Motivations For Environmental Collaboration Within The Building and Construction Industry

Managerial Auditing Journal
Downloaded by KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY At 10:14 20 July 2015 (PT)
Motivations for environmental collaboration within the building and construction

industry
Terese Fiedler Craig Deegan
Article information:
To cite this document:
Terese Fiedler Craig Deegan, (2007),"Motivations for environmental collaboration within the building and
construction industry", Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 22 Iss 4 pp. 410 - 441
Permanent 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: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The 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 in
construction", Construction Innovation, Vol. 12 Iss 3 pp. 355-368
Gopal Kumar, Rabindra Nath Banerjee, (2014),"Supply chain collaboration index: an instrument to measure
the depth of collaboration", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 21 Iss 2 pp. 184-204 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-02-2012-0008
Kelly E. Proulx, Mark A. Hager, Kimberly C. Klein, (2014),"Models of collaboration between nonprofit
organizations", 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 Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing 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 Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0268-6902.htm
MAJ
22,4
Motivations for environmental

collaboration within the building
and construction industry
410
Terese Fiedler
Faculty of Business, University of Southern Queensland,
Toowoomba, Australia, and
Craig Deegan
School of Accounting and Law, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Purpose This paper sets out to document a review of environmental collaborations in the
Australian building and construction industry and to identify a number of motivations that appear to
drive particular environmental groups and building and construction companies to collaborate on
specific projects.
Design/methodology/approach The research involves a series of in-depth interviews with
individuals from building and construction companies and from environmental groups, and utilises a
number of theoretical perspectives to explain the various perspectives being adopted by the interviewees.
Findings The results indicate that corporate managers seek to collaborate with environmental
groups as a result of pressures exerted by particular stakeholder groups, particularly government, and
by the desire to be aligned with an organisation that has green credentials something that is
valuable 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 the
environmental groups indicated that motivations for collaboration included developing a project that
could 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 and
construction companies to follow.
Originality/value Little research has been done in the area of environmental collaborations. In this
study, environmental collaborations were considered as a vehicle for both the environmental groups
and the companies to further meet their organisational objectives and were generally considered as
successful initiatives from each organisations perspective.
Keywords Environmental management, Construction industry
Paper type Research paper
Managerial Auditing Journal

Vol. 22 No. 4, 2007
pp. 410-441
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0268-6902
DOI 10.1108/02686900710741946
Introduction
For some time now it has been acknowledged by various authorities that the
environment is in crisis (Suzuki and Dressel, 1999). Increasingly, people within Australia
and elsewhere are becoming concerned about the environmental implications of current
consumption and production patterns (for Australian evidence see Australian Bureau of
Statistics, 1999). Profit-seeking corporations are generally considered to be the drivers of
the majority of the environmental degradation, typically with the approval (at least,
tacitly) of their respective governments. Whilst governments are often criticised for
being silent in their condemnation of corporate practices that are perceived as
detrimental to the environment, non government organisations (NGOs), such as
environmental groups, are often vocal opponents of particular activities and can act, at
times, to stop corporations pursing particular ventures that are perceived as harmful. As
a recent Australian example (2001), after a concerted campaign, Greenpeace Australia
was able to initially stop the Stuart Oil Shale Project that was being progressed by the
Australian companies Southern Pacific Petroleum N/L and Central Pacific Minerals N/L
in partnership with Suncor Energy (Canada). Greenpeace Australia was particularly
concerned about the highly carbon intensive production methods used in making oil
from shale, relative to conventional oil production.
Whilst Greenpeace and other NGOs have been successful in stopping certain
environmentally unfriendly projects, many instances can also be shown where NGOs
have worked with (or collaborated with) corporations in the pursuit of particular goals.
Whilst early interaction between NGOs and business entities appeared to be based
more on a confrontational approach, it has been argued that in general there has been a
shift across time in how NGOs tend to interact with business. Stafford and Hartman
(1996) explain the evolution of the interaction between business entities and the
conservation movement in terms of three perceived waves of activity. The first
wave was deemed to have occurred under US President Roosevelt. Under Roosevelts
administration, 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 resultant
environmental damage this was causing. At this time there was growth in
environmental laws and citizen activism. NGOs were getting larger and better
organised and direct confrontation with business became one of their key strategies.
Following this period, a third wave was deemed to have commenced and this was
described as an era in which many groups used their expertise to develop
market-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 conflict
between business and environmentalists, and the two are now turning to one another
for cooperation. This perspective was consistent with Elkington (1994, p. 91) who also
considered 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 to
collaboration as Stafford and Hartman (1996) and Elkington (1994) suggest, it is
arguable that not all NGOs have moved towards collaboration and the classification
scheme 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 a
particular propensity to collaborate whereas some other groups, such as Greenpeace,
would arguably be more confrontational in approach (although Greenpeace has
nevertheless been involved in a number of collaborative efforts, for example, with
IKEA). 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 that
not all NGOs actively engage in collaboration. Nevertheless, it is interesting that
different organisations with a concern for preserving the environment appear to choose
quite different mechanisms in an endeavour to protect the environment. We will now
briefly consider some specific examples of collaborations between environmental
groups and corporations, or their respective industry bodies.
Motivations for
environmental
collaboration
411
MAJ
22,4
412
Examples of collaborations
As indicated in Deegan and Blomquist (2001), and as noted above, one environmental
group that is involved in a number of collaborations is the WWF, which is known to
frequently collaborate on various projects with business. For example, the Forest
Stewardship Council involved the collaboration of the timber industry and WWF
to develop a timber certification scheme. This international certification scheme provides a
rating, which appears on approved timber to indicate it is being sourced from what is
perceived to be a sustainable source. This scheme is believed to provide both economic
benefits to the timber industry, as well as environmental benefits. Other WWF-related
initiatives include the Endangered Seas Campaign and the Marine Stewardship Council,
which involves collaboration between WWF and the large multi-national company
Unilever. Also, within Australia in the late 1990s, the large multi-national mining company
Rio Tinto funded an extensive review by WWF of frog conservation in Australia.
Within the USA there have been a number of high profile collaborations between
environmental groups and business entities including: a collaboration between the
Conservation Law Foundation, a New England-based environmental organisation, and
the New England Electric System (Hemphill, 1994); the Wildlife Habitat Council which
involved a collaboration between seven large corporations (including Du Pont) and four
environment groups (Cardskadden and Lober, 1998); and, a collaboration between
San 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 to
improve efficiency in energy use (Hemphill, 1994). A number of other collaborations
have been identified by Hartman and Stafford (1998) and Baker (1996). Whilst our list is
far from exhaustive, it is clear that collaborations between environmental groups and
business entities are not an isolated phenomenon and indeed the evidence suggests that
the initiation of environmental collaborations is increasing. However, there is a general
lack of research on the drivers behind establishing environmental collaborations.
If we accept that environmental collaborations can have positive implications for
the environment by enabling or encouraging business entities to embrace more
environmentally responsible business practices, and this seems to be what the
literature is indicating (Hemphill, 1994; Cardskadden and Lobber, 1998; Hartman and
Stafford, 1998), then it is interesting to determine what motivates corporations and
environmental groups to enter environmental collaborations in the first place. This is
the aim of this research. If these pre-collaboration motivations are subsequently
satisfied by the actual outcomes of the collaborations (and we asked the participants in
this study whether their expectations were met as a result of the outcomes of the
respective collaboration), then promoting the results of research, such as that included
within this paper, might provide impetus for further environmental collaborations.
In this study, we have elected to study environmental collaborations in the
construction and building industry. We have done this for a number of reasons[1]. The
building and construction industry within Australia is of significant national economic
importance, 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 within
the industry. One such strategy is to form an environmental collaboration. However,
and as noted above, there is limited research on environmental collaborations and why
organisations might elect to be involved in such an initiative.
Theoretical perspectives on why environmental collaborations might occur

Our review of the literature indicates that there has been very little research on
environmental collaborations. For the purposes of our study, we define environmental
collaborations as: two or more parties working together in relation to natural
environmental 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 generally
descriptive in nature (as is the case for the majority of studies referred to above with the
exception of Cardskadden and Lober, 1998), lacking theoretical bases to explain the
motivations that could drive respective parties to collaborate. Further, no research could
be found that investigates environmental collaborations in the building and
construction industry the focus of our study. However, it was apparent that there is
a large volume of research, which explores collaborations in general (as opposed to the
specific collaborations, which we refer to as environmental collaborations)[3].
Given the lack of research in the area of environmental collaborations, this research
is necessarily exploratory in nature. At this stage we do not intend to develop a theory
that 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 limited
number of cases anyway), but nevertheless, the results of this research would
conceivably be useful to researchers seeking to achieve this aim. As will be indicated
shortly in our section on research methods, we adopt an open ended interviewing style
with the aim of identifying determinants for environmental collaborations. We also
perform a review of the literature to identify the determinants that have been
suggested by other researchers as driving collaborations generally (and, as we have
already noted, environmental collaborations can be considered to be a subset of
collaborations). Such a review reveals that a number of motivations have been
advanced to explain collaborations in general.
Arguably, reviewing past research on collaborations provides a useful initial basis
for understanding environmental collaborations. Whether the identified motivations
apply to environmental collaborations is something that should, hopefully, be reflected
within the interviews. A review of the prior literature on collaborations inform a
number of the questions we ask in our interviews. As will be demonstrated later in this
paper, our interview procedures should also allow for motivations, other than those
suggested by previous collaboration research, to also be uncovered.
Auster (1994) and Gray and Wood (1991) provide overviews of the various theories
that have been used to explain collaboration. What is apparent is that a number of
theories have been applied to explain the decision to collaborate[4]. Reviewing these
two papers, as well as undertaking our own review of the literature on collaboration,
indicates that eight main theoretical perspectives are used to explain collaboration. Not
all of these theories can be considered as totally distinct from the others in fact there
is a degree of overlap between some of the eight theories being used to explain
collaboration[5]. We do not intend to apply each of these theories individually to find
which theory best describes environmental collaborations. Rather, and as already
noted, we review the respective theories to identify the various determinants that have
been suggested as motivating factors for collaborations in general. These determinants
are then used as an initial basis for informing some of the questions we will be asking
in the interviews conducted in this study.
Motivations for
environmental
collaboration
413
MAJ
22,4
414
Table I provides an overview of the various theories that have been used to explain
collaborations. Only one of the theories has been applied specifically in relation to
environmental collaborations, namely, stakeholder theory, which was applied by
Cardskadden and Lober (1998)[6]. Table I also provides the respective theoretical
explanations for why collaborations occur. The foundations of the respective theory,
the seminal researchers applying the theory, and references to research that has
applied the particular theory to collaboration are also provided. It is not the intention of
this paper to provide a detailed account of each of the theories and our explanations are
restricted to the contents provided in Table I. It should be appreciated that these
theories have been used to explain a variety of organisational activities, other than just
the decision to form a collaboration. Readers seeking additional information about
particular theories can refer to various references provided in Table I.
A review of the various theories and related research (as described in Table I) identified
several determinants that appeared to explain the decision to collaborate[7]. The difference
between theories often lies in their underlying assumptions and these assumptions are
reflective of the ontology of the users of the theories. Rather than becoming preoccupied
with different ontologies, and a multitude of hypotheses testing, it is the intention here to
concentrate on the determinants of collaboration. Some of these determinants were
common to a number of the theories. Consistent with our own research, Oliver (1990) also
came to the conclusion that the various theories generated a reasonably small number of
determinants. She found that when collated, all known research on the motivations for
collaboration, regardless of theoretical viewpoint, lead to just six determinants. These
determinants were necessity, asymmetry, reciprocity, economic efficiency, stability, and
legitimacy[8]. These determinants will be further explained shortly.
Sofaer and Myrtle (1991) undertook a similar approach to Oliver (1990) in describing
the motivations behind collaboration. They suggested that there has been considerable
research 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 valued
resources, both economic and non-economic (information, political support, legitimacy)
from other organisations; a desire to reduce uncertainty; a desire to prevent, control or
predict uncertainty; to control the strategic behaviours of different organisations; the
pursuit of operational efficiencies; the reduction of transaction costs; and, the joint
pursuit of goals and projects. These determinants corresponded with those found in the
literature 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 of
different organisations corresponds with the determinant of stability. The pursuit of
operational efficiencies and the desire to reduce transaction costs relate to the efficiency
determinants. The joint pursuit of goals and projects matches reciprocity.
Following from the above discussion, this research will investigate the
determinants of asymmetry, reciprocity, economic efficiency, stability, and
legitimacy. Specifically, we investigate whether the determinants can explain the
decision of organisations to form an environmental collaboration. As already noted,
these determinants are supported by the various theories for collaboration and were
confirmed by other researchers (Oliver, 1990; Sofaer and Myrtle, 1991; Logsdon, 1991).
Table II, provides a summary of the source (supportive theory) of each determinant
and whether particular research supported it as a motivation for collaboration.
Legitimacy
theory
Institutional
theory
Exchange
theory
Ecology
theory
Theory
Under conditions of resource scarcity exchanges between organisations are essential to

goal attainment, where exchange is defined as any voluntary activity between two
organisations which has consequences actual or anticipated, for the realisation of their
mutual goals or objectives. Organisations will form collaborations to gain essential scarce
resources from the other party or parties involved in the collaboration
Attempts to explain the homogeneity of organisational forms and practices.
Organisational fieldsa exert powerful influences on individual organisations through two
kinds of forces: market/competitive forces and institutional demands placed on
organisations by government or the professions. Institutional forces can exert pressures
for structural conformity through mechanisms such as inducements, rewards, and
sanctions. Organizations compete not just for resources and customers, but for political
power and institutional legitimacy, for social as well as economic fitness (DiMaggio and
Powell, 1983). Organisations might collaborate because of pressure from institutions to
conform to particular rules or norms. To appear legitimate to these institutions, and to
reduce pressure, organisations might enter collaborations
In order to survive, organisations seek legitimacy. Organisations may be perceived as
legitimate when their activities are perceived as being congruent with the goals of society
in which they operate. An organisation might align itself with one or more organisations,
which are already perceived by society as being legitimate, and therefore gain legitimacy
by association
This theory is grounded in a blend of sociology and biology; the basic foundation of
ecology theory rests on a three stage evolutionary process of variation, selection and
retention which is referred to as the natural selection process (Aldrich, 1979; Aldrich and
Pfeffer, 1976). Relies upon the idea of natural selection to describe the process of
organisational change. Organisations change to survive external environmental
conditions. It is assumed that the environmental conditions cannot be manipulated by the
organisation but the organisation may take actions to increase its chances of survival, such
as collaborating with another organisation
Explanation
Considered the
strategic
tradition in
legitimacy
research
(Suchman, 1995)
Believed to be
complementary
to resource
dependence
theory and
political economy
theory as they
give attention to
internal
organisational
decision making
Basis of resource
dependence
theory and
political economy
theory (Cook, 1977)
Considered the
institutional
tradition
in legitimacy
research
(Suchman, 1995).
Foundations
or links
Dowling and
Pfeffer
(1975) and
Shocker
and Sethi
(1973)
Levine and
White (1961)
Levine and
White (1961),
Blau (1964)
and Emerson
(1962)
DiMaggio
and Powell
(1983)
(continued)
Schermerhorm
and Sirland
(1981) and
Wiewel and
Hunter (1985)
Sharfman
et al. (1991)
Barnett and
Carroll (1987),
Hannan and
Freeman (1977)
and Miner
et al. (1990)
Application to
collaboration
research
Aldrich
(1979) and
Aldrich and
Pfeffer
(1976)
Seminal
researchers
Motivations for
environmental
collaboration
415
Table I.
The most widely used
theories to explain
collaboration
Organisations seek an adequate supply of money and authority to fulfil program

requirements, maintain their domain, ensure their flow of resources, and extend and
defend the organisations paradigm or way of doing things. Resources are acquired from
the political economyb and it is through these exchanges that the organisation is able to
maximise its supply of money and authority. Political economy theory recognises the
power conflicts within society. Collaboration with other organisations might create a
power shift in favour of the organisation and thereby reduce the negative pressures which
it might encounter.
No organisation is independent and therefore must engage in exchanges in order to attract

necessary resources and to survive as well as to gain a competitive advantage.
Organisations that control certain resources will have power over those organisations
that need the resources. Collaborating may provide a means of access to necessary
resources and hence create a form of power shift in favour of the organisation. Resource
dependence theory identifies the need to appear legitimate to key stakeholders as well as
the need to form stable relationships with key resource providers
Organisations have stakeholders. These can be suppliers, customers, shareholders,

environmental groups, creditors, etc. Strategically, an organisation must manage the
demands of these stakeholders. Organisations might collaborate to satisfy the
expectations of particular stakeholder groups who may, or may not be, the other party to
the collaboration
Organisations seek to find the most cost-efficient transactions to enhance competitiveness.

They may collaborate to achieve greater levels of efficiency than they could achieve
individually (Fleisher, 1991). That is, collaboration might occur to reduce costs
Political
economy
theory
Resource
dependence
theory
Stakeholder
theory
Transaction
cost theory
Neo-classical
economics
Legitimacy theory
and political
economy theory
(Gray et al., 1996)
An extension of
exchange theory
(Cook, 1977).
Complementary
to ecology theory
(Aldrich and Pfeffer,
1976). Often linked
with theories such
as legitimacy
and stakeholder
theory
(Gray et al., 1996)
An extension of
exchange theory
(Cook, 1977)
Williamson
(1975)
Freeman
(1983)
Cook (1977)
and Pfeffer
and Salancik
(1978)
Benson
(1975)
Kogut (1988)
Gray and
Hay (1986)
Aldrich (1979)
and Logsdon
(1991)
Benson (1975)
and Hall et al.
(1977)
Application to
collaboration
research
Notes: aBy organisation fields DiMaggio and Powell (1983, p. 148) meant those organizations that, in the aggregate, constitute a recognized area of
institutional life: key suppliers, resources and product consumers, regulatory agencies, and other organizations that produce similar services or products;
b
The political economy is described by Gray, Owen and Adams (1996, p. 47) as the social, political and economic framework within which human life
takes place
Explanation
Table I.
Seminal
researchers
416
Theory
Foundations
or links
MAJ
22,4
Stability
Reciprocity
Asymmetry
Determinant
supported by
this theory
(Hannan and
Freeman (1977).
They also
connected
exchange theory
with ecology
theory
Determinants Ecology theory
Originally, no,
but Thompson
(1967) added to
exchange theory
the need for
organisations to
reduce
uncertainty
creating resource
dependence
theory and
Benson (1975)
extended
exchange theory
to political
economy theory
Determinant not
found to be
supported by
this theory
(Levine and
White, 1961)a.
Determinant
supported by
this theory
(Oliver, 1990)
Determinant not
supported by
this theory
(Sharfman et al.,
1991)
Institutional
Exchange theory theory
Legitimacy
theory
Determinant
supported by
this theory
(Oliver, 1990).
Determinant
supported by
this theory
(Oliver, 1990).
Determinant
supported by
this theory
(Oliver, 1990;
Gulati, 1998;
Sharfman et al.,
1991)
Resource
dependence
theory
Political
economy theory
Determinant
supported by
this theory
(Astley and
Fombrun, 1983)
Stakeholder
theory
(continued)
Transaction
cost theory
Motivations for
environmental
collaboration
417
Table II.
The relationship between
the determinants for
collaboration and the
theories of collaboration
Table II.
Determinant not
supported by
this theory
(Sharfman et al.,
1991)
Determinant
supported by
this theory
(DiMaggio and
Powell, 1983;
Sharfman et al.,
1991)
Determinant
supported by
this theory
(Oliver, 1990;
Schermerhorn
and Sirland,
1981; Wiewel
and Hunter,
1985)
Although Gray
et al. (1996) link
political
economy theory
with issues of
legitimacy,
research in
collaboration did
not make this
link.
Political
economy theory
Resource
dependence
theory
Determinant
supported by
this theory
(Astley and
Fombrun, 1983)
Determinant
supported by
this theory
(Oliver, 1990;
Logsdon, 1991)
Stakeholder
theory
Determinant
supported by
this theory
(Oliver, 1990)
Transaction
cost theory
Note: aSometimes the literature would actually indicate that the determinant was not supported by a particular theory. It is considered just as important
to indicate lack of support as it is to highlight positive relationships between determinants and theories
Legitimacy
Economic
efficiency
Legitimacy
theory
418
Determinants Ecology theory
Institutional
Exchange theory theory
MAJ
22,4
Having noted that prior research has led to the identification of five determinants that
might apply to environmental collaboration, we now describe each of these
determinants. We rely predominantly on how they have previously been described
within the literature. Again, please note that as with theories, there is also some degree
of overlap between the various determinants.
Motivations for
environmental
collaboration
Determinants for collaboration

Asymmetry
Asymmetry refers to the motivation of organisations to collaborate because of their
desire to exercise power or control over another organisation or its resources (Oliver,
1990). Asymmetry relates to the uneven distribution of power within a relationship and
indicates some form of domination of one party over another. Pfeffer and Salancik
(1978, p. 258) explained that organisations require resources to survive and because
organisations do not control all the resources they need, resource acquisition may be
problematic and uncertain. Following that notion, Pfeffer and Salancik (1978, p. 258)
suggested:
419
Organizations transact with others for necessary resources, and control over resources
provides others with power over the organization. Survival of the organization is partially
explained by the ability to cope with environmental contingencies; negotiating exchanges to
ensure the continuation of needed resources is the focus of much organizational action.
Both political economy and resource dependence theory support this determinant
(Oliver, 1990).
Reciprocity
Reciprocity is the opposite of the asymmetry determinant. Oliver (1990, p. 244)
explained that:
Motives of reciprocity emphasize cooperation, collaboration, and coordination among
organizations, rather than domination, power, and control.
Under this perspective, there will be an incentive to collaborate for the purpose of
pursuing common or mutually beneficial goals or interests (Oliver, 1990, p. 244). The
main theory supporting this perspective is exchange theory (Levine and White, 1961;
Hall et al., 1977). Exchange theory purports that exchanges between organizations are
a means to achieve organisational objectives. Levine and White (1961) argue that if
resources are not scarce, the need for interorganisational relationships would not exist.
However, they accepted the notion that resources are scarce and interorganisational
relationships are essential for mutual goal attainment.
Stability
Some literature on collaborations has indicated that collaborations are formed as an
adaptive response to environmental uncertainty (Oliver, 1990). Cook (1977) explained
that environmental uncertainty is generated by resource scarcity and a lack of perfect
knowledge about environmental fluctuations, available exchange partners, and
available rates of exchange in an interorganisational field. In order to cope with this
uncertainty, organisations may be motivated to collaborate to forestall, forecast, or
absorb uncertainty in order to achieve an orderly, reliable pattern of resource flows
and exchanges (Oliver, 1990, p. 246). Oliver (1990, p. 256) believed that collaboration
MAJ
22,4
420
mitigates uncertainty because risk and accountability are shared and a greater sum of
expertise can be brought to bear on the social problem. The desire to gain specialised
knowledge 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 investigate
whether gaining expertise might motivate collaborations.
Resource dependence theory supports the determinant of stability, as it predicts that
in times of resource scarcity organisations may seek to collaborate in order to gain
needed 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 their
environment, then in times of uncertainty it is believed that they will form
collaborations to reduce the uncertainty.
Economic efficiency
Under this determinant, an organisation will be motivated to form collaborations
through its desire to increase organisational economic wealth. Williamson (1975)
proposed that firms choose how to transact according to the criterion of minimising the
sum of production and transaction costs. Transaction cost theory is the main theory
applied to collaboration that supports the determinant of economic efficiency.
Legitimacy
The legitimacy determinant for collaboration suggests that organisations will collaborate
in order to be seen by others as legitimate. Oliver (1990, p. 246) suggested that certain
pressures from the institutional environment motivate organizations to increase their
legitimacy in order to appear in agreement with the prevailing norms, rules, beliefs, or
expectations of external constituents. Institutional theory supports the determinant of
legitimacy. This theory explains that organisations are faced with institutional pressures
and as a result of these pressures; organisations within a field become similar in their
forms and practices. The pressure to collaborate may be one type of institutional pressure
and organisations may react to this pressure and form collaborations.
The legitimacy determinant is also supported by legitimacy theory. This theory
suggests that organisations attempt to find congruence between the perceived social
values and norms connected with its operations and the social values and norms of
society at large because the existence of the firm is dependent on its acceptance
by society. Stakeholder theory also helps explain the legitimacy determinant as those
stakeholders that the organisation deems powerful need, for the benefit of the
organisation, to see the organisation as legitimate from their perspective.
The environmental collaborations reviewed in this study
The unit of analysis in this research is the environmental collaboration. Six instances of
environmental collaborations were initially revealed as a result of discussions with
members of both the building and construction industry and environmental groups. The
media also played an important role in identifying two of the projects
(Koala Beach Residential Development and The Green Building Project). The projects
represented the entire population of environmental collaborations within the building and
construction industry known to the researchers at the time of research (May 1999-February
2000)[9]. Therefore, no sampling issues arise as the entire population was used.
Although six projects were initially identified, one of these environmental

collaborations only provided data for this research from the perspective of the industry
participant, as the environmental group representative was not able to be located. This
project is eliminated from the analysis below. The other project that could not be used
involved BBC Hardware and the Wilderness Society. For various legal reasons the
participant from BBC Hardware was unable to speak about this collaboration. This left
four environmental collaborations to be investigated[10].
The four projects represented a range of environmental issues and types of building
and construction. Although this meant that there was variation between projects, this
outcome was not an intentional part of the research design.
Table III provides an overview of the projects utilised in this study. A further brief
discussion of each project follows in Table III.
Motivations for
environmental
collaboration
421
Case 1: Koala Beach Residential Development a collaboration between the Australian

Koala Foundation and the Ray Group Pty Ltd
The collaborators. The Australian Koala Foundation (AKF) is an environmental group
that has been operating since 1986 with a main objective of protecting Koalas in the
wild. The mission of the AKF (1996, p. 7) is to be a highly credible, respected and
compassionate international scientific organisation which will diminish the threat to
the survival of Koalas and be an example so as to increase the consciousness of all
global citizens and enable them to reverse the rapid degeneration of all the worlds flora
and fauna. AKF has approximately 20,000 members worldwide.
The Ray Group Pty Ltd is a medium-sized development company based in
Queensland that operates in New South Wales as well as Queensland. According to its
Number Project
1
Koala Beach
Residential
Development, Tweed
Heads, New South
Wales
The Green Building
Project, Melbourne
CBD, Victoria
Novotel Ibis Hotel,

Homebush, Sydney,
New South Wales
Metroplex Industrial
Park, Brisbane,
Queensland
Environmental
Parties collaborating issues
Type of building and

construction
The Australian Koala Fauna and flora

Foundation and The conservation with a
specific focus on the
Ray Group Pty Ltd
existing Koala
population on site
Sustainable building
The Australian
materials and
Conservation
practices with
Foundation and
specific reference to
Surrowee Pty Ltd
energy conservation
Conservation
The World Wide
Fund for Nature and awareness and
sustainable
the Accor Asia
development
Pacific Lend Lease
practices within the
Consortium
hotel
Conservation of
The Murrarie
Progress Association wetlands on the
and Pradella Group development site that
are a major bird life
Pty Ltd
habitat
Residential housing
development
Refurbishment and
additional works of
offices for a
commercial building
High-rise hotel on the
site of the Sydney
2000 Olympics
Industrial park
Table III.
A brief description of the
environmental
collaborations
MAJ
22,4
422
Managing Director, Brian Ray, the company operates across a whole spectrum of
development opportunities, particularly in the leisure resort area. This also includes
shopping centres and land subdivisions.
The project. Koala Beach is a residential housing development located on the
Northern New South Wales coast. The Australian Koala Foundation (1996, p. 25)
described the development as a Koala-friendly housing development where a
community makes conscious compromises to its lifestyle so that it can co-exist with
wild Koalas. The housing development utilises 160 hectares of the 360 hectares
initially 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 main
documents to be produced from the collaboration was a Fauna Impact Statement.
The other document produced by the AKF was the Koala Management Plan, a seminal
part of the overall plan of management. The recommendations within the plan were
incorporated into the development design. The AKF still provides the developer with
advice on the Koala population and other species on site.
Case 2: The Green Building Project a collaboration between the Australian
Conservation Foundation and Surrowee Pty Ltd
The collaborators. The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) is a large
independent, non-profit, membership-based organisation, which seeks to protect
Australias natural environment. The ACF has campaigned for over 30 years for
conservation of the natural environment. The ACF and Surrowee began as joint
developers 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 being
developed. 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 and
additional works of a three story building in Melbourne, Australia. Mailer, the AKF
representative, explained the projects main goal: The overall goal is that the building
should be a model of superior environmental performance that gives practical
expression to our commitment to ecologically sustainable development.
It was expected that the building would generate more energy than it requires and
will utilise all storm and wastewater on site.
Case 3: Novotel Ibis Olympic Hotel a collaboration between the WWF for Nature and
Accor Asia Pacific Lend Lease Consortium
The 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 between
themselves 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 its
Managing Director, Geoff Roberts, acts as a middle person in between two groups of
people who ordinarily do not know or trust each other. Manidis Roberts played a
seminal role in operationalising the environmental strategies proposed by the Olympic
Coordination Authority for the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games.
The project. Accor Asia Pacific Lend Lease in partnership with WWF won the right
to build two hotels in the Olympic Park, Sydney. After the announcement that Sydney
would be the host city for the 2000 Olympic Games, a document produced by the bid
team called Summer Olympic Games Environmental Guidelines became
institutionalised through Government legislation. Tenders for construction of the
Olympic site incorporated environmental specifications as they were essential for
success in the tender process. Manidis Roberts with their client, the Lend Lease Accor
consortium, then began the process to produce a bid document to win the job for the
hotel site. It was decided to collaborate with the WWF. The bidding team was
successful and the consortium won the right to build an Ibis Hotel and Novotel Hotel on
the site.
Case 4: Metroplex on Gateway a collaboration between the Murrarie Progress
Association and the Pradella Group Pty Ltd
The collaborators. The Murarrie Progress Association was formed in the early 1920s
and 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 what
we consider to be our assets. The environment and all aspects of it have been the focus
of the group for several decades now. The Progress Association does not have an
exact member number as membership fluctuates depending on the issue being
addressed.
The Pradella Group is the owner and developer of the site. Metroplex Management
Pty Ltd is a division of the Pradella Group specifically set up to manage Metroplex and
develop future projects in a similar fashion.
The project. Metroplex on Gateway (Metroplex) is a 62-hectare (155-acre) industrial
estate in Brisbane, Australia. The site has a 650-metre frontage to the Brisbane River
and 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 environmentally
sensitive wetlands.
Metroplex is the largest Business and Industrial Park in Brisbane and according to
Metroplex Management comprises a totally integrated community that sets the
worlds best practice for Business and Industrial Parks in Brisbane. The Metroplex
site includes a 12-hectare wetland preservation area. From the environmental
assessment, the site was deemed an important habitat for migratory water birds and
birds of prey. The collaboration involves ongoing consultation with Janice Pittam
and she also monitors the site on a regular basis.
As can be seen from the brief overview of the four collaborations, they cover a broad
spectrum of projects and environmental issues. Table IV provides an overview of the
interview participants. All key people within the four projects agreed to participate in
the interviews.
Motivations for
environmental
collaboration
423
MAJ
22,4
424
Table IV.
Overview of interview
participants
The project
Person
Organisation
Position
Mode
Koala Beach
Residential
Development
Brian Ray
The Ray Group Pty Ltd
Proprietor
Telephone
Project Manager
Telephone
General Manager
In person
Project Manager
In person
Partner
Director
In person
Telephone
Director of Marketing
Telephone
Consultant to WWF
Telephone
Environmental
Manager
Consultant to Lend
Lease Accor
Consoritum
Project Manager
Telephone
Nick
The Ray Group Pty Ltd
Wellwood
Ann Sharp Australian Koala
Foundation
The Green Building Alistair
Australian Conservation
Project
Mailer
Foundation
Ray Lacey Lincolne Scott
Mark
Surrowee Pty Ltd
Wootton
Novotel Ibis Hotel
Liz James World Wide Fund for
Nature
Penny
World Wide Fund for
Figgis
Nature
Maria
Bovis Lend Lease
Atkinson
Geoff
Manidis Roberts
Roberts
Consultants
Metroplex Industrial John

Pradella Group Pty
Park
Smallwood Ltd/Metroplex Management
Pty Ltd
Janice
Murrarie Progress
Member
Pittam
Association
Telephone
In person
Telephone
Research method
As already noted, key participants were those participants who had a seminal role in
the collaboration. For our purposes, they were to be responsible for decision-making in
relation to the collaboration and they had to be present from the inception of the
collaboration. The main method of data collection in this research was in-depth
semi-structured interviews, with each interview being taped. The interviews were
undertaken from May 1999 to February 2000. An independent person then transcribed
each tape. The transcriptions were full records of the interview tapes. Once the tapes
were transcribed they were listened to while reading the transcription. This confirmed
the 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, this
was not possible in all projects. The mode of interview was in large part dictated by the
participant and was influenced by the time at which the interviewee was available and
their location at a particular point in time. The mode of the interview (in person or by
telephone) had no influence on the questions asked, or the duration of the interview.
Prior theory typically provides a focus for the data collection phase in
interview-based research (Perry, 1998). This is also the case in this research. From
the literature review, five determinants for collaboration were found to represent
eight theories. The determinants for collaboration acted as a basis for the questions we
ask, though our interview approach allowed for other determinants to be uncovered.
The following Table V, describes the questionnaire, highlighting the questions and the
related determinants that would be captured by the questions[11].
The data from the interviews were analysed using content analysis. Content
analysis was described by Patton (1990, p. 381) as the process of identifying, coding,
and categorising the primary patterns in the data. Codes representing the
determinants of asymmetry, reciprocity, stability (and a subset thereof, being
expertise), economic efficiency and legitimacy, and codes to capture the background to
the 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 supported
by prior collaboration research) emerged, which could be possibly used to explain the
motivations behind collaboration.
To assist with the coding and maintenance of the data the software package QSR
NUD *IST Vivo (Qualitative Solutions and Research Pty Ltd, non-numerical
unstructured data-indexing, searching and theorizing) was used. QSR NUD *IST
Vivo allows sentences to be coded and then sorted according to that code. An
advantage of QSR NUD *IST Vivo is that new code categories can be created during
the coding process. As mentioned above, more codes, which represented possible
determinants for environmental collaborations, emerged during the coding process.
When any motivation for collaboration was identified outside of the determinants
found in the literature, it was coded as a new code category. As the coding process
continued, 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 within
these new code categories. After some refinement, the new code categories were named
government 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 playing
and the second without the audio backup. As in ODwyer (2000), the two readings were
spaced by one month. The break was simply to create some separateness from the
data, which may have allowed more objectivity during the second reading.
There were no major changes from what was coded in the first coding session to
that in the second. However, since during the first coding session the list of codes had
grown[12], some transcriptions that were coded at the beginning of the first session
had to be re-coded with the new codes. Refinement of the codes was minimal and
occurred where two code names were actually describing the same coded data. For
example, 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 participants response on a particular
determinant of collaboration; however, the location of that data were not limited to
those questions. In other words, a participant may have spoken about their desire to
collaborate due to financial reasons within a question that did not relate to the
determinant of economic efficiency. The questions were merely prompts and answers
were 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 valid
conclusions and take needed action.
Motivations for
environmental
collaboration
425
MAJ
22,4
426
Question
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
39
Table V.
The design of the
questionnaire
questions and research
issues
Question
Research issue
Please summarise your organisations objectives.

Could you explain your position in relation to the collaboration?
Could you briefly explain the environmental collaboration?
Why are you collaborating?
Were your organisations objectives met by collaborating?
What are the financial costs involved in the collaboration?
What are the financial benefits derived from the collaboration?
Were these expected prior to collaboration?a
Were there any other costs or benefits beside financial costs and
benefits?
What resources did your collaborating partner bring into the
project?
What resources did your organisation bring into the project?
Would you say that you were attempting to gain control over
your partners resources or were the resources useful because
they were complementary?
Without collaborating would both parties normally be
adversaries?
How did you come to choose the partner? Or did they choose
you?
Has a greater amount of expertise been gained from
collaborating?b
Could you explain this expertise?
Did you expect that prior to collaboration?
Does the collaboration have any effect on the stability of your
environment?
Did you expect this effect prior to collaboration?
Who or what do you feel your organisation is accountable to?
After collaboration how do you think stakeholders perceive
your organisation?
Would stakeholders see your partner organisation as an
acceptable and legitimate organisation?
What sort of government pressure do you face?
Did this pressure ease as a result of forming an environmental
collaboration?
Did you expect this result prior to collaboration?
Has funding increased since collaboration?
Do you consider your organisation as being authoritative in the
area of environmental collaboration?
Background
Background
Background
General
General reciprocity
Economic efficiency
Economic efficiency
Economic efficiency
General
Asymmetry reciprocity
General background
Background
Stability
Stability
Stability
Stability
Stability
Stability legitimacy
Legitimacy
Legitimacy
Legitimacy
Legitimacy
Legitimacy
Asymmetry
Asymmetry
Asymmetry
Asymmetry
Notes: aParticipants were asked whether they expected a particular result. This was an intentional
part of the research design that allowed the participant to explain whether they had thought of this
outcome 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 bias
that may have occurred by asking whether certain determinants were motivators while at the same
time 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 gain
stability
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). Matrices
for this research consisted of crossing, for each environmental collaboration, the
industry and environmental group responses (by relevant sentences) against the
determinants that represented motivations for collaboration. According to Miles and
Huberman (1994, p. 127) this type of matrix would be a conceptually ordered display
where:
Motivations for
environmental
collaboration
427
. . . rather than relying on time or role as the organizing principle, orders the displays by
concepts or variables.
These matrices were completed for each project and involved all the coded data for the
set of codes that could possibly explain the motivations for collaboration. A small
example is presented in Table VI.
Not only did the matrices prove to be an effective way to store and then analyse the
coded data, both from a with-in and across case perspective, but they also became
another checking device for coding accuracy. Once displayed, the data could easily
be checked as to the appropriateness and accuracy of coding. Particular quotes were
placed in specific cells. A second researcher read the entire set of matrices to see if he
agreed with the placement of quotes. There were only isolated discrepancies, and after
some 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 strength
in explaining the motivations behind environmental collaborations. The scale had
coding categories of none, mild, medium, strong, and very strong explanatory power.
Although in qualitative research it is recognised that a certain amount of subjectivity is
unavoidable, clear decision steps that were used to analyse the data have been
described in order to help overcome some of the possible researcher bias. The
categories of none, mild, medium, strong and very strong do not represent finite
quantifiable 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 scale
contains a certain amount of subjectivity. However, so that this research can be
replicated, some of the factors that helped placed the determinants into their categories
on the scale are presented below:
Determinant
Asymmetry
Reciprocity
Economic Efficiency
Stability
Expertise
Legitimacy
Others
Industry member
Participant 1
Environmental group
Participant 2
Participant 1
Table VI.
A matrix for data display
example
MAJ
22,4
428
Were the remarks supportive, or not supportive of a determinant?

Obviously, remarks in support of certain determinants would provide support
for that determinant; however, sometimes a participant would indicate that a
determinant was not a motivation for the collaboration. This provided evidence
against that determinant being a motivation for environmental collaboration and
this 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 motivation
for collaboration.
How many participants within an environmental collaboration remarked about
a determinant?
It was believed that the higher the number of participants speaking about a
determinant the stronger the explanatory power of the determinant in terms of
being a motivation for collaboration.
Results
By the end of the coding process, a total of ten codes representing determinants for
collaboration existed; six of these were derived from the literature and the remaining
four emerged from the coding process. The codes derived from the literature were
asymmetry, economic efficiency, expertise, legitimacy, reciprocity, and stability. Codes
that 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 represented
comments from participants in relation to the government providing a motivation to
collaborate. Participants may have indicated that pressure from the government in the
form of a government process (for example, building approval), a government agency
and/or a desire to generally appear credible to the government motivated them to
collaborate. Data within this code contained issues of legitimacy, as often participants
would indicate that they were attempting to appear legitimate to the government.
Since, the data captured on the desire to appear legitimate was specific to the
government, it was deemed important to highlight these data by creating this separate
code category.
The new code of publicity was created from comments indicating that participants
were motivated to collaborate due to the derived benefit of increased positive publicity.
Participants often gained positive publicity through the media, community or industry
members, and advertising campaigns that utilised the collaboration. Of course this has
some linkage with other determinants, such as legitimacy.
Another code that emerged during the coding process was that of setting an
example. This code represented data on participants desire to show others what could
be achieved through collaboration. Comments that were captured within this code may
have referred to the project being a blueprint for others to follow having relevance to
a much wider market and being reproducible.
An interesting phenomenon occurred during the coding process in that information
about an organisations relationship with its stakeholders, as a motivation for
collaboration, received so much attention that it was deemed important to separate
such data from the legitimacy determinant and create a separate determinant named,
the stakeholder considerations determinant.
Having identified some potential motivations for environmental collaboration we
will now describe how they applied to each of the four projects.
Koala Beach Residential Development
The determinants that received the most attention and appeared to be the strongest
explanation for this environmental collaboration for Koala Beach were government
pressure, legitimacy and stakeholder considerations.
The developers in this environmental collaboration (and not AKF) faced large
amounts 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 and
certainly a very much gung-ho, public position taken by that government towards
environmental issues. A lot of that was a lot of bloody breast beating and because this had
attracted the interest of some of the green groups, it was picked in a sort of stilted and a very
unbalanced way as something that should have a serious focus from the environmental
lobby. So we were a little between a rock and a hard place.
When asked whether he expected that working with the AKF would reduce
government pressure he replied:
Yes, thats right. It was sort of a general understanding at the time that if we involved the
AKF, it was going to be acceptable to all levels of government and that sort of gave us a lot of
heart to proceed.
Wellwood emphasised the motivation for collaboration:

I dont think working with a green group had any financial credibility. It had credibility in
terms 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 result
of working with the AKF and that it certainly presented a motivation for working with
an environmental group. This determinant was a very strong motivation for
collaboration from the perspective of the developers.
In terms of the desire to appear legitimate as a motivation for collaborating, the
following 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 you
have 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 Carr
Government. So I think that the fact that youve accepted those constraints and you are
prepared to abide by that does give you a certain status, and takes a lot of the suspicion away
from other matters that you might be dealing with through those Local Authorities and State
Government authorities. So I think that there is an advantage in establishing a more credible
image amongst the governing authorities and that can be helpful in the way you negotiate
other 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 and
this link provides further evidence for the determinant of government pressure being a
motivation for collaboration. Legitimacy was considered to be very strong in its
explanatory power as a motivation for this collaboration.
Motivations for
environmental
collaboration
429
MAJ
22,4
Coding under the stakeholder considerations determinant was voluminous and

had many specific references to the stakeholders of these organisations. According
to Ray:
430
It [the development] had clearly some major environmental constraints and so the proposal
was made by the Local Authority that this would only move forward if there was an attempt
to have a real sustainable development programme approved by all the stakeholders and
representing 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 used
the Australian Koala Foundation.
This was something we had worked up with all the stakeholders as being acceptable, so in
the interest of pragmatism, Lets get on with it.
Sharp stated that the AKF were accountable to the Koalas and the people who live at
Koala Beach and felt that the collaboration was in line with those views on
accountability. Specifically, she said:
The stakeholders of the AKF are such a broad group that includes Brownies and
schoolchildren, corporate sponsors, celebrities, government, developers, landowners, people
who buy the tattoos. Theres such a wide range of people that I think some of them see it more
favourably than others depending on their view about conservation. It brings it closer to the
people who arent real conservationists, per se, but love Koalas. Its a great educational tool.
Its all the recommendations that we make to people in practice. Its actually happening.
People can live quite happily making these compromises for the Koalas. The radical left wing
greens probably think less of us for working with the developers and getting into the
commercial 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 process
so that it would withstand the scrutiny from external sources.
All participants spoke on this determinant frequently, and therefore, it was deemed to
be a very strong motivation from both parties for this collaboration.
Determinants that were not a motivation for collaboration in this project were
asymmetry, expertise and stability. Other determinants received some attention but
not enough to justify them being considered as a strong or very strong motivation for
collaboration. For example, whilst economic efficiency was not a motivation for AKF
there was some limited discussion to it given by Wellwood hence it is deemed to
have a medium level of explanatory power. Although two of three participants in this
environmental collaboration mentioned the publicity determinant, it was given a mild
status, as it was not explicitly referred to as a motivation. However, participants did
appear to believe that this determinant did play some part in the forming of this
collaboration, and therefore, it is not eliminated as a motivation for collaboration.
In relation to reciprocity, the participants suggested that to have reciprocal
objectives and to enhance each others ability to reach those objectives was a seminal
but seemingly expected part of the collaborations. Most participants spoke about this
determinant as if it was a condition that had to be present before they could even
conceive the idea of working with the other party. However, after reviewing the data, it
was deemed to be more of a necessary pre-existing condition for collaboration, rather
than a motivating factor for collaboration.
In relation to setting an example, Ray considered the project to be a blueprint for

others to follow. This determinant was deemed to have a mild explanatory power
for this collaboration.
The Green Building Project
The determinants that were very strong in terms of their explanatory power for the
motivations for collaboration were that of setting an example and stakeholder
considerations. All participants explained how it was very important to please their
stakeholders both from a managerial and an ethical perspective. Equally all participants
spoke at length about the wish to create a project that could be viewed by others as an
example 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 a
demonstration project about how issues are going to be dealt with so there is going to be a
need 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 is
always 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 story
of the design and construction process. With this project an objective is to try to change the
way architects and builders and the construction industry go about designing and building
commercial offices. When we say we want to propagate the findings its not a matter of
sending out a report to people, we want people to change the way they do things. Thats also
why the story of our process is important for the people so they dont have to go through all
the agonizing steps and decision- making that we did.
In relation to stakeholder considerations, Lacey explained their (Lincolne Scotts) views

on accountability:
We are accountable to our fellow consultants because they look to us to do things and the job and
we have to deliver those so that is an accountability. We have accountability to our staff to give
them something which enriches their careers. And hopefully out of this we can get a bit of er it is
not an accountability because you are not in contract with the community but by having
something that is replicable you are actually delivering something. I guess there are wider
stakeholders now. The Melbourne City Council has shown some interest, Energy Efficiency
Victoria 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 are
companies who supply timber for buildings and they also can have wood-chipping
operations. We have to look very carefully to ensure that our members interests are not
compromised.
An overlap in coding occurred here because of the overlap that occurs between the
determinants of legitimacy and stakeholder considerations. The stakeholder
considerations determinant was a very strong motivation for this collaboration.
Although only expressed by the industry partners, Surrowee Pty Ltd and Lincolne
Scott noted that the desire to gain expertise was a strong motivation for this
collaboration. Both Wootton and Lacey expected to gain expertise in the area of
Motivations for
environmental
collaboration
431
MAJ
22,4
432
environmental collaboration before they partnered with ACF. Lacey explained the
situation:
Working with a party who has potentially that commitment to being a responsible occupier in
an area where I am seeking to get some expertise, knowledge, something you can then put to
other clients and so here is a level of best practice. This is what you might achieve so whether
its expertise or just knowledge that is one area we seek to achieve, even the building control
area. To approach the same problem from a different perspective causes you to gain insight
and knowledge and therefore maybe expertise.
Wootton explained:
Well we now know that if we are going to be involved in anything that involves
environmental cutting-edge design or something which is outside the perimeters of what is
available in the Australian market in any way now it is a very arduous and slow process and
you need to get as many people working in the same direction as possible and to use groups
like ACF are very useful because they do have contacts they can bring in and information.
From ACFS perspective, Mailer said that gaining expertise was not considered
prior to collaboration. Despite Mailers comments this determinant was deemed to
have a strong level of explanatory power in this collaboration.
As Wootton made some limited comments on both government pressure and
further comments about legitimacy being a reason for collaboration, and links
were made between these determinants, they were deemed to have a mild and
strong[13] level of explanatory power, respectively, in terms of motivations for
collaboration.
Determinants that were not motivations for collaboration in this environmental
collaboration were asymmetry, economic efficiency, and stability.
Novotel Ibis Hotel
The determinants of economic efficiency, legitimacy, and stakeholder considerations
were all very strong motivations for this collaboration. From the environmental group
in particular, very strong evidence existed to suggest economic efficiency was a
motivation for collaboration. They spoke at length on how environmental groups relied
on funding to support their causes and that this contract with the consortium provided
not only for upfront payments but also for a steady stream of income. For example,
Figgis explained that:
I think if Im absolutely honest about it, a principal driver was economic it is very difficult
for all organisations to survive in this day and age. Corporate income as you are no doubt
aware 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 where
there is a sustained stream of income that they dont have to chase. So undoubtedly income
was part of it.
James said:
Now one of our fundraising strategies is to actually engage with corporate partners to raise
funds for conservation, not in a philanthropic context, although that is always nice (if people
just want to write us a cheque that is very nice), but today in the current marketplace it needs
to be about a mutually beneficial commercial relationship between two parties so that we get
funding but they also get benefits from the relationship in some way.
The desire to appear legitimate and stakeholder considerations were strong in

explaining the motivation for collaboration within this project. In relation to
legitimacy, Atkinson said:
I certainly think, in terms of promotion, in third party endorsement and credibility, that you are
offering an open and transparent reporting process, that issues are and will always be part of a
construction process, will always arise and need to be resolved at a pretty tight time frame.
Roberts said:
Theyve [Olympic Coordination Authority] had their energy king hit out of the Olympic
Village, had their PVC king hit out of the stadium what they were lacking, how can I say
this, they were lacking the credibility that the full range of green groups could have given
them.
Figgis said:
One has to be honest about this theyre buying something and in the case of WWF its one
of the most recognised logos in the world, its probably the most respectable name and brand
in the environment movement and your corporate dollars are buying an association that you
hope 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 were
asymmetry, expertise, and stability.
Metroplex Industrial Park
The determinants of government pressure, legitimacy and stakeholder considerations
proved to be very strong motivations behind this collaboration. Both parties spoke at
length on these determinants, indicating that they were major motivations for
collaboration. For example, in relation to stakeholder considerations, Smallwood noted:
I see the role of Metroplex management as being responsible for seeing through the vision
and looking after the interests of all the stakeholders, which includes owners, landlords (some
are institutions), tenants, the workforce and the local community. I suppose I could also say
the local wildlife. I maintain that everyone can work together. If the business and local
community cant work together it is not going to be a successful estate.
There is the local community, landowners, occupiers, tenants, workforce, and corporate
image. 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 and
dangerous. It was a bad environment, especially at nighttime. So we cleaned up the area and
the community benefited in the sense of guaranteed image.
Setting an example received only a small amount of attention and was deemed to be a
mild determinant, while asymmetry, economic efficiency, expertise, publicity and
stability were not motivations for collaboration in this environmental collaboration.
Summarising the results across all projects
In comparing the results across the projects, several determinants returned fairly
consistent results. These are reported in Table VII. The determinant of stakeholder
Motivations for
environmental
collaboration
433
MAJ
22,4
434
Table VII.
Across-case presentation
of the results
Determinant
Koala Beach
Level of explanatory power

Green Building
Novotel Ibis
Metroplex
Project
Hotel
Industrial Park
Asymmetry
Economic efficiency
Expertise
Government pressure
Legitimacy
Publicity
Reciprocity
Setting an example
Stability
Stakeholders
None
Medium
None
Very Strong
Very Strong
Mild
Strong
Mild
None
Very Strong
None
None
Strong
Mild
Strong
Mild
Mild
Very Strong
None
Very Strong
None
Very Strong
None
Mild
Very Strong
Strong
Medium
Mild
None
Very Strong
None
None
None
Very Strong
Very Strong
None
Strong
Mild
None
Very Strong
considerations was a very strong motivation for all collaborations. The determinants of
asymmetry and stability consistently returned a result of not being motivations for
collaboration 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, which
indicated whether the participant/s from that group (either industry or conservation)
had perceived a particular determinant as being a motivation for collaboration. This
meant that the emphasis was not upon how strong the determinants explanatory
power was but whether it could be a motivation behind environmental collaborations
from the viewpoint of that particular group. See Tables VIII and IX. The results were
then summarised for each group and compared in a third table (Table X).
The results showed that the determinant of stakeholder considerations was a very
strong motivation behind these environmental collaborations. In order of explanatory
power, the next most recognised motivations for environmental collaborations were
the determinants of legitimacy and government pressure[15]. These two determinants
received significant amounts of attention, albeit not as much as the stakeholder
considerations determinant. On the other end of the scale for explanatory power
Determinant
Table VIII.
Did the environmental
group perceive that this
determinant was a
motivation for their
collaboration?
Asymmetry
Economic efficiency
Expertise
Government pressure
Legitimacy
Publicity
Reciprocity
Setting an example
Stability
Stakeholder
considerations
Could the determinant be a motivation for collaboration?

Koala
Green Building
Novotel Ibis
Metroplex Industrial
Beach
Project
Hotel
Park
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Determinant
Could the determinant be a motivation for collaboration?

Koala
Green Building
Novotel
Metroplex
Beach
Project
Ibis Hotel
Industrial Park
Asymmetry
Economic efficiency
Expertise
Government pressure
Legitimacy
Publicity
Reciprocity
Setting an example
Stability
Stakeholder considerations
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Determinant
Asymmetry
Economic efficiency
Expertise
Government pressure
Legitimacy
Publicity
Reciprocity
Setting an example
Stability
Stakeholder considerations
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Motivations for
environmental
collaboration
435
Table IX.
Did the industry member
perceive that this
determinant was a
motivation for their
collaboration?
Number of cases where a determinant was suggested as a

motivation for collaboration
Industry member
Environmental groups
0/4
2/4
1/4
4/4
4/4
2/4
4/4
2/4
0/4
4/4
0/4
1/4
0/4
0/4
2/4
3/4
2/4
3/4
0/4
4/4
were the determinants of asymmetry and stability. These determinants were not
motivations for the environmental collaborations.
Discussion and concluding comments
A number of implications arise from this research. Within the interviews the
participants from both sides of the collaboration stated that the environmental
collaborations helped their organisations to meet their objectives and all were satisfied
with the results that flowed from their decision to collaborate. Such information
could usefully be disseminated to encourage further collaborative efforts. The
representatives from the environmental groups believed that the collaborations had
positive implications for the environment[16]. Hence, whilst there might be particular
business benefits from entering into an environmental collaboration, the collaborations
nevertheless were perceived as positive for the environment by a group of individuals
(environmental NGOs) who would be expected to have relatively sound knowledge
about various issues associated with the environment. Arguably, such results
are important for society at large and for the environment, particularly given that
the industry is a major contributor to environmental damage. The practice of
Table X.
A comparison between
industry and
environmental groups in
terms of their perceptions
of whether a determinant
could be a motivation for
collaboration
MAJ
22,4
436
environmental collaboration may assist industry to operate in a more environmentally

responsible manner. Our research indicates that the building and construction industry
was aware of the need for improved environmental standards of building and
construction and hence environmental collaborations may be one mechanism to help
satisfy this need.
It could be argued, perhaps, that with further experience and time the participants
in 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 the
collaborations were a success. In fact, several participants had since found further
benefits. Pittman said there were more benefits for the local community than she had
expected; Roberts said the project set an example for others to follow. MacRae and
Wellwood explained that the Koala Beach development had sold extremely well
and this was due to the involvement of the AKF. Sharp from the AKF said they now
had a better understanding of commercial issues.
Whilst environmental collaborations generated outcomes that were welcomed by
the parties to the collaborations, it is interesting to consider what motivated the
collaboration in the first place. Our results provide insight. Our results show that
stakeholder considerations were a strong motivation for the collaborations from both
sides of the collaboration. Environmental groups sought collaborations that would be
approved by their constituents, particularly their members and affected communities.
The building and construction representatives believed that forming an environmental
collaboration was a particularly useful way of satisfying the concerns of key
stakeholders, particularly government. There was also a view expressed that the
companies did have a moral responsibility to particular stakeholders, for example,
local communities. The results also showed that the desire to appear credible or
legitimate also motivated collaboration. From the industry perspective, it was deemed
particularly important to be credible to government (again, emphasising the
importance of government expectations), and forming environmental collaborations
was perceived to enhance this perception. Environmental group representatives were
also motivated to ensure that the collaboration would be with a party that was
unlikely, through association, to negatively impact their credibility or legitimacy.
There were also some other factors that motivated collaborations. The majority of
representatives from environmental groups were motivated to be associated with a
project that could be deemed to set an example for other building and construction
projects to follow, and they were also keen to collaborate on a venture which generated
publicity for the outcomes that can be achieved through environmental collaboration.
On one project, the Novotel Ibis Hotel, the environmental group was particularly
motivated by the financial returns that were associated with the collaboration.
The results also indicated that reciprocity was also something that was deemed to
be important to both parties to a collaboration, but the indication was that this was
more in the nature of a necessary precondition to collaboration, rather than a
motivation for collaboration.
Given the origin of the determinants for environmental collaboration used in
this study, the results indicate that a trilogy of theories (institutional, legitimacy
and stakeholder theory) might be useful to explain the motivations behind
environmental collaborations. Researching environmental collaborations under the

three theories helped capture both the general and specific legitimacy issues involved
in motivating organisations to collaborate. Rather than viewing these theories in
isolation, as a set they appeared to explain the motivations for environmental
collaborations 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 one
another then important information may be missed. This finding would be useful to
people doing further research on environmental collaboration, and also for those
seeking to be involved in related theory building.
Lastly, in relation to future research, the building and construction industry was
chosen as a focus for this research; however, environmental collaborations exist in
other industries. To confirm the findings or perhaps to find alternative motivations for
environmental collaborations, a study of this nature could be expanded to other
industries. There is evidence of several environmental collaborations in the mining,
timber and fisheries industries. If environmental collaborations do have positive
implications for the environment, as our participants believed, then further research
which highlights and promotes collaborations would arguably be beneficial to the
environment, 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 and
production activities undertaken to produce building materials. There are also various issues
associated with waste generated throughout construction, as well as in the demolition of
pre-existing structures. Completed buildings are also responsible for various environmental
impacts, 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 constructively
explore the differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of
what is possible (Gray, 1989, p. 5). An environmental collaboration is a subset of all
collaborations.
4. This would not be surprising given that theories of human behaviour (such as the decision to
collaborate) are, by necessity, simplifications of an underlying reality. Further, because
researchers operating within different paradigms will have different views about what
motivates people, how efficient people are at assimilating data, the efficiency of markets and
political processes and so on, they will consequently rely upon different arguments and
assumptions (and theories) to explain the behaviour.
5. As one example of the overlap between theories, Gray et al. (1995, p. 52) discuss how
legitimacy theory and stakeholder theory (two of the eight theories that have been used to
explain collaboration) have much in common with both theories being set within a
framework of assumptions about political economy.
6. Cardskadden and Lober (1998) studied a corporate wildlife enhancement program that
involved a collaboration with an environmental group, as well as some business groups, and
found that the collaboration could be explained in terms of it being a mechanism that
satisfies the expectations of powerful stakeholders of the corporation that is, there was
support for explanations generated by stakeholder theory.
Motivations for
environmental
collaboration
437
MAJ
22,4
438
7. Determinants are the variables that are supported by the theories as motivations for
collaboration. For example, transaction cost theory may suggest that organisations
collaborate 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 environmental
collaborations as it only applies to mandated collaborations. Our research focuses on
voluntary collaborations.
9. Various searches and investigation supported this view. The media, industry members,
environmentalists and internet searches all provided the evidence to suggest that these
projects represented the entire population of environmental collaborations available for
study 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 issues
pertaining to environmental collaborations. Only those of relevance to determining the
motivations 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 these
environmental collaborations.
13. Mailer made comments to the effect that they had to be careful in choosing a partner thus
they were concerned with maintaining the legitimacy which already existed with their
members.
14. However, a subset of stability which was tested separately, expertise, was found to be a
motivation for a developer in one case.
15. To determine the explanatory strength of determinants, values were given to the categories
in scale of explanatory power (mild 1, medium 2, strong 3, and very strong 4).
Using these values an overall score was produced for the results of each determinant.
Legitimacy and government pressure ranked second and third, respectively, behind
stakeholder considerations, in terms of explanatory power for the motivations behind
environmental collaborations
16. At the time of the first interview the AKF said that their objectives to date had been fulfilled
but it would take time to realise if the Koala population had been truly affected by the
development. During the second follow-up interviews (to be discussed shortly) the AKF
explained that they believed the collaboration was a success.
17. Three of the original twelve participants were unable to be involved in these follow-up
interviews. 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 more
involved in the Koala Beach project since we had last spoken. Therefore, ten interviews in
total 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 organizational
environments, 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 in
Strategic Management, Vol. 10, pp. 3-40.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1999), Environmental issues, Australian Bureau of Statistics

4602.0, March, pp. 1-57.
Australian Koala Foundation (1996), Our First Ten Years 1986-1996, John Garnsworthy and
Associates, 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 telephone
companies, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp. 400-21.
Benson, J.K. (1975), The interoganizational network as a political economy, Administrative
Science 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 business
strategy: the case of the corporate wildlife habitat enhancement programme, Journal of
Environmental 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 the
Australian Minerals Industry, 3rd Asian Pacific Interdisciplinary Research in Accounting
Conference Proceedings, APIRA, Adelaide, July 2001.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48,
pp. 147-60.
Dowling, J. and Pfeffer, J. (1975), Organizational legitimacy: social values and organizational
behavior, Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 122-36.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), Building theories from case study research, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-50.
Elkington, J. (1994), Towards the sustainable corporation: win-win-win business strategies for
sustainable 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 federated
interorganizational relationships, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 27 No. 1,
pp. 116-30.
Freeman, R. (1983), Strategic management: a stakeholder approach, Advances in Strategic
Management, 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, Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 22, pp. 95-112.
Gray, B. and Wood, D.J. (1991), Collaborative alliances: moving from practice to theory, Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 3-22.
Motivations for
environmental
collaboration
439
MAJ
22,4
440
Gray, R., Kouhy, R. and Lavers, S. (1995), Corporate social and environmental reporting: a review
of 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 of
interorganizational relationships, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 22, pp. 457-70.
Hannan, M. and Freeman, J. (1977), The population ecology of organizations, American Journal
of Sociology, Vol. 85 No. 5, pp. 929-64.
Hartman, C.L. and Stafford, E.R. (1998), Crafting enviroprenuaral value chain strategies
through green alliances, Business Horizons, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 62-73.
Hemphill, T.A. (1994), Strange bedfellows cozy up for a clean environment, Business and
Society, Summer, pp. 38-44.
Kogut, B. (1988), Joint venture: theoretical and empirical perspectives, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 9, pp. 319-32.
Levine, S. and White, P. (1961), Exchange as a Conceptual Framework for the Study of
Interorganizational Relationships, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY.
Logsdon, J.M. (1991), Interests and interdependence in the formation of social problem-solving
collaborations, 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 and
population dynamics: buffering and transformational shields, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 35, pp. 689-713.
ODywer, B. (2000), Corporate social reporting in the republic of Ireland: a description and quest
for understanding, unpublished PhD thesis, University of Dundee, Dundee.
Oliver, C. (1990), Determinants of interorganizational relationships: integration and future
directions, 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 in
marketing, 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 Dependence
Perspective, Harper and Row, New York, NY.
Schermerhorn, J.R. and Shirland, L.E. (1981), Hospital administrators felt need for
interorganizational 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 in
the 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 in
developing corporate action strategies, California Management Review, Summer,
pp. 97-105.
Sofaer, S. and Myrtle, R.C. (1991), Interorganizational theory and research: implications for
health care management, policy, and research, Medical Care Research & Review, Vol. 48,
pp. 371-90.
Stafford, E. and Hartman, C.L. (1996), Green alliances: strategic relations between businesses
and environmental groups, Business Horizons, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 50-60.
Suchman, M.C. (1995), Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches, Academy
of 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 comparative
case 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: ACFs 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.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Motivations for
environmental
collaboration
441
This article has been cited by:

1. Ambika Zutshi, Andrew Creed. 2014. An international review of environmental initiatives in the
construction sector. Journal of Cleaner Production . [CrossRef]
2. Sharyn McDonald. 2014. Social responsibility clusters arising from social partnerships. Social
Responsibility 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 Innovation
13:3, 281-301. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
5. Sharyn McDonald, Suzanne Young. 2012. Cross-sector collaboration shaping Corporate Social
Responsibility 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. European
Journal of Innovation Management 15:4, 400-420. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
7. Deborah Hughes, Trefor Williams, Zhaomin Ren. 2012. Differing perspectives on collaboration in
construction. 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 and
Urban 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 psychological
wellbeing as main dimensions of senior citizens' green sheltered housing buying intentions. International
Journal of Business Performance Management 12, 86. [CrossRef]

Motivations For Environmental Collaboration Within The Building and Construction Industry

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Motivations For Environmental Collaboration Within The Building and Construction Industry

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Managerial Auditing Journal

Motivations for environmental collaboration within the building and construction

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Motivations for environmental

Managerial Auditing Journal

Theoretical perspectives on why environmental collaborations might occur

Under conditions of resource scarcity exchanges between organisations are essential to

Organisations seek an adequate supply of money and authority to fulfil program

No organisation is independent and therefore must engage in exchanges in order to attract

Organisations have stakeholders. These can be suppliers, customers, shareholders,

Organisations seek to find the most cost-efficient transactions to enhance competitiveness.

Determinants Ecology theory

Determinants Ecology theory

Determinants for collaboration

Although six projects were initially identified, one of these environmental

Case 1: Koala Beach Residential Development a collaboration between the Australian

Novotel Ibis Hotel,

Type of building and

The Australian Koala Fauna and flora

The Ray Group Pty Ltd

Metroplex Industrial John

Please summarise your organisations objectives.

Were the remarks supportive, or not supportive of a determinant?

Wellwood emphasised the motivation for collaboration:

In addition to frequent comments on legitimacy being a motivation for collaboration,

Coding under the stakeholder considerations determinant was voluminous and

Wellwood recognised the power of external sources when he said:

In relation to setting an example, Ray considered the project to be a blueprint for

Mailer expressed the view:

In relation to stakeholder considerations, Lacey explained their (Lincolne Scotts) views

Mailer said that:

The desire to appear legitimate and stakeholder considerations were strong in

Level of explanatory power

Could the determinant be a motivation for collaboration?

Could the determinant be a motivation for collaboration?

Number of cases where a determinant was suggested as a

environmental collaboration may assist industry to operate in a more environmentally

environmental collaborations. Researching environmental collaborations under the

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1999), Environmental issues, Australian Bureau of Statistics

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

This article has been cited by:

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi