Growth, Excess and Opportunities

Wooliscroft, Ben; Ganglmair‐Wooliscroft, Alexandra

doi:10.1177/0276146718805804

Cited by 36 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Social innovation remains an underdeveloped and to some extent also contested concept [1,2]. Major issues concerning its focus, scope, and transformative potential remain unclear, which is particularly troublesome, as there are pressing needs to develop innovations that reconstruct markets towards sustainability [3][4][5]. Climate change, in particular, poses a threat to the excessive lifestyles prevalent in current societies, and it has been acknowledged that while technological innovations are required, they are insufficient to address challenges in complex societal systems [5,6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Innovation for Sustainability Challenges

Repo

Matschoss

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social innovation is concerned with social mobilization and impact, and is increasingly seen as an option to address sustainability challenges. Nevertheless, the concept of social innovation is quite open in character and requires empirical accommodation to establish how it differs from other types of innovation in this setting. This article contributes empirically to the concept of social innovation as it reviews categories of success factors of social innovation against those of five other innovation types (product, service, governmental, organizational, system) in 202 innovation cases that focus on climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials. Statistical analysis with contingency tables is applied to examine the distribution of five kinds of success factors across the innovation types: economic, environmental, political, social, and technological. The results confirm empirically that social innovation is indeed a distinct type of innovation. There are statistically significant differences in the distribution of categories of success factors between social innovation on the one hand and product, service and governance innovation on the other. In addition to the prevalence of social success factors, social innovation is characterized by a lesser emphasis on political and technological success factors.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Innovation for Sustainability Challenges

Repo

Matschoss

2019

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite good intentions and shared commitments, stakeholders can compromise pro-social network performance through opportunistic behaviours. Responding both to calls for work that challenges the WEIRD hegemony and that pays greater attention to systems elements in macromarketing (Wooliscroft 2021 a ; Wooliscroft and Ganglmair-Wooliscroft 2018) this paper addresses the shortcomings in current FWRN research.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Common Cause, coopetition or competition? Resource contestation in food waste recovery networks

Kunchamboo

Little

Cheah

2022

Journal of Macromarketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food waste is a problem that occurs throughout the supply chain, squandering natural resources, and contributing to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. While attention has been directed at systems designed to facilitate movement of food from manufacturer to consumers, little is known on alternative practices to recover food products no longer desired by the consumers. Responding to calls for greater attention to systems elements in macromarketing and for work that challenges the WEIRD hegemony, we investigate the issue of how collaborative networks can support more robust food systems. A qualitative case study draws on prolonged participant observation and depth interviews to address the question, “How do stakeholders in collaborative networks achieve shared system outcomes?” We apply institutional logic and the concept of coopetition to explore the dynamics within a food recovery network. Our findings suggest that notwithstanding shared commitments to sustainability, competition and conflicting interests can compromise systems performance. This study contributes a new perspective of collaborative network behaviour and highlights shortfalls in current theory and practices resulting from reliance on data collected from WEIRD contexts.

show abstract

“…The core of this relationship durability is “trust-building” among various stakeholders (Barrane et al , 2020; Yang et al , 2008). Moreover, a lack of trust is sensed more in complicated scenarios, where mobile factories change locations based on the decision of different stakeholders, and the process is carried out remotely without face-to-face communication between individuals and groups (Barrane et al , 2020; Wooliscroft and Ganglmair-Wooliscroft, 2018). Trust boosts cooperation between stakeholders and operational members, increases their commitments (Kwon and Suh, 2004) and decreases ineffectiveness arising from the opportunistic behavior of partners.…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of factors and outcomes of trust in mobile supply chains

Ghondaghsaz

Engesser

2021

EJMBE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe main purpose of this paper is the identification of the conceptualization of trust as well as its factors and outcomes in interorganizational relations in mobile supply chains (MSCs) in which multiple stakeholders collaborate.Design/methodology/approachThe authors first used a comprehensive literature review to extract related factors and outcomes of trust. Second, the authors conducted semi-structured interviews in chemical and pharmaceutical companies in Germany. These organizations stand out as leaders in the concept of MSCs and have developed collaborations with various stakeholders.FindingsBased on the results, a conceptual model has been developed that elaborates on the nature of trust and its factors and outcomes for cultivating trustful stakeholder collaboration. The study identifies six factors or approaches for building trust and two outcomes resulting from mutual trust.Practical implicationsThe conceptual model presented in this study can serve as a basis for developing trust in MSCs. Interorganizational collaborations in MSCs are more successful when saturated with trust. The collaboration systems must allow the innovative organizations to create value through the adaptation of advanced technologies without failure.Originality/valueThe study adds to the body of knowledge in building trust in multiple stakeholder collaboration, particularly in innovative organizations which are involved with disruptive technologies.

show abstract

Growth, Excess and Opportunities

Cited by 36 publications

References 43 publications

Social Innovation for Sustainability Challenges

Social Innovation for Sustainability Challenges

Common Cause, coopetition or competition? Resource contestation in food waste recovery networks

Identification of factors and outcomes of trust in mobile supply chains

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About