issues arise as the entire population was used.
MAJ22,4
420
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
Although six projects were initially identified, one of these environmentalcollaborations only provided data for this research from the perspective of the industryparticipant, as the environmental group representative was not able to be located. Thisproject is eliminated from the analysis below. The other project that could not be usedinvolved BBC Hardware and the Wilderness Society. For various legal reasons theparticipant from BBC Hardware was unable to speak about this collaboration. This leftfour environmental collaborations to be investigated[10].
The four projects represented a range of environmental issues and types of buildingand construction. Although this meant that there was variation between projects, thisoutcome was not an intentional part of the research design.
Table III provides an overview of the projects utilised in this study. A further briefdiscussion of each project follows in Table III.
Case 1: Koala Beach Residential Development – a collaboration between the AustralianKoala Foundation and the Ray Group Pty LtdThe collaborators. The Australian Koala Foundation (AKF) is an environmental groupthat has been operating since 1986 with a main objective of protecting Koalas in thewild. The mission of the AKF (1996, p. 7) is to be “a highly credible, respected andcompassionate international scientific organisation which will diminish the threat tothe survival of Koalas and be an example so as to increase the consciousness of allglobal citizens and enable them to reverse the rapid degeneration of all the world’s floraand fauna”. AKF has approximately 20,000 members worldwide.
The Ray Group Pty Ltd is a medium-sized development company based inQueensland that operates in New South Wales as well as Queensland. According to its
Number Project Parties collaboratingEnvironmentalissues
Type of building andconstruction
1 Koala BeachResidentialDevelopment, TweedHeads, New SouthWales
The Australian KoalaFoundation and TheRay Group Pty Ltd
Fauna and floraconservation with aspecific focus on theexisting Koalapopulation on site
Residential housingdevelopment
2 The Green BuildingProject, MelbourneCBD, Victoria
The AustralianConservationFoundation andSurrowee Pty Ltd
Sustainable buildingmaterials andpractices withspecific reference toenergy conservation
Refurbishment andadditional works ofoffices for acommercial building
3 Novotel Ibis Hotel,Homebush, Sydney,New South Wales
The World WideFund for Nature andthe Accor AsiaPacific Lend LeaseConsortium
Conservationawareness andsustainabledevelopmentpractices within thehotel
High-rise hotel on thesite of the Sydney2000 Olympics
4 Metroplex IndustrialPark, Brisbane,Queensland
The MurrarieProgress Associationand Pradella GroupPty Ltd
Conservation ofwetlands on thedevelopment site thatare a major bird lifehabitat
Industrial parkTable III.
A brief description of theenvironmentalcollaborations
Motivations forenvironmental
collaboration
421
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
Managing Director, Brian Ray, the company operates “across a whole spectrum ofdevelopment opportunities, particularly in the leisure resort area”. This also includesshopping centres and land subdivisions.
The project. Koala Beach is a residential housing development located on theNorthern New South Wales coast. The Australian Koala Foundation (1996, p. 25)described the development as “a Koala-friendly housing development where acommunity makes conscious compromises to its lifestyle so that it can co-exist withwild Koalas”. The housing development utilises 160 hectares of the 360 hectaresinitially owned by the Ray Group; 200 hectares have been set aside for conservation.
The AKF provided their expertise and support for the project and one of the maindocuments to be produced from the collaboration was a Fauna Impact Statement.The other document produced by the AKF was the Koala Management Plan, a seminalpart of the overall plan of management. The recommendations within the plan wereincorporated into the development design. The AKF still provides the developer withadvice on the Koala population and other species on site.
Case 2: The Green Building Project – a collaboration between the AustralianConservation Foundation and Surrowee Pty LtdThe collaborators. The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) is a largeindependent, non-profit, membership-based organisation, which seeks to protectAustralia’s natural environment. The ACF has campaigned for over 30 years forconservation of the natural environment. The ACF and Surrowee began as jointdevelopers in the project. Later the ACF became a major tenant of the building.Surrowee Pty Ltd is an ethical investment company. It owned the property beingdeveloped. Lincolne Scott Australia was also involved in the project from its inception.It is an environmental engineering company.
The project. The Green Building Project involves commercial refurbishment andadditional works of a three story building in Melbourne, Australia. Mailer, the AKFrepresentative, explained the project’s main goal: “The overall goal is that the buildingshould be a model of superior environmental performance that gives practicalexpression to our commitment to ecologically sustainable development”.
It was expected that the building would generate more energy than it requires andwill utilise all storm and wastewater on site.
Case 3: Novotel Ibis Olympic Hotel – a collaboration between the WWF for Nature andAccor Asia Pacific Lend Lease ConsortiumThe collaborators. The WWF for Nature is a large international environmental group.Within Australia it has offices in Sydney, Perth, Melbourne, Darwin and Brisbane,Australia.
Lend Lease was the designer/construction arm of a joint venture betweenthemselves and Accor Asia Pacific. Accor Asia Pacific owns 380 hotels world-wide.The popular hotel names include Sofitel, Novotel, Ibis and Mercure.
Manidis Roberts Consultants is a consultancy company that according to itsManaging Director, Geoff Roberts, acts as a “middle person” in between two groups ofpeople who ordinarily do not know or trust each other. Manidis Roberts played aseminal role in operationalising the environmental strategies proposed by the OlympicCoordination Authority for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.
MAJ22,4
422
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
The project. Accor Asia Pacific Lend Lease in partnership with WWF won the rightto build two hotels in the Olympic Park, Sydney. After the announcement that Sydneywould be the host city for the 2000 Olympic Games, a document produced by the bidteam called “Summer Olympic Games Environmental Guidelines” becameinstitutionalised through Government legislation. Tenders for construction of theOlympic site incorporated environmental specifications as they were essential forsuccess in the tender process. Manidis Roberts with their client, the Lend Lease Accorconsortium, then began the process to produce a bid document to win the job for thehotel site. It was decided to collaborate with the WWF. The bidding team wassuccessful and the consortium won the right to build an Ibis Hotel and Novotel Hotel onthe site.
Case 4: Metroplex on Gateway – a collaboration between the Murrarie ProgressAssociation and the Pradella Group Pty LtdThe collaborators. The Murarrie Progress Association was formed in the early 1920sand is described by one of its key members, Janice Pittam, as an organisation that“has concentrated on improving the facilities in the community and maintaining whatwe consider to be our assets. The environment and all aspects of it have been the focusof the group for several decades now”. The Progress Association does not have anexact member number as membership fluctuates depending on the issue beingaddressed.
The Pradella Group is the owner and developer of the site. Metroplex ManagementPty Ltd is a division of the Pradella Group specifically set up to manage Metroplex anddevelop future projects in a similar fashion.
The project. Metroplex on Gateway (Metroplex) is a 62-hectare (155-acre) industrialestate in Brisbane, Australia. The site has a 650-metre frontage to the Brisbane Riverand is designed to house the following types of commercial operations:
. industrial and warehousing;
. service, trade and light industrial;
. business and corporate offices;
. convenience retail and some showrooms;
. a riverfront hotel/conference centre; and
. public areas including a riverfront park and centrally located environmentallysensitive wetlands.
Metroplex is the largest Business and Industrial Park in Brisbane and according toMetroplex Management “comprises a totally integrated community that sets theworld’s best practice for Business and Industrial Parks in Brisbane”. The Metroplexsite includes a 12-hectare wetland preservation area. From the environmentalassessment, the site was deemed an important habitat for migratory water birds andbirds of prey. The collaboration involves ongoing consultation with Janice Pittamand she also monitors the site on a regular basis.
As can be seen from the brief overview of the four collaborations, they cover a broadspectrum of projects and environmental issues. Table IV provides an overview of theinterview participants. All key people within the four projects agreed to participate inthe interviews.
Motivations forenvironmental
collaboration
423
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
Research methodAs already noted, key participants were those participants who had a seminal role inthe collaboration. For our purposes, they were to be responsible for decision-making inrelation to the collaboration and they had to be present from the inception of thecollaboration. The main method of data collection in this research was in-depthsemi-structured interviews, with each interview being taped. The interviews wereundertaken from May 1999 to February 2000. An independent person then transcribedeach tape. The transcriptions were full records of the interview tapes. Once the tapeswere transcribed they were listened to while reading the transcription. This confirmedthe accuracy of the transcription.
The interviews themselves were either undertaken in person or by way of telephone.Whilst there was an initial desire on our behalf to conduct the interviews in person, thiswas not possible in all projects. The mode of interview was in large part dictated by theparticipant and was influenced by the time at which the interviewee was available andtheir location at a particular point in time. The mode of the interview (in person or bytelephone) had no influence on the questions asked, or the duration of the interview.
Prior theory typically provides a focus for the data collection phase ininterview-based research (Perry, 1998). This is also the case in this research. Fromthe literature review, five determinants for collaboration were found to representeight theories. The determinants for collaboration acted as a basis for the questions weask, though our interview approach allowed for other determinants to be uncovered.
The project Person Organisation Position Mode
Koala BeachResidentialDevelopment
Brian Ray The Ray Group Pty Ltd Proprietor Telephone
NickWellwood
The Ray Group Pty Ltd Project Manager Telephone
Ann Sharp Australian KoalaFoundation
General Manager In person
The Green BuildingProject
AlistairMailer
Australian ConservationFoundation
Project Manager In person
Ray Lacey Lincolne Scott Partner In personMarkWootton
Surrowee Pty Ltd Director Telephone
Novotel Ibis Hotel Liz James World Wide Fund forNature
Director of Marketing Telephone
PennyFiggis
World Wide Fund forNature
Consultant to WWF Telephone
MariaAtkinson
Bovis Lend Lease EnvironmentalManager
Telephone
GeoffRoberts
Manidis RobertsConsultants
Consultant to LendLease AccorConsoritum
Telephone
Metroplex IndustrialPark
JohnSmallwood
Pradella Group PtyLtd/Metroplex ManagementPty Ltd
Project Manager In person
JanicePittam
Murrarie ProgressAssociation
Member TelephoneTable IV.Overview of interviewparticipants
MAJ22,4
424
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
The following Table V, describes the questionnaire, highlighting the questions and therelated determinants that would be captured by the questions[11].
The data from the interviews were analysed using content analysis. Contentanalysis was described by Patton (1990, p. 381) as “the process of identifying, coding,and categorising the primary patterns in the data”. Codes representing thedeterminants of asymmetry, reciprocity, stability (and a subset thereof, beingexpertise), economic efficiency and legitimacy, and codes to capture the background tothe project, processes, and outcomes of the project provided the initial list of codes.As the data were read more codes (additional “motivations” other than those supportedby prior collaboration research) emerged, which could be possibly used to explain themotivations behind collaboration.
To assist with the coding and maintenance of the data the software package QSRNUD *IST Vivo (Qualitative Solutions and Research Pty Ltd, non-numericalunstructured data-indexing, searching and theorizing) was used. QSR NUD *ISTVivo allows sentences to be coded and then sorted according to that code. Anadvantage of QSR NUD *IST Vivo is that new code categories can be created duringthe coding process. As mentioned above, more codes, which represented possibledeterminants for environmental collaborations, emerged during the coding process.When any motivation for collaboration was identified outside of the determinantsfound in the literature, it was coded as a new code category. As the coding processcontinued, further data of a similar nature was coded under that new code category.Code names were chosen to best represent the meaning of the data contained withinthese new code categories. After some refinement, the new code categories were namedgovernment pressure, publicity, setting an example, and stakeholder considerations.These new code categories and their data will be described shortly.
The first reading of the data were performed with the tape of the transcript playingand the second without the audio backup. As in O’Dwyer (2000), the two readings werespaced by one month. The break was simply to create some “separateness” from thedata, which may have allowed more objectivity during the second reading.
There were no major changes from what was coded in the first coding session tothat in the second. However, since during the first coding session the list of codes hadgrown[12], some transcriptions that were coded at the beginning of the first sessionhad to be re-coded with the new codes. Refinement of the codes was minimal andoccurred where two code names were actually describing the same coded data. Forexample, the code “market replicability” was coding the same type of data as the code“setting an example” and these were merged.
Most questions were designed to capture a participant’s response on a particulardeterminant of collaboration; however, the location of that data were not limited tothose questions. In other words, a participant may have spoken about their desire tocollaborate due to financial reasons within a question that did not relate to thedeterminant of economic efficiency. The questions were merely prompts and answerswere not restricted to particular coding of determinants.
When reviewing the data, we utilised display matrices. Miles and Huberman (1994,p. 91) discussed the importance of using displays to present the data collected.They described displays as:
A visual format that presents information systematically, so the user can draw validconclusions and take needed action.
Motivations forenvironmental
collaboration
425
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
Questionnumber Question Research issue
1 Please summarise your organisation’s objectives. Background2 Could you explain your position in relation to the collaboration? Background3 Could you briefly explain the environmental collaboration? Background4 Why are you collaborating? General5 Were your organisation’s objectives met by collaborating? General reciprocity6 What are the financial costs involved in the collaboration? Economic efficiency7 What are the financial benefits derived from the collaboration? Economic efficiency8 Were these expected prior to collaboration?a Economic efficiency9 Were there any other costs or benefits beside financial costs and
benefits?General
10 What resources did your collaborating partner bring into theproject?
Asymmetry reciprocity
11 What resources did your organisation bring into the project? Asymmetry reciprocity12 Would you say that you were attempting to gain control over
your partner’s resources or were the resources useful becausethey were complementary?
Asymmetry reciprocity
13 Without collaborating would both parties normally beadversaries?
General background
14 How did you come to choose the partner? Or did they chooseyou?
Background
15 Has a greater amount of expertise been gained fromcollaborating?b
Stability
16 Could you explain this expertise? Stability17 Did you expect that prior to collaboration? Stability18 Does the collaboration have any effect on the stability of your
environment?Stability
19 Did you expect this effect prior to collaboration? Stability20 Who or what do you feel your organisation is accountable to? Stability legitimacy21 After collaboration how do you think stakeholders perceive
your organisation?Legitimacy
22 Would stakeholders see your partner organisation as anacceptable and legitimate organisation?
Legitimacy
23 What sort of government pressure do you face? Legitimacy24 Did this pressure ease as a result of forming an environmental
collaboration?Legitimacy
25 Did you expect this result prior to collaboration? Legitimacy26 Has funding increased since collaboration? Asymmetry27 Did you expect this result prior to collaboration? Asymmetry28 Do you consider your organisation as being authoritative in the
area of environmental collaboration?Asymmetry
39 Did you expect this result prior to collaboration? Asymmetry
Notes: aParticipants were asked whether they “expected” a particular result. This was an intentionalpart of the research design that allowed the participant to explain whether they had thought of thisoutcome prior to collaboration, and therefore, whether it had been a motivator for collaboration,without directly asking the participant. It was believed that this method would avoid some of the biasthat may have occurred by asking whether certain determinants were motivators while at the sametime allowing the participant the opportunity think about the determinant; bAs mentioned previously,the desire to gain specialised knowledge is related to the desire to reduce uncertainty and hence gainstability
Table V.The design of thequestionnaire –questions and researchissues
MAJ22,4
426
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
The displays were used to draw conclusions because they allow for:
. . . careful comparisons, detection of differences, noting of patterns and themes, seeing trends,and so on (Miles and Huberman, 1994, p. 92).
Matrices are simply the crossing of two lists (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Matricesfor this research consisted of crossing, for each environmental collaboration, theindustry and environmental group responses (by relevant sentences) against thedeterminants that represented motivations for collaboration. According to Miles andHuberman (1994, p. 127) this type of matrix would be a “conceptually ordered display”where:
. . . rather than relying on time or role as the organizing principle, orders the displays byconcepts or variables.
These matrices were completed for each project and involved all the coded data for theset of codes that could possibly explain the motivations for collaboration. A smallexample is presented in Table VI.
Not only did the matrices prove to be an effective way to store and then analyse thecoded data, both from a with-in and across case perspective, but they also becameanother checking device for coding accuracy. Once displayed, the data could easilybe checked as to the appropriateness and accuracy of coding. Particular quotes wereplaced in specific cells. A second researcher read the entire set of matrices to see if heagreed with the placement of quotes. There were only isolated discrepancies, and aftersome discussion, consensus was subsequently reached.
The data from the matrices were analysed by way of a further coding process.This analysis placed the data on a scale in terms of its perceived explanatory strengthin explaining the motivations behind environmental collaborations. The scale hadcoding categories of none, mild, medium, strong, and very strong explanatory power.Although in qualitative research it is recognised that a certain amount of subjectivity isunavoidable, clear decision steps that were used to analyse the data have beendescribed in order to help overcome some of the possible researcher bias. Thecategories of none, mild, medium, strong and very strong do not represent finitequantifiable categories of data but merely presents a further coding of the data.Judgments are to be made by the researcher in qualitative research such that the scalecontains a certain amount of subjectivity. However, so that this research can bereplicated, some of the factors that helped placed the determinants into their categorieson the scale are presented below:
Industry member Environmental groupDeterminant Participant 1 Participant 2 Participant 1
AsymmetryReciprocityEconomic EfficiencyStabilityExpertiseLegitimacyOthers
Table VI.A matrix for data display
example
Motivations forenvironmental
collaboration
427
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
. Were the remarks supportive, or not supportive of a determinant?Obviously, remarks in support of certain determinants would provide supportfor that determinant; however, sometimes a participant would indicate that adeterminant was not a motivation for the collaboration. This provided evidenceagainst that determinant being a motivation for environmental collaboration andthis information was also captured.
. What was the frequency of remarks on a particular determinant?It was believed that the more frequent the remarks made about a determinant,the stronger the explanatory power of the determinant in terms of a motivationfor collaboration.
. How many participants within an environmental collaboration remarked abouta determinant?It was believed that the higher the number of participants speaking about adeterminant the stronger the explanatory power of the determinant in terms ofbeing a motivation for collaboration.
ResultsBy the end of the coding process, a total of ten codes representing determinants forcollaboration existed; six of these were derived from the literature and the remainingfour emerged from the coding process. The codes derived from the literature wereasymmetry, economic efficiency, expertise, legitimacy, reciprocity, and stability. Codesthat were derived during the coding process were government pressure, publicity,setting an example, and stakeholder considerations.
In relation to the “new” codes, the code of government pressure representedcomments from participants in relation to the government providing a motivation tocollaborate. Participants may have indicated that pressure from the government in theform of a government process (for example, building approval), a government agencyand/or a desire to generally appear credible to the government motivated them tocollaborate. Data within this code contained issues of legitimacy, as often participantswould indicate that they were attempting to appear legitimate to the government.Since, the data captured on the desire to appear legitimate was specific to thegovernment, it was deemed important to highlight these data by creating this separatecode category.
The new code of publicity was created from comments indicating that participantswere motivated to collaborate due to the derived benefit of increased positive publicity.Participants often gained positive publicity through the media, community or industrymembers, and advertising campaigns that utilised the collaboration. Of course this hassome linkage with other determinants, such as legitimacy.
Another code that emerged during the coding process was that of setting anexample. This code represented data on participants’ desire to show others what couldbe achieved through collaboration. Comments that were captured within this code mayhave referred to the project being a “blueprint for others to follow” having relevance toa much “wider market” and being “reproducible”.
An interesting phenomenon occurred during the coding process in that informationabout an organisation’s relationship with its stakeholders, as a motivation forcollaboration, received so much attention that it was deemed important to separate
MAJ22,4
428
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
such data from the legitimacy determinant and create a separate determinant named,the stakeholder considerations determinant.
Having identified some potential motivations for environmental collaboration wewill now describe how they applied to each of the four projects.
Koala Beach Residential DevelopmentThe determinants that received the most attention and appeared to be the strongestexplanation for this environmental collaboration for Koala Beach were governmentpressure, legitimacy and stakeholder considerations.
The developers in this environmental collaboration (and not AKF) faced largeamounts of government pressure from the state and local council. As Ray stated:
This development was caught up with a change of government in New South Wales andcertainly a very much gung-ho, public position taken by that government towardsenvironmental issues. A lot of that was a lot of bloody breast beating and because this hadattracted the interest of some of the green groups, it was picked in a sort of stilted and a veryunbalanced way – as something that should have a serious focus from the environmentallobby. So we were a little between a rock and a hard place.
When asked whether he expected that working with the AKF would reducegovernment pressure he replied:
Yes, that’s right. It was sort of a general understanding at the time that if we involved theAKF, it was going to be acceptable to all levels of government and that sort of gave us a lot ofheart to proceed.
Wellwood emphasised the motivation for collaboration:
I don’t think working with a green group had any financial credibility. It had credibility interms of our perception as a company trying to do the right thing by statutory authorities.
Both Ray and Wellwood recalled that government pressure had eased as a direct resultof working with the AKF and that it certainly presented a motivation for working withan environmental group. This determinant was a very strong motivation forcollaboration from the perspective of the developers.
In terms of the desire to appear legitimate as a motivation for collaborating, thefollowing quotes summarise the views of the developers:
Well, I suppose one of the things that you do get out of working with a green group is that youhave high levels of credibility particularly amongst governments with high green credentials,which has been very much the case with the old Tweed Shire, and certainly the CarrGovernment. So I think that the fact that you’ve accepted those constraints and you areprepared to abide by that does give you a certain status, and takes a lot of the suspicion awayfrom other matters that you might be dealing with through those Local Authorities and StateGovernment authorities. So I think that there is an advantage in establishing a more credibleimage amongst the governing authorities and that can be helpful in the way you negotiateother parts of your development (Ray).
In addition to frequent comments on legitimacy being a motivation for collaboration,the developers often referred to the desire to appear legitimate to the government andthis link provides further evidence for the determinant of government pressure being amotivation for collaboration. Legitimacy was considered to be very strong in itsexplanatory power as a motivation for this collaboration.
Motivations forenvironmental
collaboration
429
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
Coding under the stakeholder considerations determinant was voluminous andhad many specific references to “the stakeholders” of these organisations. Accordingto Ray:
It [the development] had clearly some major environmental constraints and so the proposalwas made by the Local Authority that this would only move forward if there was an attemptto have a real sustainable development programme approved by all the stakeholders andrepresenting the stakeholders, given that the most sensitive and most obvious and most,I suppose emotional of the flora and fauna species to be protected was the Koala, so we usedthe Australian Koala Foundation.
This was something we had worked up with all the stakeholders as being acceptable, so inthe interest of pragmatism, “Let’s get on with it”.
Sharp stated that the AKF were accountable to the Koalas and the people who live atKoala Beach and felt that the collaboration was in line with those views onaccountability. Specifically, she said:
The stakeholders of the AKF are such a broad group that includes Brownies andschoolchildren, corporate sponsors, celebrities, government, developers, landowners, peoplewho buy the tattoos. There’s such a wide range of people that I think some of them see it morefavourably than others depending on their view about conservation. It brings it closer to thepeople who aren’t real conservationists, per se, but love Koalas. It’s a great educational tool.It’s all the recommendations that we make to people in practice. It’s actually happening.People can live quite happily making these compromises for the Koalas. The radical left winggreens probably think less of us for working with the developers and getting into thecommercial reality of this sort of thing.
Wellwood recognised the power of external sources when he said:
We really had to have their report [AKF] and their process as really an independent processso that it would withstand the scrutiny from external sources.
All participants spoke on this determinant frequently, and therefore, it was deemed tobe a very strong motivation from both parties for this collaboration.
Determinants that were not a motivation for collaboration in this project wereasymmetry, expertise and stability. Other determinants received some attention butnot enough to justify them being considered as a strong or very strong motivation forcollaboration. For example, whilst economic efficiency was not a motivation for AKFthere was some limited discussion to it given by Wellwood – hence it is deemed tohave a medium level of explanatory power. Although two of three participants in thisenvironmental collaboration mentioned the publicity determinant, it was given a mildstatus, as it was not explicitly referred to as a motivation. However, participants didappear to believe that this determinant did play some part in the forming of thiscollaboration, and therefore, it is not eliminated as a motivation for collaboration.
In relation to reciprocity, the participants suggested that to have reciprocalobjectives and to enhance each other’s ability to reach those objectives was a seminalbut seemingly expected part of the collaborations. Most participants spoke about thisdeterminant as if it was a condition that had to be present before they could evenconceive the idea of working with the other party. However, after reviewing the data, itwas deemed to be more of a necessary pre-existing condition for collaboration, ratherthan a motivating factor for collaboration.
MAJ22,4
430
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
In relation to setting an example, Ray considered the project to be a “blueprint forothers to follow”. This determinant was deemed to have a mild explanatory powerfor this collaboration.
The Green Building ProjectThe determinants that were very strong in terms of their explanatory power for themotivations for collaboration were that of setting an example and stakeholderconsiderations. All participants explained how it was very important to please theirstakeholders both from a managerial and an ethical perspective. Equally all participantsspoke at length about the wish to create a project that could be viewed by others as anexample of sustainable development. In relation to setting an example, Lacey said:
Obviously we had a client who is keen to be informed in a reproducible way because it is ademonstration project about how issues are going to be dealt with so there is going to be aneed for record. Indeed each process is being recorded in relation to all sorts of things.
The commercial replicability dimension of this project is a very strong driver in that it isalways going to be there to force relevance to the job.
Mailer expressed the view:
We want to use the building and the research project to propagate the findings and the storyof the design and construction process. With this project an objective is to try to change theway architects and builders and the construction industry go about designing and buildingcommercial offices. When we say we want to propagate the findings it’s not a matter ofsending out a report to people, we want people to change the way they do things. That’s alsowhy the story of our process is important for the people so they don’t have to go through allthe agonizing steps and decision- making that we did.
In relation to stakeholder considerations, Lacey explained their (Lincolne Scott’s) viewson accountability:
We are accountable to our fellow consultants because they look to us to do things and the job andwe have to deliver those so that is an accountability. We have accountability to our staff to givethem something which enriches their careers. And hopefully out of this we can get a bit of er – it isnot an accountability because you are not in contract with the community – but by havingsomething that is replicable you are actually delivering something. I guess there are widerstakeholders now. The Melbourne City Council has shown some interest, Energy EfficiencyVictoria and people like that. So I guess we have some sort of informal accountability.
Mailer said that:
The ACF has to be very careful about who it appears to accept sponsorship by and there arecompanies who supply timber for buildings and they also can have wood-chippingoperations. We have to look very carefully to ensure that our members’ interests are notcompromised.
An overlap in coding occurred here because of the overlap that occurs between thedeterminants of legitimacy and stakeholder considerations. The stakeholderconsiderations determinant was a very strong motivation for this collaboration.
Although only expressed by the industry partners, Surrowee Pty Ltd and LincolneScott noted that the desire to gain expertise was a strong motivation for thiscollaboration. Both Wootton and Lacey expected to gain expertise in the area of
Motivations forenvironmental
collaboration
431
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
environmental collaboration before they partnered with ACF. Lacey explained thesituation:
Working with a party who has potentially that commitment to being a responsible occupier inan area where I am seeking to get some expertise, knowledge, something you can then put toother clients and so here is a level of best practice. This is what you might achieve so whetherit’s expertise or just knowledge that is one area we seek to achieve, even the building controlarea. To approach the same problem from a different perspective causes you to gain insightand knowledge and therefore maybe expertise.
Wootton explained:
Well we now know that if we are going to be involved in anything that involvesenvironmental cutting-edge design or something which is outside the perimeters of what isavailable in the Australian market in any way now it is a very arduous and slow process andyou need to get as many people working in the same direction as possible and to use groupslike ACF are very useful because they do have contacts they can bring in and information.
From ACF’S perspective, Mailer said that gaining expertise was not consideredprior to collaboration. Despite Mailer’s comments this determinant was deemed tohave a strong level of explanatory power in this collaboration.
As Wootton made some limited comments on both government pressure andfurther comments about legitimacy being a reason for collaboration, and linkswere made between these determinants, they were deemed to have a mild andstrong[13] level of explanatory power, respectively, in terms of motivations forcollaboration.
Determinants that were not motivations for collaboration in this environmentalcollaboration were asymmetry, economic efficiency, and stability.
Novotel Ibis HotelThe determinants of economic efficiency, legitimacy, and stakeholder considerationswere all very strong motivations for this collaboration. From the environmental groupin particular, very strong evidence existed to suggest economic efficiency was amotivation for collaboration. They spoke at length on how environmental groups reliedon funding to support their causes and that this contract with the consortium providednot only for upfront payments but also for a steady stream of income. For example,Figgis explained that:
I think if I’m absolutely honest about it, a principal driver was economic – it is very difficultfor all organisations to survive in this day and age. Corporate income as you are no doubtaware is hard to come by and organisations have had to chase it endlessly on a yearly basis –NGOs very much welcome the situation where people are offering them a relationship wherethere is a sustained stream of income that they don’t have to chase. So undoubtedly incomewas part of it.
James said:
Now one of our fundraising strategies is to actually engage with corporate partners to raisefunds for conservation, not in a philanthropic context, although that is always nice (if peoplejust want to write us a cheque that is very nice), but today in the current marketplace it needsto be about a mutually beneficial commercial relationship between two parties so that we getfunding but they also get benefits from the relationship in some way.
MAJ22,4
432
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
The desire to appear legitimate and stakeholder considerations were strong inexplaining the motivation for collaboration within this project. In relation tolegitimacy, Atkinson said:
I certainly think, in terms of promotion, in third party endorsement and credibility, that you areoffering an open and transparent reporting process, that issues are and will always be part of aconstruction process, will always arise and need to be resolved at a pretty tight time frame.
Roberts said:
They’ve [Olympic Coordination Authority] had their energy king hit out of the OlympicVillage, had their PVC king hit out of the stadium – what they were lacking, how can I saythis, they were lacking the credibility that the full range of green groups could have giventhem.
Figgis said:
One has to be honest about this – they’re buying something and in the case of WWF it’s oneof the most recognised logos in the world, it’s probably the most respectable name and brandin the environment movement and your corporate dollars are buying an association that youhope reflects well on you.
Other determinants that have mild explanatory power are setting an example,followed by references to government pressure and reciprocity.
The determinants that were not considered motivations for collaboration wereasymmetry, expertise, and stability.
Metroplex Industrial ParkThe determinants of government pressure, legitimacy and stakeholder considerationsproved to be very strong motivations behind this collaboration. Both parties spoke atlength on these determinants, indicating that they were major motivations forcollaboration. For example, in relation to stakeholder considerations, Smallwood noted:
I see the role of Metroplex management as being responsible for seeing through the visionand looking after the interests of all the stakeholders, which includes owners, landlords (someare institutions), tenants, the workforce and the local community. I suppose I could also saythe local wildlife. I maintain that everyone can work together. If the business and localcommunity can’t work together it is not going to be a successful estate.
There is the local community, landowners, occupiers, tenants, workforce, and corporateimage. The benefits are a sense of ownership. You have got the factories where people work,but you have got the walkways. This is where it crosses over and mixes. There is in a sense,pride, lifestyle. Because, although they considered it their park, it was run down anddangerous. It was a bad environment, especially at nighttime. So we cleaned up the area andthe community benefited in the sense of guaranteed image.
Setting an example received only a small amount of attention and was deemed to be amild determinant, while asymmetry, economic efficiency, expertise, publicity andstability were not motivations for collaboration in this environmental collaboration.
Summarising the results across all projectsIn comparing the results across the projects, several determinants returned fairlyconsistent results. These are reported in Table VII. The determinant of stakeholder
Motivations forenvironmental
collaboration
433
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
considerations was a very strong motivation for all collaborations. The determinants ofasymmetry and stability consistently returned a result of not being motivations forcollaboration across all projects[14].
As a further way to present the data, it was decided to separate industry as a group,from the environmentalists as a group. For each group a table was devised, whichindicated whether the participant/s from that group (either industry or conservation)had perceived a particular determinant as being a motivation for collaboration. Thismeant that the emphasis was not upon how strong the determinant’s explanatorypower was but whether it could be a motivation behind environmental collaborationsfrom the viewpoint of that particular group. See Tables VIII and IX. The results werethen summarised for each group and compared in a third table (Table X).
The results showed that the determinant of stakeholder considerations was a verystrong motivation behind these environmental collaborations. In order of explanatorypower, the next most recognised motivations for environmental collaborations werethe determinants of legitimacy and government pressure[15]. These two determinantsreceived significant amounts of attention, albeit not as much as the stakeholderconsiderations determinant. On the other end of the scale for explanatory power
Level of explanatory power
Determinant Koala BeachGreen BuildingProject
Novotel IbisHotel
MetroplexIndustrial Park
Asymmetry None None None NoneEconomic efficiency Medium None Very Strong NoneExpertise None Strong None NoneGovernment pressure Very Strong Mild Mild Very StrongLegitimacy Very Strong Strong Very Strong Very StrongPublicity Mild Mild Strong NoneReciprocity Strong Mild Medium StrongSetting an example Mild Very Strong Mild MildStability None None None NoneStakeholders Very Strong Very Strong Very Strong Very Strong
Table VII.Across-case presentationof the results
Could the determinant be a motivation for collaboration?
DeterminantKoalaBeach
Green BuildingProject
Novotel IbisHotel
Metroplex IndustrialPark
Asymmetry No No No NoEconomic efficiency No No Yes NoExpertise No No No NoGovernment pressure No No No NoLegitimacy No Yes Yes NoPublicity Yes Yes Yes NoReciprocity No No Yes YesSetting an example No Yes Yes YesStability No No No NoStakeholderconsiderations
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Table VIII.Did the environmentalgroup perceive that thisdeterminant was amotivation for theircollaboration?
MAJ22,4
434
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
were the determinants of asymmetry and stability. These determinants were notmotivations for the environmental collaborations.
Discussion and concluding commentsA number of implications arise from this research. Within the interviews theparticipants from both “sides” of the collaboration stated that the environmentalcollaborations helped their organisations to meet their objectives and all were satisfiedwith the results that flowed from their decision to collaborate. Such informationcould usefully be disseminated to encourage further collaborative efforts. Therepresentatives from the environmental groups believed that the collaborations hadpositive implications for the environment[16]. Hence, whilst there might be particularbusiness benefits from entering into an environmental collaboration, the collaborationsnevertheless were perceived as positive for the environment by a group of individuals(environmental NGOs) who would be expected to have relatively sound knowledgeabout various issues associated with the environment. Arguably, such resultsare important for society at large and for the environment, particularly given thatthe industry is a major contributor to environmental damage. The practice of
Could the determinant be a motivation for collaboration?
DeterminantKoalaBeach
Green BuildingProject
NovotelIbis Hotel
MetroplexIndustrial Park
Asymmetry No No No NoEconomic efficiency Yes No Yes NoExpertise No Yes No NoGovernment pressure Yes Yes Yes YesLegitimacy Yes Yes Yes YesPublicity Yes No Yes NoReciprocity Yes Yes Yes YesSetting an example Yes Yes No NoStability No No No NoStakeholder considerations Yes Yes Yes Yes
Table IX.Did the industry member
perceive that thisdeterminant was a
motivation for theircollaboration?
Number of cases where a determinant was suggested as amotivation for collaboration
Determinant Industry member Environmental groups
Asymmetry 0/4 0/4Economic efficiency 2/4 1/4Expertise 1/4 0/4Government pressure 4/4 0/4Legitimacy 4/4 2/4Publicity 2/4 3/4Reciprocity 4/4 2/4Setting an example 2/4 3/4Stability 0/4 0/4Stakeholder considerations 4/4 4/4
Table X.A comparison between
industry andenvironmental groups in
terms of their perceptionsof whether a determinantcould be a motivation for
collaboration
Motivations forenvironmental
collaboration
435
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
environmental collaboration may assist industry to operate in a more environmentallyresponsible manner. Our research indicates that the building and construction industrywas aware of the need for improved environmental standards of building andconstruction and hence environmental collaborations may be one mechanism to helpsatisfy this need.
It could be argued, perhaps, that with further experience and time the participantsin this research might, through further reflection, modify their initial views about the“success” of the collaborations. With this in mind we held ten follow-up interviews[17].The interviews were held during the period December 2001 until February 2002.Without any apparent exception, all those spoken to continued to believe that thecollaborations were a success. In fact, several participants had since found furtherbenefits. Pittman said there were more benefits for the local community than she hadexpected; Roberts said the project set an example for others to follow. MacRae andWellwood explained that the Koala Beach development had sold extremely welland this was due to the involvement of the AKF. Sharp from the AKF said they nowhad a better understanding of commercial issues.
Whilst environmental collaborations generated outcomes that were welcomed bythe parties to the collaborations, it is interesting to consider what motivated thecollaboration in the first place. Our results provide insight. Our results show thatstakeholder considerations were a strong motivation for the collaborations from both“sides” of the collaboration. Environmental groups sought collaborations that would beapproved by their constituents, particularly their members and affected communities.The building and construction representatives believed that forming an environmentalcollaboration was a particularly useful way of satisfying the concerns of keystakeholders, particularly government. There was also a view expressed that thecompanies did have a moral responsibility to particular stakeholders, for example,local communities. The results also showed that the desire to appear credible orlegitimate also motivated collaboration. From the industry perspective, it was deemedparticularly important to be credible to government (again, emphasising theimportance of government expectations), and forming environmental collaborationswas perceived to enhance this perception. Environmental group representatives werealso motivated to ensure that the collaboration would be with a party that wasunlikely, through association, to negatively impact their credibility or legitimacy.
There were also some other factors that motivated collaborations. The majority ofrepresentatives from environmental groups were motivated to be associated with aproject that could be deemed to set an example for other building and constructionprojects to follow, and they were also keen to collaborate on a venture which generatedpublicity for the outcomes that can be achieved through environmental collaboration.On one project, the Novotel Ibis Hotel, the environmental group was particularlymotivated by the financial returns that were associated with the collaboration.
The results also indicated that reciprocity was also something that was deemed tobe important to both parties to a collaboration, but the indication was that this wasmore in the nature of a necessary precondition to collaboration, rather than amotivation for collaboration.
Given the origin of the determinants for environmental collaboration used inthis study, the results indicate that a trilogy of theories (institutional, legitimacyand stakeholder theory) might be useful to explain the motivations behind
MAJ22,4
436
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
environmental collaborations. Researching environmental collaborations under thethree theories helped capture both the general and specific legitimacy issues involvedin motivating organisations to collaborate. Rather than viewing these theories inisolation, as a set they appeared to explain the motivations for environmentalcollaborations more fully. This result can lead to the conclusion that if these theories,which have been applied to explain collaboration are viewed as distinct from oneanother then important information may be missed. This finding would be useful topeople doing further research on environmental collaboration, and also for thoseseeking to be involved in related theory building.
Lastly, in relation to future research, the building and construction industry waschosen as a focus for this research; however, environmental collaborations exist inother industries. To confirm the findings or perhaps to find alternative motivations forenvironmental collaborations, a study of this nature could be expanded to otherindustries. There is evidence of several environmental collaborations in the mining,timber and fisheries industries. If environmental collaborations do have positiveimplications for the environment, as our participants believed, then further researchwhich highlights and promotes collaborations would arguably be beneficial to theenvironment, and relatedly, to society.
Notes
1. The building and construction industry has several subsectors: residential building;commercial building; building services; engineering and infrastructure.
2. Such damage includes the damage caused throughout the supply chain by the mining andproduction activities undertaken to produce building materials. There are also various issuesassociated with waste generated throughout construction, as well as in the demolition ofpre-existing structures. Completed buildings are also responsible for various environmentalimpacts, for example, those related to waste water generation and energy consumption.
3. A collaboration, as opposed to an environmental collaboration, has been defined as“a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructivelyexplore the differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision ofwhat is possible” (Gray, 1989, p. 5). An environmental collaboration is a subset of allcollaborations.
4. This would not be surprising given that theories of human behaviour (such as the decision tocollaborate) are, by necessity, simplifications of an underlying reality. Further, becauseresearchers operating within different paradigms will have different views about whatmotivates people, how efficient people are at assimilating data, the efficiency of markets andpolitical processes and so on, they will consequently rely upon different arguments andassumptions (and theories) to explain the behaviour.
5. As one example of the “overlap” between theories, Gray et al. (1995, p. 52) discuss howlegitimacy theory and stakeholder theory (two of the eight theories that have been used toexplain collaboration) have much in common with both theories being set within aframework of assumptions about political economy”.
6. Cardskadden and Lober (1998) studied a corporate wildlife enhancement program thatinvolved a collaboration with an environmental group, as well as some business groups, andfound that the collaboration could be explained in terms of it being a mechanism thatsatisfies the expectations of powerful stakeholders of the corporation – that is, there wassupport for explanations generated by stakeholder theory.
Motivations forenvironmental
collaboration
437
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
7. Determinants are the variables that are supported by the theories as motivations forcollaboration. For example, transaction cost theory may suggest that organisationscollaborate to gain economic efficiency. Economic efficiency is an example of a “determinant”.
8. Note that the determinant of necessity does not apply to research on environmentalcollaborations as it only applies to mandated collaborations. Our research focuses onvoluntary collaborations.
9. Various searches and investigation supported this view. The media, industry members,environmentalists and internet searches all provided the evidence to suggest that theseprojects represented the entire population of environmental collaborations available forstudy in this time period.
10. As it turned out, our number of projects was consistent with suggestions by Eisenhardt(1989, p. 545) who recommended that “a number between 4 and 10 cases usually works well”.
11. It should be noted that the questions generated responses that related to a number of issuespertaining to environmental collaborations. Only those of relevance to determining themotivations for environmental collaboration are discussed in this paper.
12. Sixteen codes related to motivations for collaboration. With the refinement described above,this list was eventually refined to ten codes representing motivations for theseenvironmental collaborations.
13. Mailer made comments to the effect that they had to be careful in choosing a partner thusthey were concerned with maintaining the legitimacy which already existed with theirmembers.
14. However, a subset of stability which was tested separately, expertise, was found to be amotivation for a developer in one case.
15. To determine the explanatory strength of determinants, values were given to the categoriesin scale of explanatory power (mild ¼ 1, medium ¼ 2, strong ¼ 3, and very strong ¼ 4).Using these values an overall score was produced for the results of each determinant.Legitimacy and government pressure ranked second and third, respectively, behindstakeholder considerations, in terms of explanatory power for the motivations behindenvironmental collaborations
16. At the time of the first interview the AKF said that their objectives to date had been fulfilledbut it would take time to realise if the Koala population had been truly affected by thedevelopment. During the second follow-up interviews (to be discussed shortly) the AKFexplained that they believed the collaboration was a success.
17. Three of the original twelve participants were unable to be involved in these follow-upinterviews. Liz James no longer worked for the WWF and Ray James was on extended leave.Brian Ray wished Stephen MacRae to be interviewed as he felt MacRae had been moreinvolved in the Koala Beach project since we had last spoken. Therefore, ten interviews intotal were held, these being with nine of the original participants and one new participant.
References
Aldrich, H.E. (1979), Organizations and Environments, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Aldrich, H.E. and Pfeffer, J. (1976), “Environments of organizations”, Annual Review of Sociology,Vol. 2, pp. 79-105.
Astley, W.G. and Fombrun, C.J. (1983), “Collective strategy: social ecology of organizationalenvironments”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 576-87.
Auster, E. (1994), “Macro and strategic perspectives on interorganizational linkages:a comparative analysis and review with suggestions for reorientation”, Advances inStrategic Management, Vol. 10, pp. 3-40.
MAJ22,4
438
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1999), “Environmental issues”, Australian Bureau of Statistics4602.0, March, pp. 1-57.
Australian Koala Foundation (1996), Our First Ten Years 1986-1996, John Garnsworthy andAssociates, Brisbane.
Baker, N.C. (1996), “Industry, e-groups seek common turf”, Environmental Management Today,Vol. 7 No. 2, p. 1.
Barnett, W. and Carroll, G. (1987), “Competition and mutualism among early telephonecompanies”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp. 400-21.
Benson, J.K. (1975), “The interoganizational network as a political economy”, AdministrativeScience Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 229-49.
Best, R. (1997), “Environmental impact of buildings”, in Langston, C. (Ed.), Sustainable Practices:ESD and the Construction Industry, Envirobook Publishing, Sydney.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Cardskadden, H. and Lober, D.J. (1998), “Environmental stakeholder management as a businessstrategy: the case of the corporate wildlife habitat enhancement programme”, Journal ofEnvironmental Management, Vol. 52, pp. 183-202.
Cook, K.S. (1977), “Exchange and power in networks of interorganizational relations”,The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 18, pp. 62-82.
Deegan, C. and Blomquist, C. (2001), “Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting:an exploration of the interaction between the World Wide Fund for Nature and theAustralian Minerals Industry”, 3rd Asian Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in AccountingConference Proceedings, APIRA, Adelaide, July 2001.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), “The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism andcollective rationality in organizational fields”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48,pp. 147-60.
Dowling, J. and Pfeffer, J. (1975), “Organizational legitimacy: social values and organizationalbehavior”, Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 122-36.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of ManagementReview, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Elkington, J. (1994), “Towards the sustainable corporation: win-win-win business strategies forsustainable development”, California Management Review, Winter, pp. 90-100.
Emerson, R.M. (1962), “Power dependence relations”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 27,pp. 31-41.
Fleisher, C.S. (1991), “Using an agency-based approach to analyze collaborative federatedinterorganizational relationships”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 27 No. 1,pp. 116-30.
Freeman, R. (1983), “Strategic management: a stakeholder approach”, Advances in StrategicManagement, Vol. 1, pp. 31-60.
Gray, B. (1989), Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems, Jossey-Bass,San Francisco, CA.
Gray, B. and Hay, T.M. (1986), “Political limits to international consensus and change”, Journalof Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 22, pp. 95-112.
Gray, B. and Wood, D.J. (1991), “Collaborative alliances: moving from practice to theory”, Journalof Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 3-22.
Motivations forenvironmental
collaboration
439
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
Gray, R., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995), “Corporate social and environmental reporting: a reviewof the literature and a longitudinal study of UK disclosure”, Accounting, Auditing &Accountability Journal, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 57-71.
Gray, R., Owen, D. and Adams, C. (1996), Accounting and Accountability, Prentice-Hall, London.
Gulati, R. (1998), “Alliances and networks”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19, pp. 293-317.
Hall, R.H., Clark, J.P., Giordano, P.C., Johnson, P.V. and Van Roekel, M. (1977), “Patterns ofinterorganizational relationships”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 457-70.
Hannan, M. and Freeman, J. (1977), “The population ecology of organizations”, American Journalof Sociology, Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 929-64.
Hartman, C.L. and Stafford, E.R. (1998), “Crafting ‘enviroprenuaral’ value chain strategiesthrough green alliances”, Business Horizons, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 62-73.
Hemphill, T.A. (1994), “Strange bedfellows cozy up for a clean environment”, Business andSociety, Summer, pp. 38-44.
Kogut, B. (1988), “Joint venture: theoretical and empirical perspectives”, Strategic ManagementJournal, Vol. 9, pp. 319-32.
Levine, S. and White, P. (1961), Exchange as a Conceptual Framework for the Study ofInterorganizational Relationships, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY.
Logsdon, J.M. (1991), “Interests and interdependence in the formation of social problem-solvingcollaborations”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 23-37.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Analysis, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.
Miner, A.S., Amburgey, T.L. and Stearns, T.M. (1990), “Interorganizational linkages andpopulation dynamics: buffering and transformational shields”, Administrative ScienceQuarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 689-713.
O’Dywer, B. (2000), “Corporate social reporting in the republic of Ireland: a description and questfor understanding”, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Dundee, Dundee.
Oliver, C. (1990), “Determinants of interorganizational relationships: integration and futuredirections”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 241-65.
Patton, M.Q. (1990), Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Perry, C. (1998), “Processes of a case study methodology for postgraduate research inmarketing”, The European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 9/10, pp. 785-802.
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G.R. (1978), External Control of Organizations: A Resource DependencePerspective, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Schermerhorn, J.R. and Shirland, L.E. (1981), “Hospital administrators felt need forinterorganizational cooperation and actual cooperative outcomes by their hospitals”,Decision Sciences, Vol. 22, pp. 486-501.
Sharfman, M.P., Gray, B. and Yan, A. (1991), “The context of interorganizational collaboration inthe garments industry: an institutional perspective”, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,Vol. 27, pp. 181-208.
Shocker, A.D. and Sethi, S.P. (1973), “An approach to incorporating societal preferences indeveloping corporate action strategies”, California Management Review, Summer,pp. 97-105.
Sofaer, S. and Myrtle, R.C. (1991), “Interorganizational theory and research: implications forhealth care management, policy, and research”, Medical Care Research & Review, Vol. 48,pp. 371-90.
MAJ22,4
440
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
Stafford, E. and Hartman, C.L. (1996), “Green alliances: strategic relations between businessesand environmental groups”, Business Horizons, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 50-60.
Suchman, M.C. (1995), “Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches”, Academyof Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 571-610.
Suzuki, D. and Dressel, H. (1999), Naked Apes to Superspecies, Allen Unwin, Sydney.
Thompson, J.D. (1967), Organizations in Action, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Wiewel, W. and Hunter, A. (1985), “The interorganizational network as a resource: a comparativecase study on organizational genesis”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 30,pp. 482-96.
Williamson, O.E. (1975), Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications,Free Press, New York, NY.
Further reading
Australian Conservation Foundation (1999), “Green bricks and mortar: ACF’s new home”,Habitat Australia, April, p. 19.
Eccleston, R. (1997), “Greens to forge alliance with the natural enemy”, The Australian,18 September, p. 1.
Luke, T.W. (1997), “The world wildlife fund: ecocolonialism as funding the worldwide ‘wise use’of nature”, Capitalism, Nature and Socialism, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 31-61.
World Wide Fund for Nature Australia (1998), Annual Report.
Yin, R. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Motivations forenvironmental
collaboration
441
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)
This article has been cited by:
1. Ambika Zutshi, Andrew Creed. 2014. An international review of environmental initiatives in theconstruction sector. Journal of Cleaner Production . [CrossRef]
2. Sharyn McDonald. 2014. Social responsibility clusters arising from social partnerships. SocialResponsibility Journal 10:2, 331-347. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Miriam Glennie, Sumit Lodhia. 2013. The influence of internal organisational factors on corporate‐community partnership agendas. Meditari Accountancy Research 21:1, 52-67. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
4. J.K. Yates. 2013. Sustainable methods for waste minimisation in construction. Construction Innovation13:3, 281-301. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Sharyn McDonald, Suzanne Young. 2012. Cross-sector collaboration shaping Corporate SocialResponsibility best practice within the mining industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 37, 54-67.[CrossRef]
6. Mohammad Yarahmadi, Peter G. Higgins. 2012. Motivations towards environmental innovation. EuropeanJournal of Innovation Management 15:4, 400-420. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Deborah Hughes, Trefor Williams, Zhaomin Ren. 2012. Differing perspectives on collaboration inconstruction. Construction Innovation 12:3, 355-368. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
8. Bruce M. Taylor, Ben P. Harman, Sonja Heyenga, Ryan R. J. McAllister. 2012. Property Developers andUrban Adaptation: Conceptual and Empirical Perspectives on Governance. Urban Policy and Research 30,5-24. [CrossRef]
9. Israel Boxer, Hanna Oirik Menahem, Gabor Rekettye. 2010. Ecological awareness, price and psychologicalwellbeing as main dimensions of senior citizens' green sheltered housing buying intentions. InternationalJournal of Business Performance Management 12, 86. [CrossRef]
Dow
nloa
ded
by K
WA
ME
NK
RU
MA
H U
NIV
ER
SIT
Y O
F SC
IEN
CE
AN
D T
EC
HN
OL
OG
Y A
t 10:
14 2
0 Ju
ly 2
015
(PT
)