Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Strategic Alliance Formation and Structural Configuration

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While previous research considering the emergence of strategic alliances has typically viewed their formation through a single theoretical lens, we suggest that multiple theoretical perspectives are needed to understand their complexity. This research conceptually integrates the resource-based view and institutional theory to assess variations in firm-level motivations to form strategic alliances. Applying these ideas to the context of complex environmental problems, we propose that strategic alliances typically are either competency- or legitimacy-oriented, and that four structural dimensions characterize both types of alliances—organization learning, partner diversity, governance structure, and partner relations. We present research propositions that describe how alliances differ along these dimensions, and offer an important broader perspective on alliance formation that is applicable towards understanding their strategic and social outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. To search for environmentally related alliances in Thomson’s Securities Data Corporation (SDC) database, we use two search elements: alliance venture economics and industry codes (VEIC) and alliance activity codes. These codes depict the business characteristics of the alliances, as well as their primary activities. Including both search items allowed for a wider collection of alliances related to energy, recycling, waste management and disposal, environmental services, manufacturing services, industrial maintenance services, consulting services, educational services, water utility services, exploration services, and marketing services. We then undertook a content analysis to validate that the alliance was related to a complex environmental problem.

References

  • Alchian, A. (1950). Uncertainty, evolution, and economic theory. Journal of Political Economy, 58(3), 211–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arya, B., & Salk, J. E. (2006). Cross-sector alliance learning and effectiveness of voluntary codes of corporate social responsibility. Business Ethics Quarterly, 16(2), 211–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P. (2005). Evolving sustainability: A longitudinal study of corporate sustainable development. Strategic Management Journal, 26, 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., & Roth K. (2000). Why companies go green: A model of ecological responsiveness. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17, 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barringer, B. R., & Harrison, J. S. (2000). Walking a tightrope: Creating value through interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 26, 367–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baum, J., & Oliver, C. (1991). Institutional linkages and organizational mortality. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 187–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blum-Kusterer, M., & Hussain, S. S. (2001). Innovation and corporate sustainability: An investigation into the process of change in the pharmaceuticals industry. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10(5), 300–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boddewyn, J. J., & Brewer, T. L. (1994). International-business political behavior: New theoretical directions. Academy of Management Review, 19, 119–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmin, J., Darnall, N., & Mil-Homens, J. (2003). Stakeholder involvement in the design of U.S. voluntary environmental programs: Does sponsorship matter? Policy Studies Journal, 31, 527–543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christmann, P. (2000). Effects of ‘best practices’ of environmental management on cost advantage: The role of complementary assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 663–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). A behavior theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dacin, M. T., Oliver, C., & Roy, J. (2007). The legitimacy of strategic alliances: An institutional perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 169–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darnall, N., & Edwards, D., Jr. (2006). Predicting the cost of environmental management system adoption: The role of capabilities, resources and ownership structure. Strategic Management Journal, 27, 301–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darnall, N., Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (2008). Do environmental management systems improving business performance in an international setting? Journal of International Management, 14, 364–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management, 26, 31–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, W., & Worrell, D. (2001). Regulatory pressure and environmental management infrastructure and practices. Business and Society, 40, 315–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M., & Montes-Sancho, M. J. (2010). Voluntary agreements to improve environmental quality: Symbolic and substantive cooperation. Strategic Management Journal, 31, 575–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delmas, M., & Toffel, M. W. (2004). Stakeholders and environmental management practices: An institutional framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13, 209–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhnanraj, C., Lyles, M. A., Steensma, H. K., & Tihanyi, L. (2004). Managing tacit and explicit knowledge transfer in JVs: The role of relational embeddedness and the impact on performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 428–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J. E., & Jackson, S. E. (1987). Categorizing strategic issues: Links to organizational action. Academy of Management Review, 12, 76–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996). Resource-based view of strategic alliance formation: Strategic and social effects in entrepreneurial firms. Organization Science, 7, 136–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzion, D. (2007). Research on organizations and the natural environment, 1992-present: A review. Journal of Management, 33(4), 637–664.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fineman, S., & Clarke, K. (1996). Green stakeholders: Industry interpretations and response. Journal of Management Studies, 33(6), 715–730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiol, C. M., & Lyles, M. A. (1985). Organizational learning. Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 803–816.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frynas, J. G., Mellahi, K., & Pigman, G. A. (2006). First mover advantages in international business and firm-specific political resources. Strategic Management Journal, 27(4), 321–345.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of society, 78(6), 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1991). The resource-based theory of competitive advantage. California Management Review, 33(3), 114–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M., & Baden-Fuller, C. (2004). A knowledge accessing theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 61–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1995a). Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 85–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1995b). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(4), 619–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19(4), 293–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1999). Network location and learning: The influence of network resources and firm capabilities on alliance formation. Strategic Management Journal, 20(5), 397–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J. (1993). Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Interorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences. Strategic Management Journal, 14(5), 371–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamel, G. (1991). Competition for competence and inter-partner learning within international strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue, 12, 83–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243–1248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. (1995). A natural-resource-based view of the firm. Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–1014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S. L., & Milstein, M. B. (1999). Global sustainability and the creative destruction of industries. Sloan Business Review, 41(1), 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henriques, I., & Sadorsky, P. (2006). The adoption of environmental management practices in a transition economy. Comparative Economic Studies, 48(4), 641–661.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertin, J., Berkhout, F., Gann, D. M., & Barlow, J. (2003). Climate change and the UK house building sector: perceptions, impacts and adaptive capacity. Building Research and Information, 31(3–4), 278–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, A. J. (1997). From heresy to dogma: An institutional history of corporate environmentalism. San Francisco: New Lexington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman A. (2000). Social drivers. Chap. 6: competitive environmental strategy: A guide to changing the business landscape (pp. 105–126). Washington, DC: Island Press.

  • Iyer K. (2002). Learning in strategic alliances: An evolutionary perspective. Academy of Marketing Science Review, 10, 1–14. http://www.amsreview.org/articles/iyer10-2002.pdf.

  • Kauppila, O. (2010). Creating ambidexterity by integrating and balancing structurally separate interorganizational partnerships. Strategic Organization, 8(4), 283–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, R. (1994). Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability. The problem of technological regime shifts. Futures, 26(10), 1023–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kent, D. J. (2004). Status and trends of the HPV program in the USA and Europe. Regulatory Affairs Bulletin, 94, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A., & Lenox, M. (2002). Exploring the locus of profitable pollution reduction. Management Science, 48(2), 289–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. (1988). Joint ventures: Theoretical and empirical perspectives. Strategic Management Journal, 9(4), 319–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kogut, B. (1991). Joint-venture formation and the option to expand and acquire. Management Science, 37, 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kok, R. A. W., & Creemers, P. A. (2008). Alliance governance and product innovation project decision making. European Journal of Innovation Management, 11(4), 472–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., & Levy, D. (2001). Winds of change: Corporate strategy, climate change and oil multinationals. European Management Journal, 19(5), 501–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostova, T., & Roth, K. (2002). Adoption of organizational practices by subsidiaries of multinational corporations: Institutional and relational effects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 215–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotabe, M., & Swan, K. S. (1995). The role of strategic alliances in high-technology new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 16(8), 621–636.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koza, M. P., & Lewin, A. Y. (1998). The co-evolution of strategic alliances. Organization Science, 9(3), 255–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson, A. L. (2000). Sustainable innovation through an entrepreneurship lens. Business Strategy and the Environment, 9(5), 304–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levinthal, D., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management Journal, Winter Special Issue, 14, 95–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, D., & Ferreira, M. P. (2008). Partner selection for international strategic alliances in emerging economies. Journal of Management, 24, 308–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, H. (2012). Cross-sector alliances for corporate social responsibility: Partner heterogeneity moderates environmental strategy outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 110, 219–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, Z., Yang, H., & Demirkan, I. (2007). The performance consequences of ambidexterity in strategic alliance formation. Management Science, 53(10), 1645–1658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linnarsson, H., & Werr, A. (2004). Overcoming the innovation–alliance paradox: A case study of an explorative alliance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 7(1), 45–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • London, T., Rondinelli D. A., & O’Neill H. (2005). Strange bedfellows: Alliances between corporations and nonprofits. In O. Shenkar & J. Reuer (Eds.) Handbook of strategic alliances. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

  • Maitland, I., Bryson, J., & Van De Ven, A. (1985). Sociologists, economists, and opportunism. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 59–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mani, M. & Wheeler, D. (1999). In search of pollution havens? Dirty industry in the world economy 1960–1995. In Fredriksson, P. G. (ed.) Trade, global policy and the environment. World Bank Discussion Paper, No. 402. Washington, DC: World Bank.

  • March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, P., & Campbell, K. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63, 482–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. (2002). The growing use of strategic alliances in the energy industry. Energy Law Journal, 27(1), 28–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauri, A. J., & Michaels, M. P. (1998). Firm and industry effects within strategic management: An empirical examination. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 211–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, W., & Singh, K. (1996). Survival of businesses using collaborative relationships to commercialize complex goods. Strategic Management Journal, 17(3), 169–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mowery, D. C., Oxley, J. E., & Silverman, B. S. (1996). Special issue: Knowledge and the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17, 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OIT. (2001). Office of industrial technologies energy efficiency and renewable energy, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. February, 2010. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/chemicals/pdfs/nylon.pdf.

  • Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16, 145–179.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, R. N., & Baughn, C. C. (1990). Forms of interorganizational governance for multinational alliances. Academy of Management Journal, 33(3), 503–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to 9 the rational choice theory of collective action. The American Political Science Review, 92(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C. B., Norgaard, R. B., & Policansky, D. (1999). Revisiting the commons: Local lessons global challenges. Science, 284(5412), 278–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, S. H., Chen, R., & Gallagher, S. (2002). Firm resources as moderators of the relationship between market growth and strategic alliances in semiconductor start-ups. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 527–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parmigiani, A., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2011). Clearing a path through the forest: A meta-review of interorganizational relationships. Journal of Management, 37, 1108–1136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E. (1991). America’s green strategy. Scientific American, 264, 168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. E., & van der Linde, C. (1995). Green and competitive. Harvard Business Review, 73(5), 120–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., Koput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganizational collaborations and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 116–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1992). Structuring cooperative relationships between organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 13(7), 483–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivera, J., & deLeon, P. (2004). Is greener whiter? The sustainable slopes program and the voluntary environmental performance of western ski areas. Policy Studies Journal, 32(3), 417–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivera, J., Oetzel, J., de Leon, P., & Starik, M. (2009). Business responses to environmental and social protection policies: Towards a framework for analysis. Policy Sciences, 42, 3–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rondinelli, D. A., & London, T. (2003). How corporations environmental groups cooperate: Assessing cross-sector alliances and collaborations. Academy of Management Executive, 17(1), 61–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 201–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource-based perspective on corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 40, 534–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakakibara, M. (1997). Heterogeneity of firm capabilities and cooperative research and development: An empirical examination of motives. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 143–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelsohn, D. (2009). Climate bill needed to ‘save our planet,’ says Obama, New York Times, February 25. http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/02/25/25climatewire-emissions-bill-needed-to-save-our-planet-oba-9849.html.

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • SDC Platinum. (2011). SDC Platinum TM database, Thomson Reuters. http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/financial/financial_products/a-z/sdc/.

  • Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: Challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31, 849–873.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2011). Platforms for cross-sector social partnerships: prospective sense making devices for social benefit. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharfman, M. P., Gray, B., & Yan, A. (1991). The context of interorganizational collaboration in the garment industry: an institutional perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 181–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S. (2000). Managerial interpretations and organizational context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 681–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S., & Henriques, I. (2005). Stakeholder influences on sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strategic Management Journal, 26(2), 159–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, S., & Vredenburg, H. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 729–753.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20, 936–960.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, D., Lefroy, K., & Tsarenko, Y. (2011). Together and apart: Exploring structure of the corporate–NPO relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 297–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teece, D. J. (1992). Competition, cooperation and innovation: Organizational arrangements for regimes of rapid technological progress. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 18(1), 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoshino, M. Y., & Rangan, U. S. (1995). Strategic alliances: An entrepreneurial approach to globalization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Environment, Enterprise and Development, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, EV1 231, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

    Haiying Lin

  2. School of Public Affairs, School of Sustainability, 411N. Central Ave. Suite 400, Phoenix, AZ, 85004-0687, USA

    Nicole Darnall

Authors
  1. Haiying Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicole Darnall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Haiying Lin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lin, H., Darnall, N. Strategic Alliance Formation and Structural Configuration. J Bus Ethics 127, 549–564 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2053-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2053-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation