Collaborative Civil Society Organizations and Sustainable Cities: The Role of “Mobilizing Leadership” in Building the Integral Commons

Abstract

Sustainability issues are characterized by their relational nature and so require stakeholders working across sectors to integrate their interests. This article conducts an empirical examination across seven convening organizations we describe as “Collaborative Civil Society Organizations” to understand the intentional leadership activities that catalyze cross-sector social partnerships in the context of regional sustainability initiatives. Our research findings suggest that social movement theory can provide insight to inform our understanding of the nature of intentional leadership activities that help to motivate and initiate the formation of these cross-sector social partnerships. By enfolding this literature in the interpretation of our findings, we have articulated an empirically grounded construct of “mobilizing leadership.” We suggest that by approaching regional sustainability initiatives as a social movement, mobilizing leadership has the potential to extend the cosmopolitan view toward building a biosphere consciousness, enabling the development of local multisector interactions in response to global issues of sustainability.

Keywords

biosphere consciousness cross-sector social partnerships relational leadership convening organizations sustainable cities social movement theory collaboration regional sustainability initiatives planetary boundaries political process model

Many complex social and environmental challenges originate in cities (Alberti & Susskind, 1996), making a focus on urban sustainability a key leverage point for addressing global problems. Sustainability issues are characterized by their relational nature (Kurucz, Colbert, & Marcus, 2014) and, as such, comprehensive solutions to these challenges have not emerged from traditional approaches of government, nonprofit and business sectors working in isolation. The recognition that integrating across a diverse range of interests and perspectives is essential in developing sustainable cities (Zeemering, 2014) and in regional sustainable development strategies (Clarke & Fuller, 2010) has focused interest on promoting deliberate interactions across sector boundaries in a way that gives rise to new opportunities; such as public–private partnerships that can help to develop new forms of low carbon and resilient infrastructure in cities (Coutard & Rutherford, 2011; Hodson & Marvin, 2010; Hoffman, 2011).

Sustainability requires movement toward an “integral commons,” envisioning value creation beyond organizational interests or individual stakeholder concerns, toward a more systemic and relational view of social integration (Kurucz, Colbert, & Wheeler, 2008); a problem-centered focus on the resolution of sustainability issues facilitates the integration of these interests. Envisioning the “self-in-connection” to others through this relation of interests in the context of global issues of sustainability (Nicholson & Kurucz, 2019) is characteristic of a “cosmopolitan view” (Dobson, 2006; Skribis & Woodward, 2013) that considers all human beings as citizens of a single community. The convergence of the Communications Internet, renewable Energy Internet and automated Transportation and Logistics Internet, described as the “Internet of Things” has furthered the development of this cosmopolitan view, with the potential to connect everyone in a global network that will allow humans to integrate with the biosphere in a more productive and ecologically sustainable manner (Rifkin, 2014). However, in order to realize the possibility of this technology and extend this view to a true “biosphere consciousness” (Rifkin, 2009), the Internet of Things must have the social support of an emerging “collaborative commons” (Rifkin, 2014) that is evolving from the early roots of civil society.

To facilitate the development of this “collaborative” and “integral” commons, regional sustainability initiatives call for an approach to leadership that fosters the cross-sector collaboration required to address global issues of sustainability. From the cross-sector partnerships perspective, leadership has been described as a set of activities undertaken by individuals or organizations that bring together a broad range of stakeholders in a way that is semipermanent and spans sector boundaries, to solve complex social issues (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006; Crosby & Bryson, 2010), an understanding we adopt in this study as a starting point for identifying the nature of these activities. There is a growing body of work alternately described by the terms “Cross-Sector Social Interactions” or “Cross Sector Social Partnerships” that explores these cross-sector relationships (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012a, 2012b; Seitanidi & Crane, 2014; Seitanidi & Lindgreen, 2010; Selsky & Parker, 2005) and that we will refer to in this article as the CSSP literature. More understanding of the role of leadership is needed, in particular at the formation stage of these partnerships, to facilitate the development of this integral commons of interests. While the goals of cross-sector stakeholders may be aligned around a particular social or environmental issue, encouraging participation in a potentially resource-intensive partnership with stakeholders, who often approach the issue with different constituent concerns and priorities, requires support and motivation. In the formation stages of a CSSP, it often falls to a “convening organization” (Bryson et al., 2006; Gray, 1985; Waddock, 1989; Westley & Vredenburg, 1997) to provide leadership, ensure the participation of stakeholders, and initiate the collaboration.

This article offers an empirical examination of the intentional leadership activities of seven convening organizations that we describe as “Collaborative Civil Society Organizations” (from here onward referred to as “CCSO’s”). We consider how these CCSOs support the development of an integral commons by functioning in the role of a catalyst, motivating and enabling multisector collaboration toward the resolution of sustainability issues. Grant (2007) points to a recent confluence of green concerns and business concerns, and a movement over the past few years away from an activist/policing stance on the part of environmental civil society organizations and a denying/complying approach on the part of business, toward both parties working together to create alternative policies, structures, and programs. In this study, four of the CCSOs collaboratively engage organizations across sectors to focus on regional social and environmental issues. The three other CCSOs work with partners across sectors to develop the organizational development capacity of other social enterprise organizations, including improving their entrepreneurial, financial, governance, or leadership capacities.

Engaging in an inductive analysis, we identify the importance of social movement theory for interpreting the findings that emerged from this research. Increasingly this literature has been used in organization theory (Davis, McAdam, Scott, & Zald, 2005; King, 2008; Page, 2010) and is relevant here because it focuses on important motivators for collective action around social issues. Through enfolding this literature in the interpretation of our findings, we empirically develop a construct of “mobilizing leadership” that describes the role leadership plays at the formation stage of a CSSP and identifies the intentional leadership activities of CCSOs that catalyze multisector collaboration toward addressing social and environmental issues. Our findings suggest that leadership in the formation of a CSSP is most usefully understood in terms of intentional leadership activities that foster social movements. This conceptualization of leadership foregrounds individuals and convening organizations that take an integrative and relational approach, bringing diverse stakeholders together to encourage collective action toward global issues of sustainability.

This article proceeds as follows. First, we will provide an overview of the literature on the formation stages of CSSPs, focusing on how leadership has been considered to date in this field. Second, we will describe our methodology and research sites and will present the findings from our research. Third, we will enfold concepts from the social movement literature and establish why they are relevant to advancing our understanding of leadership in the formation stage of a CSSP. In particular, we will draw on the political process model (McAdam, McCarthy, & Zald, 1996) to theoretically elaborate the grounded conceptualization of leadership that emerged from our analysis. Finally, we consider the implications of these findings for understanding the role of CCSOs in fostering collaboration toward developing an integral commons of stakeholder interests. We suggest that by approaching regional sustainability initiatives as a social movement, mobilizing leadership has the potential to extend the cosmopolitan view toward building a biosphere consciousness, enabling the development of local multisector interactions in response to global issues of sustainability.

Conceptual Background

Convening Organizations and the Formation of Cross-Sector Social Partnerships

CSSPs have been categorized in relation to their formation, implementation, and outcome phases of development (Selsky & Parker, 2005), and a range of activities has been associated with each of these periods. While some CSSPs are intentionally formed through a planned process of engaging stakeholders, others emerge unplanned based on tacit relationships that exist prior to a formal selection process (Austin, 2000; Seitanidi, Koufopoulos, & Palmer, 2010). For the purpose of this research, the formation of CSSPs will be conceptualized in terms similar to Gray (1989), Waddock (1989), Westley and Vredenburg (1997) and Bryson et al. (2006), where there is a sense of intentionality in their successful creation. The formation of an intentionally planned CSSP brought together by a convening organization is a particular type of partnership that can be contrasted with the more organically initiated, relationship-based partnerships described by Seitanidi et al. (2010). In the formation stage of these intentionally planned endeavors, successful partnerships are focused on identifying the central problem to be solved, generating information related to the problem and potential solutions, committing to the collaboration, identifying and legitimating key stakeholders, and involving a convenor (Westley & Vredenburg, 1997).

The presence of a convening organization is described as an important part of the formation of some CSSPs (Bryson et al., 2006; Clarke & Fuller, 2010; Gray, 1985; Waddock, 1989; Westley & Vredenburg, 1997). Convening organizations work as catalysts for collaboration by engaging in direction setting, creating processes, instilling a sense of legitimacy, creating a meeting place, and motivating stakeholders to participate in the partnership (Gray, 1985). Similar to convening organizations, bridging organizations are described as agencies that span the gap between diverse constituencies, including international and local governments, NGOs, and multinational firms to enable coordinated action (Brown, 1991). Bridging organizations have been found to be central to CSSPs related to environmental initiatives (Westley & Vredenburg, 1997) as well as to sustainable development initiatives in developing countries (Sharma, Vredenburg, & Westley, 1994). Because of this, the potential contribution of convening organizations toward building the integral commons in regional efforts aligned with global sustainability issues is of particular interest in this research and is why we have chosen to focus our research on CCSOs that play this convening role.

The Role of Leadership in Cross-Sector Social Partnerships

The creation of a formal organization that facilitates stakeholder interactions has been linked to the success of collective action (King, 2008). Thus, convening organizations can be understood as playing a leadership role in catalyzing collaboration in CSSPs. While this connection between convening organizations and collective action has been identified, the specific nature of the intentional leadership activities that are undertaken at the formation stage of a CSSP are not well understood. In general, leadership theories and research related to collaboration between organizations are not well developed (Connelly, 2007). A variety of conceptualizations of leadership exist in the CSSP literature including “contextual leadership” (Huxham & Vangen, 2000), “participative and transformational leadership” (Kolk, van Dolen, & Vock, 2010), “complexity leadership” (Page, 2010), “integrative leadership” (Crosby & Bryson, 2010), and “responsible leadership” (Pless & Maak, 2011), among others.

Many of these conceptualizations share features that can be aligned with the umbrella construct of “relational leadership theory” (Uhl-Bien, 2006; Uhl-Bien & Ospina, 2012). Relational leadership theory moves us away from understanding leadership at the individual level as a trait or a behavior toward thinking about leadership as a “collective capacity” (Day, 2000; Drath, 2001) that is generated in the interactions and relationships between people (Uhl-Bien & Ospina, 2012). While there is a continuum of perspectives in this field, several relational leadership scholars posit that leadership activities explicitly include contributions that create positive societal change (Pless, 2007; Pless & Maak, 2011).

Relational leadership for sustainability has been described as an ongoing process of meaning making and reflection within a nested system of the biosphere and human society (Kurucz, Colbert, Lüdeke-Freund, Upward, & Willard, 2017). This process is essential to address the central integration challenges sustainability issues present (Lang et al., 2012; Mauser et al., 2013; van Kerkhoff, 2014). When envisioning the development of the integral commons, relational leadership for sustainability is a way to consider how this critical integration of collective interests might be enabled. The role of leadership in the formation of a CSSP involves more than individual activities; it also includes organizational-level activities and is affected by relationships and societal-level factors. Conceptualizing leadership in a way that foregrounds the socially constructed nature of the phenomenon in a context with a diversity of stakeholder interests is consistent with the practical realities of these collaborations. The specific nature of the intentional leadership activities that are undertaken in the context of regional sustainability initiatives facilitated by CCSOs are not well understood in the literature and so are the focus of this research. The gap in our understanding described above leads to the primary research question at the heart of this empirical inquiry: What are the intentional leadership activities of CCSOs in the formation of cross-sector social partnerships? The following section will discuss the research methodology used to collect and analyze data aimed at answering this question.

Method

Research Design

The lack of previous scholarly work related to the role of leadership in the formation of CSSPs means that an inductive qualitative approach to the research design is appropriate (Creswell, 1994; Huberman & Miles, 1994). The initial literature review of the leadership role of convening organizations in CSSPs informed our data collection and analysis by providing sensitizing concepts that guided the development of the research design and data collection (Charmaz, 2014). We incorporated relevant concepts from social movement theory in the later stages of sampling, interviewing, and data analysis. This approach was undertaken with interpretive awareness and a self-reflexive understanding supported with the use of memoing to detail and reflects on “dilemmas, directions and decisions” in the research (Charmaz, 2014, p. 165).

Description of Research Sites

Purposive sampling (Charmaz, 2014; Patton, 2002) was used in the selection of research sites to focus on information-rich cases, or those that that would offer the potential to generate insight into the phenomenon under investigation. The following criteria were the basis for the selection of the seven CCSOs: (a) they must consist of an explicitly or implicitly collaborative partnership between at least three societal sectors, most likely government, nonprofit, and for-profit sectors; (b) the goals of the partnership must primarily be to work regionally to create social or environmental benefit, where roles or functions typically associated with one sector are adopted by another; (c) the CCSO must be an enterprising convening organization that acts as a focal actor for the CSSP; (d) the CSSP must either be in the formation stage and/or individuals who were instrumental in the creation of the partnership were still available for participation in the study; and (e) each CCSO must have been afforded some form of external recognition indicating credibility or success, for example, external funding, or a retrospective assessment that they will continue to be an ongoing, semipermanent partnership for the foreseeable future.

Based on these criteria, seven CCSOs were selected. Research Sites Nos. 1, 3, and 7 are local sustainability partnerships, focused on the reduction of atmospheric carbon emissions with stakeholder participation across sectors, including the regional municipality, insurance companies, and various regional businesses. Research Site No. 2 is an established environmental issues partnership pursuing projects that improve local transit and reduce energy usage among commercial property owners and tenants. Stakeholder participation includes commercial landlords, tenants, municipal governments, and the financial sector. Research Site No. 4 is a social start-up incubator and coworking space that focuses on fostering social innovation among entrepreneurial ventures in the region. Stakeholders involved with this partnership include the provincial and municipal governments, community bond holders, and various socially oriented entrepreneurs and organizations. Research Site No. 5 is an angel and venture capital funding matchmaker that brings social enterprises in need of capital financing together with socially oriented, accredited investors. Stakeholder participation includes regional securities regulators, a stock exchange, a law firm, and accreditation bodies. Finally, Research Site No. 6 is a regional partnership between three local nonprofit organizations focused on developing organizational and management capacity in the nonprofit sector. Stakeholders include funding agencies, local nonprofit organizations, resource and service providers, and a local high-tech company.

Data Collection

Data were collected from the seven CCSO research sites using multiple qualitative data collection methods including 35 semistructured interviews (identified with snowball sampling, ranging from 30-80 minutes, recorded and transcribed), participant observation (including passive observation of CSSP participants interacting in a shared coworking environment, interacting with participants in workshop settings and one member of the research team engaging in “active membership participant observation”—Adler & Adler, 1987—as a paid contract partnership broker for a convening organization), and document analysis (public documents relevant to the formation of each partnership). In total, 53 data sources, comprising 424 pages of text, were collected and analyzed. Using multiple sources of data allowed us to examine leadership at the formation stages of a CSSP from different perspectives, to develop multiple lines of inquiry and bring to the forefront, “many voices and many meanings” (Symon & Cassell, 2012).

Data Analysis

Data gathering and analysis was an iterative process; inductive themes that emerged from the initial data collection and analysis were compared with existing data analysis and extant theory, further focusing data analysis, which in turn focused theoretical sampling in our data gathering (Charmaz, 2014). The constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) was used in data analysis. As new data sources were created, they were analyzed and comparisons were made between the new data, and existing codes and categories generated by the analysis of previous sources of data. This feedback loop was an iterative process that refined the types of questions asked in semistructured interviews, the types of activities that were focused on in participant observation, as well as the items commented upon in reflective journals. Data analysis was aided by use of the qualitative research software package NVivo. In later stages of the data analysis and data collection process, emerging themes and categories were used to guide the “creative interplay” (Patton, 2002, p. 226) between the new data and theoretical constructs from the CSSP and social movement theory literature in order to extend the significance of the emergent categories in relation to existing theory (Patton, 2002, p. 226).

Overview of Findings

The following section presents the empirical findings from this research and the construct of “mobilizing leadership” that was developed through enfolding concepts from social movement theory. We will describe the substantive codes and initial categories that emerged from the initial and focused coding and the final categories that were developed through theoretical coding. These findings are summarized in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Substantive codes and initial conceptual categories mapping to theoretical codes and categories.

Initial and Focused Coding: Inductive Analysis

Through the inductive process of data analysis, we categorized substantive codes developed from initial and focused coding within three broad contexts: (a) the conditions within the local community that allowed for collaboration on the social issue to occur, (b) the processes that existed to aid collaboration on the social issue, and (c) ways of motivating participation in the collaboration on the social issue. These contextual categories acted to “weave the fractured story back together” (Glaser, 1978, p. 72). At the point of the analysis where we saw no new substantive codes emerging from new data and when the current substantive codes were well developed and supported by subsequent data, we had reached theoretical saturation (Corbin & Strauss, 1990).

Theoretical Coding: Relevance of Concepts From Social Movement Theory

Recognizing that the findings from our research suggested that CCSOs and social movement organizations shared a number of characteristics allowed us to move to theoretical coding. Our analysis indicated that we could further develop our understanding of the leadership role of CCSOs in the formation of CSSPs by drawing on concepts from social movement theory that have not traditionally been used by CSSP scholars. McAdam and Scott (2005) suggest that organizational scholars tend to focus on structure, established organizations, institutionalized authority, and sectors, whereas social movement researchers focus on process, emergent organizations, transgressive contention, and societal regimes. Their description of the complementary aspects of the two literatures highlights an opportunity to draw from each literature as appropriate when organizations become more like social movements, or when a social movement becomes more like an established organization. Organizational research has traditionally been associated with “established organizations” at the “sector-specific” scope-of-inquiry (level of analysis), while social movement theorists are more known for research related to “emergent organizations” at the “society-wide” scope of inquiry (McAdam & Scott, 2005, p. 13). The distinctive yet complementary areas of focus of organization studies and social movement theory is particularly salient to this research inquiry because CSSPs involve organizational partners that span sectors, that are established as well as emerging, and that are sector focused as well as society-focused (Seitanidi, 2008; Selsky & Parker, 2005). McAdam and Scott’s (2005) description of the intersection between the literatures suggests that our understanding of CSSPs could be well informed by working across the two literatures, as these partnerships span “established versus emergent power and society-wide versus sector-specific arenas” (p. 12). Heuer (2011), when theorizing about ecosystem management, suggests that “social movements are a necessary condition for cross-sector collaboration” (p. 218).

Increasingly social movement theory has been drawn on, not only in Organization Studies (Davis et al., 2005; King & Soule, 2007) but also directly in the CSSP literature (King, 2008; Heuer, 2011; Page, 2010) due to the overlap of a number of concepts, including decentralized authority, seeking mutually desirable outcomes from different stakeholder perspectives, and working together to enable positive social change when facing complex issues. “Public-private-partnerships,” “strategic alliances,” “community development,” and “co-ordinated service delivery” are all types of partnerships associated with CSSPs, whereas “grassroots initiatives,” “political movements,” “advocacy groups,” and “change makers” are terms often used to describe social movements. While the connections between these ideas are not often explicitly made in the literature, in practice there are clearly linkages: For example, successful public–private partnerships are often grassroots in nature and coordinated service delivery initiatives may involve a significant political narrative (Chetkovich & Kunreuther, 2006; King, 2008; King & Soule, 2007; Ospina & Saz-Carranza, 2010). Given the implications of these real-world connections for the success of CSSPs, there is a potential benefit from considering more closely the theoretical implications of social movement theory, a well-established field of inquiry, for constructs that are still at the nascent stage of development in the CSSP literature.

McAdam et al.’s (1996) synthesis of dominant strains of theory in the social movement literature has been used in the CSSP literature (King, 2008). While there are critiques among social movement scholars of their political process model as a unifying construct for social movement research (Buechler, 2000), it maintains its position as the dominant perspective in social movement theory because it offers predictions that have established strong empirical support explaining social movement outcomes (King, 2008). The political process model describes collective action in situations where there are strong voluntary associations, where government is open to collaboration outside of the scope of elections, and where mass media exists and is free to voice a broad range of opinions (Zald & McCarthy, 2002), consistent with the context of CSSP formation. Drawing on this model allowed us to extend the conceptual categories that emerged from our initial and focused coding to consider how these might align with and extend our research findings. The results from this theoretical coding are described below.

Interpretation of Findings

The Role of CCSOs in Identifying Political Opportunity

Social movement theorists describe political opportunity as changes in the balance of power between parties as a precursor to collective action (McAdam, 1982). Social movements can take advantage of political opportunity to affect change in the status quo. In social movement theory, the opportunity associated with the political processes surrounding the social movement is related to the successful emergence of movements, and the differences in the success of movements between jurisdictions (Buechler, 2000). Political opportunity is not the same as political or contextual change in general; political opportunity refers to those changes that may lead collective action toward a social or environmental goal. If political opportunity exists during the formation of these partnerships, leaders may identify these opportunities and incorporate them into leadership activities, strategic decision making, and operational activities. An illustrative example of this is when, at the time of data collection, the Ontario Provincial Government passed an amendment to the Green Energy Act, known as regulation 397/11, which required that at a future date, public agencies, including municipalities, universities, hospitals and schools, must publicly disclose sustainability initiatives, forecasted reduction of energy consumption, actual results achieved, and future sustainability initiatives and targets. In the case of Research Site No. 4, leadership identification of this political opportunity motivated the participation of one of their first key partners: “[Important public agency] signed on almost immediately, I’d say within six weeks of us reaching out to them; they saw an opportunity, they also knew that mandatory reporting was coming.”

Social movement theory scholars have focused more on the nature of political opportunities rather than the intentionality of their identification in motivating collective action (della Porta & Diani, 1999; Lichterman, 1995). The nature of political opportunity is one component of the role of political opportunity in leadership during the formation of CSSPs, but the intentional leadership activities that relate to these political opportunities constitute the focus of this section. CSSPs need to be explored at multiple levels of analysis because they operate in, and are directly affected by both organizational and societal factors (Seitanidi, 2008; Seitanidi et al., 2010). This section describes our findings regarding political opportunity recognition by CCSOs in the formation of partnerships.

Identifying Organizational-Level Political Opportunity

Substantive codes related to community and organizational “readiness” and “acceptance” to support the social or environmental goal of each research site were related to a broad range of organizational-level issues. The political opportunities identified as incidents within the data were categorized at the organizational level if they related directly to actors within each of the research sites. Organizational boundaries can blur in CSSPs because of the frequent interaction of cross-organizational teams. So organizational-level political opportunity, as it is conceptualized here, may exist within and between formal or informal participating organizations within each CSSP. The substantive codes that have emerged as organizational-level political opportunities identified by leaders in the formation of these partnerships include the following.

External Perception of Legitimacy of the Convenor

The perception of legitimacy of the convening organization of the CSSP was deemed to be valuable when legitimacy perceptions existed among stakeholders immediately associated with the partnership, but it was also mentioned in terms of the broader communities and media. Often this external legitimacy was explicitly identified as a valuable asset to be fostered for the instrumental value of the CSSP. For example, the external legitimacy of the convenor at Research Site No. 5 was enhanced by entering into a resource-intensive accreditation process related to the financial industry. While not strictly necessary from a regulatory perspective, the convenor perceived the accreditation to be essential from a legitimacy standpoint. Perceptions of legitimacy among stakeholders of a convening organization have been described as a facilitative condition for collaboration (Gray, 1985). Legitimacy of the leader of a CSSP is also highlighted as an important component of “Integrative Leadership” (Bryson et al., 2006; Crosby & Bryson, 2010). The difference between the scholarly works described above and our findings is that in this case legitimacy is identified as extant political opportunity that may be used for instrumental purposes in the successful formation of a CSSP in order to foster the collective action of stakeholders.

Existence of Internal Champions

In the formation of CSSPs, leaders within CCSOs identified individuals in key stakeholder organizations who supported the partnerships. These individuals frequently acted as internal advocates within their organizations, encouraging participation in the CSSP and soliciting support to dedicate resources. Crosby and Bryson (2010, p. 217) define a champion as “a person who is a tireless, process-savvy organizer and promoter of the change effort.” By identifying internal champions with key stakeholder organizations, leaders may be afforded personal introductions to strategic decision makers and may be associated with a level of trust that would not otherwise exist without an internal organizational advocate. Individuals from Research Site No. 1 described the “flavor” of a relationship being related to existence of a champion within a partnering organization; it could be sweet or sour depending on whether or not they have one. A common theme emerged across the research sites related to the impact of intentionally seeking out internal champions within stakeholder organizations and relationships between the CCSO and stakeholders in the CSSP.

Identifying Societal-Level Political Opportunity

Where political opportunities emerged outside of stakeholders formally or informally associated with the partnership, these data represented societal-level political opportunity:

Alignment Between Popular Normative Views and Goals

The seven CCSOs examined in this inquiry had social and environmental goals that aligned on two general paths: (a) improving local environmental outcomes and (b) building organizational capacity within the community benefit (nonprofit) sector. In the case of both of these broad social and environmental goals, leaders within the convening organizations identified alignment between popular normative views and the goals of the CSSP; the broader community seemed to understand and largely agree with what they were doing. For example, a corporate partner at Research Site No. 1 described their own employees’ concern about climate change as a key motivator for their participation in the partnership. When this awareness existed and it was associated with alignment between the popular normative views of the broader community and the goals of the CSSP, the formation of these partnerships appeared to be afforded more resources than if it did not. The identification of this societal alignment between popular normative views and the goals of the CSSP offer an example of what Waddock (2009, p. 283) describes as “politically savvy” difference makers, intentionally being “in the right place at the right time with the right idea.”

Perceived Risk of Regulators Intervening in the Status Quo

In our findings, leaders described regulators intervening in the status quo as offering potential political opportunity for creating collective action. Intervening in the status quo appeared in two main forms: (a) changing of funding models for the nonprofit sector and (b) the introduction of legislation that required organizations to adhere to sustainability-related initiatives. The potential for disruption of the status quo by regulators was identified as political opportunity at the societal level because these changes acted as a catalyst for action for some key stakeholders within the CSSP, and the political opportunity itself emerged from parties external to the partnership. For example, the creation of the CSSP at Research Site No. 6 stemmed from a significant reduction in funding from government agencies. This CSSP took shape as an adaption to the new financial realities imposed upon the nonprofit sector. At the time of its formation, it was understood that government-led funding initiatives favored projects that emphasized a sustainable business plan including “funds from operations” as the primary source of ongoing funding after initial start-up financing was allocated. Recognizing that this shift in funding was coming, three leaders from similarly goaled nonprofit organizations agreed to partner together to offer organizational development workshops and consulting services to the local nonprofit sector. These workshops and consulting services were previously offered separately through each of the three agencies, funded largely by government grants. Leaders of the nascent, unfunded CSSP prepared a grant application that proposed a “funds from operations”–based CSSP to a funding body controlled by the Government of Ontario, and that was ultimately fully funded from the government agency.

The Role of CCSOs in the Creation of Mobilizing Structures

In social movement theory, the structural elements of social movements are often associated with formal organizations that encourage collective action among stakeholders and are known as social movement organizations (McAdam & Scott, 2005). Mobilizing structures refer to “those collective vehicles, informal as well as formal, through which people mobilize and engage in collective action” (McAdam et al., 1996, p. 3). In CSSP scholarship, researchers have frequently sought to understand the organizational nature of these partnerships, including concepts related to the processes, policies, governance structures, and organizational forms, among others (Bryson et al., 2006; Heuer, 2011; Selsky & Parker, 2005). It is not surprising then, that this research, examining the leadership of CSSPs in their formation, identified the intentional creation of formal and informal mobilizing structures to foster collective action among stakeholders.

An illustrative example of this intentionality is found in the design of kitchens and coffee shops that played central roles in various buildings used by the CSSP in Research Site No. 4. In the kitchen, oversized counters are laid out with multiple sinks where members are encouraged to wash their dishes beside each other, creating more opportunities for serendipitous interactions. Couches are interspersed with desks and there is desk space in the main-floor café in addition to regular café seating. The use of physical space to effectively exchange views in the kitchen is described by one respondent in “the Salad Club”:

Everyone puts lettuce or tofu and feta cheese and we make the salad bar. It sounds really simple, but what we’re doing is we’re using food as a way to bring people together. What happens then is this amazing thing where we all make salads and we all sit together. The opportunities for me to sit with the Salad Club, might not ever present themselves, right? That’s like such subtle intentional programming as a way to animate a community and get people talking to one another.

While the findings in relation to this category are similar to the theory and research related to process-based examinations of CSSPs, they contribute another dimension to our understanding of the intentional leadership activities of CCSOs in the formation of these partnerships.

Creation of Interorganizational Mobilizing Structures

Interorganizational structures are described by Huxham and Vangen (2000) as those that enable connections within collaborative partnerships. These interorganizational structures, can be viewed in terms of their potential for relational leadership in collaborative partnerships (Murrell, 1997), or how they may affect the outcomes of a partnership (Huxham & Vangen, 2000). Drawing from Huxham and Vangen (2000), substantive codes were organized around the conceptual category if they formed connections within the CSSP that enabled collective action. These connections between stakeholders were intentionally enabled by leaders through the creation of the following structures:

Creation of Network Ties and Trust Between Stakeholders

Throughout the course of this research, organizational-level network ties refer to the direction and frequency of deliberate communication between individuals from two or more stakeholders participating in the CSSP. Network ties are a frequent unit of analysis in social movement theory and appear to act as mechanisms to generate external and internal awareness of an issue, provide vehicles for group decision-making processes, governance and by-laws and, ultimately, to open the door for trusting relationships (della Porta & Diani, 1999). In our findings, trust between partners was described by leaders as an important precursor to the successful formation of the CSSP. This trust between individuals from two or more stakeholders was directly linked to the existence of network ties between these individuals. Employees of the convenor of Research Site No. 2 facilitated working sessions including stakeholders from sectors that held antipodal views on the issue of financial investment in the Canadian oil sands. The organizers observed that trust can only be built at the human level, so the creation of human-level ties was essential for working groups to function effectively in the face of conflicting viewpoints. CSSP scholars highlight the importance of trust in collaborative partnerships (Bryson et al., 2006; Selsky & Parker, 2005; Waddock, 1989) and trust and network ties are often theoretically linked elsewhere in Organizational Studies (Granovetter, 1992; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998).

Creating Relationships With Legitimate First Followers

The issue of legitimacy has already been discussed in terms of its existence at the organizational level and the political opportunities that it may afford the CCSO in the formation of a CSSP. Among leaders in almost all of the research sites, the desire to be perceived as a legitimate convening organization was facilitated by deliberately focusing efforts to engage legitimate stakeholders for early membership in the partnership. For example, during the formation of the CSSP at Site No. 6, the convenor solicited the participation of a well-known high-tech company with the aim of being associated with their “big brand” to lend legitimacy to the nascent partnership. Further interpretation of the data revealed other research sites where the deliberate and systematic creation of interorganizational mobilizing structures engaged legitimate first followers to foster further collective action.

Assigning Ownership and Accountability to Stakeholders

In the formation of CSSPs observed in this research, leaders worked with stakeholders to assign tasks required for the CSSP to achieve its goals. At all seven research sites leaders identified the importance of assigning ownership of tasks, and in five of the research sites, accountability and ownership were described as intertwined concepts. This was categorized in terms of interorganizational mobilizing structures because the assignment of ownership tasks and the related accountability for their successful completion usually occurred as a formal, mutually agreed upon process between organizations participating in the CSSP. In an interorganizational context, the assignment of ownership can be used as a formal or informal network strategy to encourage collective action (Scholsberg, 2002; Taylor, 1995). The deliberate and mutually agreed upon assignment of tasks occurred for two reasons: (a) to successfully complete essential work during the formation of the CSSPs and (b) to ensure that stakeholders felt engaged and had purpose within the CSSPs to strengthen their continued participation. An example of the latter at Research Site No. 1 involved the joint creation of targets for organizational-level greenhouse gas emission reductions for the partnership members. The CCSO intentionally assigned this important task to the partners, rather than imposing these targets top-down, to create a sense of shared accountability and purpose.

Process-Based Mobilizing Structures

During the formation of the CSSPs, the ways in which stakeholders formally or informally made decisions and built an understanding of each other emerged as a conceptual category at all of the research sites. These data incidents are categorized as “process-based” mobilizing structures because they are aligned with the concept of the same name that is frequently examined in the CSSP literature. Process-based mobilizing structures create deliberation opportunities to encourage dialogue and group decision making, including convening processes such as town halls or community meetings, and may lay out the scope of stakeholder participation, the exclusivity of the venue, decision-making authority and ensure fit among capabilities, agenda, and decision authority (Page, 2010). Sometimes these processes may build cross-cultural understanding (Bryson et al., 2006), initiate agreement, deal with power imbalances and conflict, leverage sector strengths, and formalize assessments to track inputs and outcomes (Selsky & Parker, 2005). In the case of this research, the following substantive codes form the basis for this conceptual category:

Funding the CSSP From Operations

Social and environmental initiatives are frequently associated with NGOs who gain the bulk of their funding from grants and donations. In fact, many recognizable NGOs earn funds from operations, monetizing products or services, but these monetizable products or services typically are minimal revenue streams. With the exception of Research Site No. 2, all of the research sites examined in this inquiry reversed the typical funding model and started with a funds-from-operations strategy in their formation stage; the bulk of their funding came from the monetization of their core competencies, generating revenue from their main service offering with minimal funding from grants or donations.

Effective Exchange of Views

Process-based mobilizing structures that facilitate the effective exchange of views between stakeholders were observed at all seven of the research sites. These processes were determined to be a substantive code because of the frequency of occurrence and their perceived importance to the successful formation of the partnership. Effective exchange of views includes both formal and informal processes that allow members of a CSSP to discuss issues. An example of a formal process-based mobilizing structure emerged at Research Site No. 1 as a formal working group of partners that collaboratively built the project charter for the partnership. Informal process-based mobilizing structures mentioned previously were observed at Research Site No. 4 in terms of a floor plan and seating arrangements that facilitated opportunities for connections to be forged between partners as they went about their work day in a coworking space. These decisions may be a precursor to CSSP decision making and governance, or they may be a part of idea generation for innovative solutions related to the social or environmental initiative that is the focus of the CSSP. Formal processes that enable the effective exchange of views within CSSPs, especially in their formation, were used to make decisions about their structure.

Leveraging Sector Strengths

One of the benefits of partnering across sectors is the capacity to utilize the organizational skills and abilities developed by the various partners. The core capabilities of a mission-focused nonprofit organization may differ significantly from the core capabilities of a market-driven for-profit organization. Similarly, government and educational institutions have a differentiated set of value-creation mechanisms and viewpoints that may contribute to the successful formation of the CSSPs. By way of example, the convenor of Research Site No.5 described partnerships with business consultancies that provide the convenor with analysis reports at no cost. Similarly, they also receive pro bono legal and accounting work from other partners associated with the CSSP. Deliberate leveraging of sector strengths in the formation of the CSSPs emerged as an important substantive code in several of the research sites.

The Role of CCSOs in Framing Activities

Framing is the act of persuading others to make meaning through interactions (Dewulf et al., 2009). It is an iterative process where those involved negotiate a shared understanding of the social construction of reality (Pearce & Cronen, 1980; Stokes & Hewitt, 1976). Cognitive frames, the objects of interest in the act of framing, describe the knowledge structures, mental models, or cognitive representations that people hold about the world around them. Central to framing activities is conflict resolution in the form of alignment interaction between those involved (Dewulf et al., 2009). In CSSPs this alignment is described as frame fusion, building a new and evolving prognostic frame to motivate cross-sector interactions among partners while “preserving their distinct contribution to value creation” (Le Ber & Branzei, 2010, p. 164).

Cognitive frames may also emerge as a social construction within CSSPs without intentional framing activities by leaders. Framing is a top-down process (Benford, 1997) and many of the shared social constructions within these partnerships emerge as a bottom-up process (della Porta & Diani, 1999). An illustrative example of this framing that was initiated by Research Site No. 7 and was identified through document analysis, alludes to the shared social constructions which were actively created through the ongoing process of stakeholder participation in the CSSP:

[The convening organization of the CSSP] is a new non-profit corporation with a powerful vision for [the city] as the city with the greatest commitment to sustainable development in North America. We envision a world-class city with a vibrant, resilient economy, exceptional quality of life and healthy natural environment. This vision is shared by sustainability experts and local business and community leaders in [the city] who are supporting and guiding [the CSSP] to make it a reality.

At an organizational level of analysis, we explored the narratives that CCSOs created with stakeholders to foster collective action.

Diagnostic Framing

The CCSOs actively worked to shift the cognitive frames of participant stakeholders and other community members in the CSSP. Much of this involved informing or educating others related to the social or environmental issue that was the focus of the CSSP. The diagnostic framing activities observed among the research sites tended to showcase and educate stakeholders about a problem that existed related to a social or environmental issue. These educational narratives emerged as a conceptual category for three related substantive codes:

Highlighting the Social/Environmental Issue

This framing task involved ensuring that others understood the social/environmental issue was a problem worthy of collective action. Education and advocacy about the social/environmental issue emerged as a substantive code in all of the research sites. The education and advocacy techniques used by CCSOs varied, but each of the seven research sites publicly articulated and promoted a vision statement. These vision statements were good examples of prognostic framing at the organizational level because their common rhetoric could be read on promotional material and websites or read aloud verbatim in small or large gatherings. These vision statements highlighted an ideal future where the need for each CSSP would no longer exist; the goals would already have been achieved and the collective action would no longer be necessary. As an organizational-level framing tool, the vision statement provides a goal for organizations participating in the CSSPs to work toward; it is a positive narrative but it problematizes the status quo and implies that change is needed.

Highlighting the Overlap of Stakeholders’ Motivations

Another substantive theme that emerged is related to narratives used by CCSOs to highlight the overlap of stakeholders’ motivations. In five of the research sites there was an emphasis put on articulating that the achievement of the common goal of the CSSP was a win–win situation across sectors. The win–win narrative was used frequently throughout interviews at Research Site No. 1 in the term cobenefits. This term was used intentionally in communication with partners to ensure a tailored understanding of the value of their participation in the CSSP. It was recognized that for-profit stakeholders will be motivated by different factors than those in the nonprofit or government sectors. However, communication was tailored to each audience to highlight the overlap of motivations between stakeholders in order to foster collective action.

Highlighting Individual Sector Failure

Pointing out the systematic failure of individual sectors to solve the social issue on their own also emerged as a substantive code. In doing so, leaders were able to better justify the value of a cross-sector initiative such as the CSSP, as a viable way to solve the social/environmental issues they were attempting to address. In the case of Research Sites Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7, there was explicit mention of the failure of local, provincial, federal, or international governments to adequately regulate the emissions of atmospheric carbon. In speaking with those associated with Research Sites Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7, there was an assumption among interviewees that the Canadian Federal Government did not have the desire or the ability to affect change related to environmental issues.

Prognostic Framing

Prognostic framing relates to activities that attempt to create cognitive frames among others regarding the solution to a problem. This type of framing is predicated on some agreement that a problem exists and creates a shared understanding between individuals (Benford & Snow, 2000). Among other prognostic framing activities, CCSOs that were convening the CSSP advocated for a cross-sector, collaborative approach to solving their social or environmental issue. The following substantive codes emerged related to this conceptual category:

Highlighting the Need for Collaboration

Emphasizing the need for collaboration as a code was explicitly discussed by interviewees in four of the research sites. As a mode of interacting, all of the CSSPs in this research acted collaboratively, but framing the solution for the social or environmental issue in terms of collaboration was more important at Research Sites Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 7. The need for collaboration can be illustrated by thinking in terms of its counterpoint approach, the use of combative tactics against government or corporations. As an example, a partner associated with Research Site No. 3 is a landfill company. During participant observation, the landfill partner was described as an “advanced member” of the partnership, receiving accolades for their progress in “lighting and appliance retrofits.” In contrast to the 25,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions released annually by this partner, these reductions may seem minimal, but the CCSO carefully framed the narrative to celebrate these achievements and encourage the partner’s continued participation and progressive change. “Framing the need for collaboration” speaks to narratives by leaders that emphasize embracing stakeholders who have traditionally been seen as negatively contributing toward the social or environmental issue.

Highlighting the Transfer of Associational Value

Associational value refers to the tangible or intangible benefits afforded to organizations through the association with other organizations (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012a). If an organization has a positive image in the community, engaging that organization in the CSSP may afford the convening organization and other participant organizations some associational value. Two of the research sites explicitly framed the value that was created for partners through their association with the CSSP and the credibility this offered. On signing a large reputable educational institution into the partnership, employees from the CCSO at Research Site No. 3 immediately reengaged with other potential partners highlighting the fact that this well-regarded institution was now involved in the CSSP. This framing activity occurred directly and indirectly across all of the research sites.

Highlighting the Shared Ownership of the Social/Environmental Issue

Ownership of the social or environmental problem emerged as a substantive code at each of the research sites. CCSOs highlighted for potential stakeholder partners the shared ownership of the social or environmental issues. This theme was used to motivate partnership participation and became apparent in two ways. The first way relates to narratives highlighting the importance of assigning ownership of tasks to CSSP members to ensure their active participation. The second relates to the need for “all of us” to take ownership of the social or environmental issue, rather than “someone else.” As an example of the former, employees of the CCSO at Research Site No. 1 use rhetoric such as “this is your thing,” and “we’re happy to support you,” in communication with partners. These framing activities implied that empowering members to take ownership of the programs led to an increase in their active participation in the CSSP.

Development of a Core Category: Mobilizing Leadership

Through this interpretative process, a central construct was identified that unified the theoretical codes and categories produced in the analysis. At the highest level of theoretical abstraction, the findings inform our understanding that the identification of political opportunity, the creation of mobilizing structures, and the engagement in framing activities, are actions that are undertaken by CCSOs in the formation of CSSPs. The intentional leadership activities described above are associated with a core code, or common category under which all substantive codes are associated, which we describe as “mobilizing leadership.” In the final section, we will consider the implications of conceptualizing leadership in the formation of CSSPs as the fostering of social movements for future research and practice in sustainable cities.

Discussion

In the introduction of the article, we drew on Crosby and Bryson’s (2010) definition of integrative leadership as a starting point for this research. Their construct allows for a conceptualization of leadership in the context of CSSPs that create societal value. As a framework, it offers descriptive guidance to scholars related to leadership at all chronological stages of CSSPs and attempts to theoretically encapsulate these partnerships, both with and without, convening organizations. Because of its breadth, the framework provided by integrative leadership was not able to offer adequate theoretical insight for interpreting the substantive codes identified in our data analysis. The findings from this research build on this construct to more fully develop our understanding of the intentional leadership activities of CCSOs that catalyze the formation of CSSPs.

The political process model from social movement theory was used in the data analysis process to help elaborate what was identified at the research sites in relation to existing constructs. In doing so, we were able to use this literature to help develop a theoretically informed empirical contribution of leadership at the formation stages of CSSPs. By mobilizing stakeholders to work together toward a common goal, social movement theory scholars describe a process of creating collective action. Collective action is a precursor state of a social movement prior to the achievement of their collective goal (McAdam, 1982). This is theoretically useful when attempting to conceptualize the core code observed in this study, because the intentional leadership activities of the CCSOs were focused on mobilizing stakeholder participation—or collective action of stakeholders—in the CSSP. Based on this extant literature, as well as the categorization of the substantive codes uncovered in this study, “mobilizing leadership” may be defined as intentional activities undertaken by individuals or organizations that foster collective action, spanning sector boundaries, to solve complex social issues. Further, we suggest that by approaching regional sustainability initiatives as a social movement, mobilizing leadership has the potential to extend the cosmopolitan view toward building a biosphere consciousness, enabling the development of local multisector interactions in response to global issues of sustainability.

Research Limitations and Future Research Opportunities

Rifkin (2009) describes how cosmopolitanism can be understood as a fledgling form of biosphere consciousness. However, he points out the interesting contradiction that, although cosmopolitanism encourages us to consider the connections between each other as citizens of the world, those with a cosmopolitan attitude whose “multiple identities and affiliations span the planet” (p. 432) often leave behind the largest “entropic footprint” (p. 432) on earth. Our findings suggest that future research on mobilizing leadership in regional sustainability initiatives may help embed the cosmopolitan attitude in an ecosystems view of the planet by extending cosmopolitan connections to “planetary boundaries” (Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015). This extension of the findings would contribute a leadership dimension to research that is already connecting cosmopolitanism to planetary boundaries (Alcaraz-Barriga, Tirado, & Nicolopoulou, 2015) and responds to the call for more organizational research on managing within planetary boundaries (Whiteman, Walker, & Perego, 2013).

The goal of interpretive research is “to describe and understand members’ meanings and the implications that divergent meanings hold for social interaction” (Gephart, 2004, p.457); interpretive research is not designed to be replicable or generalizable, and so the particular findings of this study are limited to the actors at these sites. The value of interpretive research is to offer potential insight by viewing a phenomenon through justifiably relevant theoretical frames, and then to follow that insight into different but analogous contexts, or what Tsoukas (1993) called “abstract analogical reasoning.” The insights generated here regarding mobilizing leadership can be applied to the role of cities in building the integral commons. In this study, we focused on “regional” initiatives, that is, those operating within geographic boundaries encompassing one to three medium-sized cities. Cities play a vital role in meeting sustainability challenges, and have emerged as a dominant organizing ground for humanity: “cities represent a level of governance sufficiently local to demand pragmatism and efficiency in problem solving, but sufficiently networked to be able to fashion cooperative solutions to the interdependent challenges they face” (Barber, 2013, p. 102). Even beyond serving as an effective collaborative space, more recent trends demonstrate that cities are assuming the role of social movement actors—provocateurs of change via heterogeneous collectives—due largely to a misalignment of intentions at various government levels. Municipal governments focused on sustainability are asserting political autonomy in the face of less progressive efforts at federal levels, in both social and environmental spheres, and their efforts are framed in broadly humanistic and biospheric ethics, rather than in narrow parochial arguments. Socially, “sanctuary cities” provide safer space to undocumented immigrants or those deemed to be persecuted in their home land by adopting policies to limit local law enforcement cooperation with federal deportation efforts (Graber & Marquez, 2016). Environmentally, city mayors have staked their intention to work in opposition to federal efforts to dismantle environmental regulation, and to continue to pursue global decarbonization goals. In June of 2017, the U.S. Federal Government announced intention to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord. The response from the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group (a 10-year old collective representing 80 of the world’s largest metropolitan areas), the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy (7,449 cities), and the Mayors National Climate Action Agenda in the United States (85 cities) was to declare their intention to continue to meet the Paris goals. A collective movement tagged “We Are Still In,” which gathers over 1,200 U.S. mayors, governors, college and university leaders, business leaders and investors, launched within 1 week of the announcement with an open letter to the international community declaring the same. Clearly, cities are adopting positions as social movement actors, and are exhibiting intentional leadership in convening stakeholders to affect policy and action. The elements of social movement theory we have enfolded into our data interpretation are, therefore, especially relevant in light of this evolution of the role of cities in advancing global sustainability, and point to areas of potentially fruitful research. Several research questions flow from this perspective; for example: How do leaders in multisector collaborations (e.g., between city and state governments, academia, business, and civil society) identify and create political opportunity and interorganizational mobilizing structures to advance sustainability initiatives? What role does diagnostic and prognostic framing play in dynamically catalyzing those opportunities or structures? When and where is such framing grounded in humanistic (valuing all people) and biospheric (recognition of human embeddedness in the biosphere) terms, and does that matter? What happens when bottom-up activism with local legitimacy meets top-down policy with counterintent? How do such multisector movements scale out, up, and deep (Moore, Riddell, & Vocisano, 2015), where scaling out means expanding across jurisdictions, scaling up refers to collectively influencing affecting policy, and scaling deep means affecting culture and engaging people? Viewing multisectoral sustainability work through a social movement lens resonates strongly with current events, and opens rich opportunity for new insights on the leadership required to make these initiatives successful. Building on the understanding of how convening organizations in regional sustainability initiatives engage in mobilizing leadership to catalyze collaboration will help move us toward building the integral commons of stakeholder interests that global sustainability requires.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada’s Insight Program supported this research.

Author Biographies

Kevin McDermott, PhD, is assistant professor of Business and Technology Management and Wilfrid Laurier University in Brantford, ON, Canada. His research is currently focused on resource mobilization in social entrepreneurial ventures.

Elizabeth C. Kurucz, PhD, is associate professor of Leadership and Organizational Management in the College of Business and Economics at the University of Guelph. Her work has been published in outlets such as the Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Cleaner Production, Management Learning, Business & Society and in The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. She is the author, with Barry Colbert and David Wheeler, of Reconstructing Value: Leadership Skills for a Sustainable World (2013) from the University of Toronto Press.

Barry A. Colbert, PhD, is associate professor, policy, at the Lazaridis School of Business & Economics at Wilfrid Laurier University, and director of The Co-operators Centre for Business & Sustainability. His work has appeared in publications such as The Sage Handbook of Complexity in Management, Journal of Cleaner Production, and Academy of Management Review.

References

Adler

P. A.

Adler

(1987). The past and the future of ethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 16, 4-24.

Alberti

Susskind

(1996). Managing urban sustainability: An introduction to the special issue. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16, 213-221.

Alcaraz-Barriga

Tirado

Nicolopoulou

(2015). (Thick) cosmopolitanism and planetary boundaries: Addressing corporate responsibility in the anthropocene. Paper presented at the Canberra Conference on Earth System Governance, Canberra, Australia.

Austin

J. E.

(2000). The collaboration challenge: How nonprofits and businesses succeed through strategic alliances. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Austin

J. E.

Seitanidi

M. M.

(2102a). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses: Part 1. Value creation spectrum and collaboration stages. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 726-758.

Austin

Seitanidi

M. M.

(2102b). Collaborative value creation: A review of partnering between nonprofits and businesses: Part 2. Partnership processes and outcomes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, 929-968.

Barber

(2013). If mayors ruled the world: Dysfunctional nations, rising cities. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Benford

R. D.

(1997). An insider’s critique of the social movement framing perspective. Sociological Inquiry, 67(4), 409-430.

Benford

R. D.

Snow

D. A.

(2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611-639.

10.

Brown

L. D.

(1991). Bridging organizations and sustainable development. Human Relations, 44, 807-831.

11.

Bryson

J. M.

Crosby

B. C.

Stone

M. M.

(2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 44-55.

12.

Buechler

S. M.

(2000). Social movements in advanced capitalism: The political economy and cultural construction of social activism. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

13.

Charmaz

(2014), Constructing grounded theory. London, England: Sage.

14.

Chetkovich

Kunreuther

(2006). From the ground up: Grassroots organizations making social change. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

15.

Clarke

Fuller

(2010). Collaborative strategic management: Strategy formulation and implementation by multi-organizational cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 85-101.

16.

Connelly

D. R

. (2007). Leadership in the collaborative interorganizational domain. International Journal of Public Administration, 30, 1231-1262.

17.

Corbin

Strauss

(1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 3-21.

18.

Coutard

Rutherford

(2011). The rise of post-network cities in Europe? Recombining infrastructural, ecological and urban transformation in low carbon transitions, In Bulkeley

Broto

V. C.

Hodson

Marvin

(Eds.), Cities and low carbon transition (pp. 107-125). Abingdon, England: Routledge.

19.

Creswell

(1994). Research design: Quantitative and qualitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Crosby

B. C.

Bryson

J. M.

(2010). Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 211-230.

21.

Davis

F. G.

McAdam

Scott

R. A.

Zald

M. N.

(2005). Social movements and organizational theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

22.

Day

D. V.

(2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11, 581-613.

23.

della Porta

Diani

. (1999). Social movements: An introduction. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

24.

Dewulf

Gray

Putnam

Lewicki

Aarts

Bouwen

van Woerkum

(2009). Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: A metaparadigmatic perspective. Human Relations, 62, 155-193.

25.

Dobson

(2006). Thick cosmopolitanism. Political Studies, 84, 165-184.

26.

Drath

(2001). The deep blue sea: Rethinking the source of leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

27.

Gephart

(2004). Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy of Management, 47, 454-462.

28.

Glaser

(1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

29.

Glaser

Strauss

(1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

30.

Graber

Marquez

(2016). Searching for sanctuary: An analysis of America’s counties & their voluntary assistance with deportations (Report from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center). Retrieved from https://www.ilrc.org/searching-sanctuary

31.

Granovetter

M. S.

(1992). Problems of explanation in economic sociology. In Nohria

Eccles

(Eds.), Networks and organizations: Structure, form and action (pp. 25-56). Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

32.

Grant

(2007). The green marketing manifesto. Chichester, England: Wiley.

33.

Gray

(1985). Conditions facilitating interorganizational collaboration. Human Relations, 38, 911-936.

34.

Gray

(1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for multiparty problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

35.

Heuer

(2011). Ecosystem cross-sector collaboration: Conceptualizing an adaptive approach to sustainability governance. Business, Strategy & the Environment, 20, 211-221.

36.

Hodson

Marvin

(2010). World cities and climate change: Producing urban ecological security. Milton Keynes, England: Open University Press.

37.

Hoffman

M. J.

(2011). Climate governance at the crossroads: Experimenting with a global response after Kyoto. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

38.

Huberman

A. M.

Miles

(1994). Data management and analysis. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428-444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

39.

Huxam

Vangen

(2000). Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: How things happen in a (not quite) joined up world. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 1159-1175.

40.

King

(2008). A social movement perspective of stakeholder collective action and influence. Business & Society, 47, 21-49.

41.

King

B. G.

Soule

S. A.

(2007). Social movements as extra-institutional entrepreneurs: The effect of protests on stock price returns. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52, 413-442.

42.

Kolk

van Dolen

Vock

(2010). Trickle effects of cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 122-137.

43.

Kurucz

Colbert

Lüdeke-Freund

Upward

Willard

(2017). Relational leadership for sustainability: Practices and capabilities to advance strategic sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140(Pt. 1), 189-204.

44.

Kurucz

Colbert

Marcus

(2014). Sustainability as a provocation to rethink management education: Building a progressive educative practice. Management Learning, 45, 437-457.

45.

Kurucz

Colbert

Wheeler

(2008). The business case for corporate social responsibility. In Crane

McWilliams

Matten

Moon

Seigel

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook on corporate social responsibility (pp. 83-112). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

46.

Lang

D. J.

Wiek

Bergmann

Stauffacher

Martens

Moll

. . . Thomas

C. J.

(2012). Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustainability Science, 7(Suppl. 1), 25-43.

47.

Le Ber

M. J.

Branzei

. (2010). (Re)forming strategic cross-sector partnerships. Business & Society, 49, 140-172.

48.

Lichterman

(1995). The search for political community: American activists reinventing commitment. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

49.

Mauser

Klepper

Rice

Schmalzbauer

Hackmann

Leemans

Moore

(2013). Transdisciplinary global change research: The co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5, 420-431.

50.

McAdam

(1982). Political process and the development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

51.

McAdam

McCarthy

J. D.

Zald

M N.

(Eds.). (1996). Comparative perspectives on social movements. Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

52.

McAdam

Scott

W. R.

(2005). Organizations and movements. In Davis

G. F.

McAdam

Scott

W. R.

Zald

M. N.

(Eds.). Social movements and organization theory (pp. 4-40). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

53.

Moore

M.-L.

Riddell

Vocisano

(2015). Scaling out, scaling up, scaling deep. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 58, 67-84.

54.

Murrell

(1997). Relational models of leadership for the next century not-for-profit organization manager. Organization Development Journal, 15(3), 35-42.

55.

Nahapiet

Ghoshal

(1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 242-266.

56.

Nicholson

Kurucz

E. C.

(2019). Relational leadership for sustainability: Building an ethical framework from the moral theory of “ethics of care”. Journal of Business Ethics, 156, 25-43.

57.

Ospina

S. M.

Saz-Carranza

(2010). Paradox and collaboration in network management. Administration & Society, 42, 404-440.

58.

Page

(2010). Integrative leadership for collaborative governance: Civic engagement in Seattle. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 246-263.

59.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

60.

Pearce

W. B.

Cronen

V. E.

(1980). Communication, action and meaning. New York: Praeger.

61.

Pless

N. M.

(2007). Understanding responsible leadership: Roles identity and motivational drivers. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 437-456.

62.

Pless

N. M.

Maak

(2011). Responsible leadership: Pathways to the future. Journal of Business Ethics, 98, 3-13.

63.

Rifkin

(2009). The empathic civilization: The race to global consciousness in a world in crisis. New York, NY: Penguin.

64.

Rifkin

(2014). The zero marginal cost society: The Internet of Things, the collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. New York, NY: Palgrave.

65.

Rockström

Steffen

Noone

Persson

Stuart Chapin

III Lambin

E. F.

. . . Foley

(2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472-475.

66.

Scholsberg

(2002). Environmental justice and the new pluralism. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

67.

Seitanidi

M. M.

(2008). Adaptive responsibilities: Nonlinear interactions in cross sector social partnerships. Emergence, Complexity and Organization, 10(3), 51-64.

68.

Seitanidi

M. M.

Crane

(Eds.). (2014). Social partnerships and responsible business: A research handbook. New York, NY: Routledge.

69.

Seitanidi

M. M.

Koufopoulos

D. N.

Palmer

(2010). Partnership formation for change: Indicators for transformative potential in cross sector social partnership. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 139-161.

70.

Seitanidi

M. M.

Lindgreen

(2010). Cross-sector social interactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(Suppl. 1), 1-7.

71.

Selsky

Parker

(2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31, 849-873.

72.

Sharma

Vredenburg

Westley

(1994). Strategic bridging: A role for the multinational corporation in Third World development. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 30, 458-476.

73.

Skribis

Woodward

(2013). Cosmopolitanism: Uses of the idea. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

74.

Steffen

Richardson

Rockström

Cornell

S. E.

Fetzer

Bennett

E. M.

. . . Sörlin

(2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347, 736-746.

75.

Stokes

Hewitt

(1976). Aligning actions. American Sociological Review, 41(5), 838-849.

76.

Symon

Cassell

(2012). Qualitative organizational research: Core methods and current challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

77.

Taylor

(1995). Ecological resistance movements. Albany: SUNY Press.

78.

Tsoukas

(1993). Analogical reasoning and knowledge generation in organization theory. Organization Studies, 14, 323-339.

79.

Uhl-Bien

(2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly, 17, 654-676.

80.

Uhl-Bien

Ospina

(2012). Advancing relational leadership research. Charlotte, NC: Information.

81.

van Kerkhoff

. (2014). Developing integrative research for sustainability science through a complexity principles-based approach. Sustainability Science, 9, 143-155.

82.

Waddock

(1989). Understanding social partnerships: An evolutionary model of partnership organizations. Administration & Society, 21, 78-100.

83.

Waddock

, (2009). Pragmatic visionaries: Difference makers as social entrepreneurs. Organizational Dynamics, 38, 281-289.

84.

Westley

Vredenburg

(1997). Interorganizational collaboration and the preservation of global biodiversity. Organization Science, 8, 381-403.

85.

Whiteman

Walker

Perego

(2013). Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. Journal of Management Studies, 50, 307-336.

86.

Zald

M. N.

McCarthy

J. D.

(2002). The resource mobilization research program: Progress, challenge, and transformation. In Berger

Zelditch Jr.

(Eds.), New directions in contemporary sociological theory (pp. 147-171). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.

87.

Zeemering

E. S.

(2014). Collaborative strategies for sustainable cities. New York, NY: Routledge.