Learning to collaborate: a study of business networks

Abstract

PurposeThis paper seeks to give empirical examples of the processes whereby networks learn to collaborate. Specifically, the authors aim to examine efforts to learn to collaborate in response to the challenge of climate change.Design/methodology/approachThe paper uses case study research methods to examine concepts previously developed in the literature and propose a conceptual framework of barriers to learning to collaborate.FindingsExisting research on collaboration over environmental issues highlights the prevalence of cognitive deficiencies, an abundance of conflicts and disputes and the ignorance of exchange opportunities among interdependent actors. Based on a theoretical review and an empirical case study, the authors put forward a framework that involves three stages. The paper proposes that networks learning to collaborate undergo a process of: framing the problem; negotiating; and achieving wise trades.Practical implicationsAt all three of the stages given above, there are significant cognitive biases, which can lead to failure to learn to collaborate. The paper gives examples that should help businesses and regulators to understand and avoid in‐built barriers that could lead to a failure of the network to learn to collaborate.Originality/valueThe paper reviews a number of research disciplines linked to collaboration and gives an empirical case study that explores their links. The authors then propose a conceptual framework of barriers to learning to collaborate, which can be used to help guide practitioners. Failure to learn to collaborate can be found in the many contemporary cases of conflicts and disputes; such as in the areas of intellectual property rights, international trade, inter‐firm alliances and vertical marketing systems.

Why companies fail to respond to climate change: Collective inaction as an outcome of barriers to interaction

“…that it is real and man-made, exists in the research community (Oreskes, 2004;Meehl et al, 2007;Veal & Mouzas, 2010). Furthermore, it is recognized that it is still feasible to stabilize CO 2 concentrations at acceptable levels (IPCC, 2014) and that the costs and risks resulting from contemporary inaction significantly exceed the costs of immediate climate change mitigation (Stern, 2006).…”

“…Pertinent to this study and our focus on climate change, previous research on collective action suggests that disagreement among individuals may occur because of the scarcity of resources and the basic human belief of a fixed-resource pie (Veal & Mouzas, 2010;Bazerman, Moore, & Gillespie, 1999). It is recognized that climate change represents such a case, since actors are not able to enlarge the planet and its resources are limited (Hardin, 1968).…”

“…Both approaches are valid, since adaptation is necessary to handle changes that are already present and cannot be revoked, and mitigation is necessary to minimize long-term risks by stabilizing the atmospheric CO 2 levels (Stern, 2006). Of significance in this study are two considerations of climate change, as suggested by Veal and Mouzas (2010):…”

“…Veal and Mouzas (2010) summarize the issue of climate change based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Synthesis Report (IPCC, 2001) as following:…”

“…In this paper, we suggest that no individual company alone has the necessary resources and capabilities to tackle the unprecedented challenge of climate change (Veal & Mouzas, 2010). Companies thus need to engage in forms of collective action with other companies in networks of exchange relationships (Easton & Håkansson, 1996;Gnyawali & Madhavan, 2001;Håkansson & Ford, 2002;Ritter, 2000), to address climate change (Brown, 1996;Pendergraft, 1998).…”