PRESENTER GREG M. ILAG

Ex e c u t i v e D i r e c t o rI n te r n a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p A d v i s o r y G r o u p , N e w Yo r k

D B A C a n d id a t e , U n i v e r s i t y o f P h o e n i x

International Conference onGovernance Across Ethics, Culture, and Citizenship

(What to give and what to expect)

An Examination of the Entity Participant’s Collaborative Partnerships

within the United Nations Global Compact

RESEARCH TOPIC

An Examination of Entity Participants’ Collaborative Partnership within the

United Nations Global Compact

Quantitative Method with Cross-sectional design Survey Questions (45 Likert-type + 5 Demographics) Use

SurveyMonkey Platform = Total of 90 completed surveys Random Sampling of Business, Non-Business, and

Academic Institutions Statistical Analyses using MLR and MANOVA (SPSS

Version 21.o for Windows)

Total # of UNGC Participants Non-Business

Business 8,059 66%Non-Business

3,486 28%

Academics

742 6%

12,287

NGOs 1,949 16%Foundations

392 3%

Associations

815 7%

Labor, Civil Society, Public Sector

330 2%

GLOBAL COMPACT PARTICIPANTS FACTS AND FIGURES

2006 3,0002009 5,000 66%2012 10,417 108%2014 12,287 18%

Largest memberships Some Middle East Countries

Spain 1,736France 1,006Mexico 612Brazil 594USA 531

Lebanon 18 B=13; NB=4; A=1 Beirut Arab Univ.

Morocco 22 B=12; NB=10; A= 0

Jordan 29 B=19; NB=10; A=0

UAE 55 B=47; NB=5; A=3

Egypt 73 B=44;NB=23; A=6

PARTICIPANTS FACTS AND FIGURES: By Number and Location

Meet right partners in line with strategic needs

Learn new tactics and appropriate strategies

Share resources (i.e., money, manpower, machine)

Mitigate costs and risks and reduce opportunistic behavior

Assess strategic fit/value, and the 7 C’s of strategic collaboration - Connection with people, Clarity of purpose, Congruency of mission, Creation of values, Communication between partners, Continual learning, Commitment to partners

According to the 2012 UN Global Survey:

To build contacts and network with other companies

To use platforms and principles to showcase best practices

To establish more corporate and personal connections with other non-business stakeholders.

Why Participants Collaborate

CORPORATE COMMITMENT

FINANCIAL COMMITMENT

Make UN principles an integral part of business strategy, operations, & culture

Incorporate principles in the decision-making processes of the highest level governance body (i.e. Board)

Contribute to MDG through collaborative partnerships

Integrate in its annual report a description of the ways in which it implements the principles (i.e. COP)

Advance CSR, ethics and transparency through responsible business practices, advocacy, and active outreach

Revenue $ 1B or more [$10,000] Between $250M and $1B [$5,000] Between $25M and $250M [$2,500] Less than $25M [$500]

PARTICIPANTS’ COMMITMENTS

REPORTING COMMITMENT

ALIGNMENT COMMITMENT

Communications on Progress (COP)

Global Reporting Initiatives (GRI)

Social Accountability International’s (SAI) SA8000 Labor Standards

Accountability AAA1000 standards

Extractive Transparency Initiative (EITI)

10 Principles of the UN Global Compact

Human Rights (2) Labor Standards (4) Environment (3) Anti-corruption (1)

PARTICIPANTS’ COMMITMENTS

UNGC PARTNERSHIP CHALLENGES

Advanced performers only 8% (UN Survey, 2012)Retention rate less than 35% (UN Survey, 2012)Delisting of participants – 30% (UN Global

Compact, 2012)New record for non-communicating participants =

1,400Issues of growth - a success or challenge ?

2006 – 20009 -- 66% (yearly 22%) 2010 --2012 -- 108% (yearly 33%) 2013 ----2014 -- 18% (yearly 18)

Issue of size – SMEs (62%) and BIG Corporations (38%)

Issue of business mentality – for Profit vs. Non-profit (NGOs, Academic, Foundations – 32%)

RESEARCH MODEL

General Problem Specific Problem

Significant diversity Lack of structure

(self-regulation).Partnership principle

reflects on ranking and embraces domination model.

SMEs are not part of collaboration process.

Lack assessment tools to examine the level of readiness, willingness, and ability of members

No vital framework to define collaborative partnership effectiveness.

RESEARCH PROBLEMS

PURPOSE STATEMENTS

To examine the factors that influence the participants’ CR and DAF when establishing collaborative partnerships within the Global Compact.

To determine if job title/position is a significant factor in collaborative partnership effectiveness(CPE).

To determine if experience is a significant factor in collaborative partnership effectiveness (CPE).

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

RQ1: To what extent do participants’ CFI readiness scores predict willingness and ability to collaborate? Stated differently, are participants who are ready to collaborate, willing and able to do so?

RQ2: To what extent do differences in CPE scores, as measured by collaboration readiness and dedicated alliance function exist in participants’ job title or position?

RQ3: To what extent do differences in CPE scores exist in participants’ amount of experience, as measured by their total number of collaborations and level of success?

HYPOTHESES

H1O: Collaboration readiness is not a statistically significant predictor of willingness and ability of participants to collaborate effectively.

H1A: Collaboration readiness is a statistically significant predictor of willingness and ability of participants to collaborate effectively.

H2O: There are no statistically significant differences in CPE scores in participants’ job title or position.

H2A: There are statistically significant differences in CPE scores in participants’ job title or position.

H3O: There are no statistically significant differences in CPE scores in participants’ amount of experience.

H3A: There are statistically significant differences in CPE scores in participants’ amount of experience.

Factors Related to Environment

SQ 6.1SQ 6.2SQ 6.3SQ 6.4SQ 6.5SQ 6.6

0 5 10 15 20 25

Strongly AgreeAgreeNeutralDisagreeStrongly Disagree

Number of Respondents

 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

SQ 6.1 4 9% 3 7% 5 11% 22 48% 12 26%SQ 6.2 4 9% 2 4% 8 17% 16 35% 16 35%SQ 6.3 3 7% 0 0% 5 11% 15 33% 23 50%SQ 6.4 3 7% 1 2% 9 20% 16 35% 17 37%SQ 6.5 5 11% 2 4% 4 9% 15 33% 20 43%SQ 6.6 5 11% 0 0% 4 9% 16 35% 21 46%

Partnership Homophilous Tendency

SQ 6.

3

SQ 7.

4

SQ 7.

8

SQ 8.

12

SQ 9.

5

SQ 10

.3

SQ 10

.5

SQ 11

.1

SQ 11

.2

SQ 11

.3

SQ 12

.8

SQ 12

.100

102030

Strongly DisagreeDisagreeNeutralAgreeStrongly Agree

Number of Respondents  Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

SQ 6.3 3 7% 0 0% 5 11% 15 33% 23 50%SQ 7.4 1 2% 3 7% 4 9% 23 50% 15 33%SQ 7.8 0 0% 2 4% 3 7% 20 43% 21 46%

SQ 8.12 3 7% 5 11% 9 20% 19 41% 10 22%SQ 9.5 0 0% 0 0% 10 22% 12 26% 24 52%

SQ 10.3 0 0% 2 4% 8 17% 21 46% 15 33%SQ 10.5 0 0% 2 4% 9 20% 21 46% 14 30%SQ 11.1 5 11% 13 28% 14 30% 9 20% 5 11%SQ 11.2 0 0% 4 9% 7 15% 19 41% 16 35%SQ 11.3 5 11% 7 15% 10 22% 17 37% 7 15%SQ 12.8 2 4% 10 22% 17 37% 8 17% 9 20%

SQ 12.10 0 0% 1 2% 8 17% 17 37% 20 43%

An Examination of Entity Participants’ Collaborative Partnership within the United

Nations Global Compact

CFI Factor Score Categories No. of Items M SD α

Collaboration readiness 45 4.02 0.44 .99 Environment 6 4.02 0.98 .97 Member characteristics 8 4.23 0.50 .98 Process and structure 13 4.15 0.50 .98 Communications 6 4.22 0.65 .99 Purpose and mission 7 4.12 0.59 .97 Resources 5 3.40 0.71 .95Dedicated alliance function 10 4.15 0.51 .99 Willingness 5 4.33 0.60 .89 Ability 5 3.97 0.58 .62

Notes: • Excellent Reliability of CR Composite Score at α = .99• Two DAF subscales showed good (willingness α = .89) and acceptable (ability

α = .62) ranges of reliability• Excellent Reliability of DAF Composite Score at α = .99

Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach's Alpha for the Main Study Variables

Variables: CR and DAF

Source B SE β t p VIF             Environment -0.07 0.06 -0.13 -1.09 .283 1.15Member characteristics -0.10 0.16 -0.10 -0.65 .521 2.01Process and structure 0.16 0.25 0.16 0.65 .521 4.96Communications -0.01 0.19 -0.02 -0.06 .951 4.76Purpose and mission 0.55 0.22 0.63 2.48 .018 5.33Resources 0.14 0.08 0.19 1.65 .107 1.11

Note. F(6, 39) = 7.34, p < .001, R2 = .53

Multiple Linear Regressions of the Six Collaboration Readiness Factors Predicting Dedicated Alliance Function

Variables: Position and Experience Categorical Demographic Variables n %Job title or position     CEO / President / Founder / Owner 25 54 Vice President / Director / Manager 6 13 Alliance coordinator / Support Professional 5 11 Other positions 10 22Experience Number of collaborations

   

  Zero or None 7 15  One 28 61  Two 6 13  Three or more 5 11 Level of success      Unsuccessful 8 17  Successful 27 59  Very successful 11 24       

Zero or None

One Two Three or more

05

1015202530

7

28

6 5

Number of CollaborationsUnsuccessful Successful Very Successful

05

1015202530

8

27

11

Level of Success

Confirmatory Statistical Tests

Factor Score Category

z p

     Collaboration Readiness

0.65 .790

Dedicated Alliance Function

0.68 .751

Factor Score Category F(2,36) p     Collaboration Readiness 1.69 .199Dedicated Alliance Function 0.64 .536

Grouping variable

Box’s M F(6,1165) p

       Job Title or Position

5.67 0.78 .583

One Sample K-S Tests for Dedicated Alliance Function and Collaboration Readiness

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variance of CR and DAF Scores by Job Title or Position

Box’s M Test for Equality of Covariance Matrices for both CR and DAF Scores by Job Title or Position

Homophilous Partnership Tendencies

Partnership Tendencies

CR Score DAF Score

n %

         Collaborative High

(4.0+)High

(4.0+)18 39

Selective High (4.0+)

Low (2.0+) 12 26

Transformative Low (2.0+)

High (4.0+)

5 11

Affiliative 

Low (2.0+)

Low (2.0+) 11 24

FINDINGS AND RESULTS

CR is a predictor of DAF. Participants who are quantifiably ready to collaborate also showed

willingness and ability to collaborate effectively. Job Title/Position is not a significant factor in CPE.

Job title/position does not provide competitive edge in CR and DAF scores. CEOs, NGO Founders, Deans, and Alliance Coordinators have statistically similar CR and DAF scores and they are equally ready, willing and able to collaborate effectively.

Experience is not a significant factor in CPE. Participants who have less experience and with less number of

collaborations are equally ready, willing, and able compared to those who have more experience and with greater number of collaborations.

Participants have homophilous partnership tendency. Participants with HIGH CR scores but with LOW DAF scores

showed patterns of selective partnership with homophilous tendencies.

Contribution to Leadership/Practice

Contribution to Scholarship

Opens an opportunity to develop a new partnership assessment tool to measure the participant’s level of readiness when establishing partnership.

CEOs and managers who intend to establish collaborative partnerships with the Global Compact can have empirical research to advance an understanding of collaboration effectiveness.

This research provides success factors to measure and predict collaborative partnership effectiveness.

The UN does not check the validity of reports and fails to follow-up the partnership outcomes and this research attempts to fill the gap.

Insights from this research may prove to be significant to business leaders in structuring or restructuring their partnerships with the UN.

The research hopes to contribute to the proliferation of more responsible partnerships and address the educational lag by incorporating the new concept of collaboration readiness in partnership education.

Helps members to create educational frameworks , processes, and environment that can enable effective learning experiences for responsible partnership.

Facilitates and supports dialogue, debate, and learning activities among educators, businessman, and government on critical issues of global social responsibility, governance, and sustainability.

RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION