Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Configuration and Development of Alliance Portfolios: A Comparison of Same-Sector and Cross-Sector Partnerships

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

Abstract

Management of different types of partnerships plays a decisive role in company performance. Complex business ventures, such as those created to serve low-income populations, usually include both cross- and same-sector partnerships. However, the initial diversity featured in these alliance portfolios diminishes as companies take their ventures up to scale. This article develops theoretical propositions about the evolution and configuration patterns of portfolios that include both cross- and same-sector partnerships. Two longitudinal case studies serve to illustrate the theoretical framework developed for alliance portfolios that include both types of partnerships. Companies that create such portfolios adopt partnership strategies that follow paths also identified in the evolution of portfolios only made up of partnerships with other private firms: i.e., an evolution from adapting to shaping and exploiting strategies.

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
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. While these authors—and a good portion of the literature—use the term “alliances,” in this article we will use “partnerships" instead. We will only keep the term when referring to “alliance portfolios.”

  2. The adjective “heterogeneous” denotes differences in sector (i.e., for-profit and non-profit) among the organizations that participate in an alliance portfolio. Of course, same-sector partnerships and portfolios do include organizations that differ in important dimensions—size, industry, market positioning, among others. Even recognizing the relevance of those differences, portfolios that only include for-profit partners will be called “homogeneous” in this paper.

  3. Complementors may be defined as partners whose outputs or functions increase the value of the company's own innovations. (Munksgaard and Freytag 2011).

  4. Strategic fit is related to the congruence of strategies and objectives between partners. The organizational design of a partnership that includes control mechanisms, conflict handling and exit barriers, is at the basis of structural fit. And cultural fit refers to the fit between partners’ values, openness, and risk orientation (Swoboda et al. 2011).

References

  • Anderson, J., & Markides, C. (2007). Strategic innovation at the base of the economic pyramid. MIT Sloan Management Review, 49(1), 83–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansoff, I. (1965). Corporate strategy: An analytical approach to business policy of growth and expansion. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. E. (2000). Strategic collaboration between nonprofits and businesses. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29(1), 69–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. E., Reficco, E., & SEKN. (2004). Social partnering in Latin America: Lessons drawn from collaborations of businesses and civil society organizations. Boston: Inter-American Development Bank, David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Austin, J. E., Stevenson, H., & Wei-Skillern, J. (2006). Social entrepreneurship and commercial entrepreneurship: Same, different or both? Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 30(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger, I. E., Cunningham, P. H., & Drumwright, M. E. (2004). Social alliances: Company/nonprofit collaboration. California Management Review, 47(1), 58–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, P. N., & Chatterji, A. K. (2009). Scaling social entrepreneurial impact. California Management Review, 51(3), 114–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruni Celli, J., González, R. A., & Lozano, G. (2010). Market initiatives of large companies serving low-income sectors. In P. Márquez, E. Reficco, & G. Berger (Eds.), Socially inclusive business: Engaging the poor through market initiatives in Iberoamerica (pp. 27–62). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budinch, V., Reott, K. M., & Schmidt, S. (2007). Hybrid value chains: social innovations and development of the small farmer irrigation market in Mexico. In K. Rangan, J. Quelch, G. Herrero, & B. Barton (Eds.), Business solutions for the global poor: Creating social and economic value. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, T., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2008). Information and structural holes: Comment on Reagans and Zuckerman. Industrial and Corporate Change, 17(5), 953–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, A., & Fuller, M. (2010). Collaborative strategic management: strategy formulation and implementation by multi-organizational cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 85–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Soto, H. (2000). The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the west and fails everywhere else. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doz, Y., & Hamel, G. (1999). Alliance advantage: the art of creating value through partnering. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drazin, R., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1985). Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 514–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, H. D., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of inter-organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4), 660–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    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(2), 136–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gephart, R. P. (2004). Qualitative research and the academy of management journal. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 454–462. 

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (1998). Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 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 

  • Gulati, R., Nohria, N., & Zaheer, A. (2000). Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal, 21(5), 203–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez, R., Trujillo, D. M., & Lobo, I. D. (2004). Multiparty alliance development in Colombian cases. In J. E. Austin, E. Reficco, & SEKN (Eds.), Social partnering in Latin America: Lessons drawn from collaborations of businesses and civil society organizations (pp. 184–201). Boston: Inter-American Development Bank, David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hagedoorn, J., & Osborn, R. N. (1997). The institutionalisation and evolutionary dynamics of interorganizational alliances and networks. Academy of Management Journal, 40(2), 261–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hart, S., & London, T. (2005). Developing native capability: What multinational corporations can learn from the base of the pyramid. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 3, 28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, W. H. (2005). How to manage a portfolio of alliances. Long Range Planning, 38(2), 121–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, W. H. (2007). Strategies for managing a portfolio of alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 827–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, W. H., & Schaper-Rinkel, W. (2001). Acquire or ally? A strategy framework for deciding between acquisition and collaboration. Management International Review, 41(2), 131–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, W. H., & Schlosser, R. (2001). Success factors of strategic alliances in small and medium-sized enterprises—an empirical survey. Long Range Planning, 34, 357–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karnani, A. (2007). The mirage of marketing to the bottom of the pyramid. California Management Review, 49(4), 90–111.

    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 

  • Lavie, D. (2007). Alliance portfolios and firm performance: A study of value creation and appropriation in the U.S. software industry. Strategic Management Journal, 28, 1187–1212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T. W. (1999). Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • London, T. (2007). Improving the lives of the poor? Assessing the impacts of base-of-the-pyramid ventures. Michigan: William Davidson Institute/Stephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • London, T., Anupindi, R., & Sheth, S. (2010). Creating mutual value: Lessons learned from ventures serving base of the pyramid producers. Journal of Business Research, 63, 582–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • London, T., & Hart, S. L. (2004). Reinventing strategies for emerging markets: Beyond the transnational model. Journal of International Business Studies, 35, 350–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • London, T., & Hart, S. L. (2010). Next generation business strategies for the base of the pyramid: New approaches for building mutual value. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: FT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mair, J., & Marti, I. (2009). Entrepreneurship in and around institutional voids: A case study from Bangladesh. Journal of Business Venturing, 24(5), 419–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Márquez, P., Reficco, E., & Berger, G. (2010). Socially inclusive business: Engaging the poor through market initiatives in Iberoamerica. Boston: Inter-American Development Bank and David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies, Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Márquez, P., & Rufin, C. (2011). Private utilities and poverty alleviation: Market initiatives at the base of the pyramid. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Millar, C. C. J. M., Choi, C. J., & Chen, S. (2004). Global strategic partnerships between MNEs and NGOs: Drivers of change and ethical issues. Business and Society Review, 109(4), 395–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (1981). Toward a new contingency approach: The search for organizational gestalts. Journal of Management Studies, 18(1), 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, A., Dacin, P., & Dacin, M. (2012). Collective social entrepreneurship: Collaboratively shaping social good. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 375–388. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1501-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munksgaard, K. B., & Freytag, P. V. (2011). Complementor involvement in product development. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 26(4), 286–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozcan, P., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (2009). Origin of portfolios: Entrepreneurial firms and strategic action. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 246–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkhe, A. (1993). Strategic alliance structuring: A game theoretic and transaction cost examination of interfirm cooperation. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 794–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. (1998). Learning from collaboration: Knowledge and networks in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. California Management Review, 41, 228–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K. (2005). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid: Eradicating poverty through profits. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hammond, A. (2002). Serving the world’s poor, profitably. Harvard Business Review, 80(9), 48–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Hart, S. L. (2002). The fortune at the bottom of the pyramid. Strategy + Business, 26, 54–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reficco, E., & Márquez, P. (2012). Inclusive networks for building BOP markets. Business and Society, 51(3), 512–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reficco, E., & Vernis, A. (2010). Engaging organizational ecosystems in inclusive business. In P. Márquez, E. Reficco, & G. Berger (Eds.), Socially inclusive business: Engaging the poor through market initiatives in Iberoamerica (pp. 111–152). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    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(3), 201–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T., Behrens, D., & Krackhardt, D. (2000). Redundant governance structures: An analysis of structural and relational embeddedness in the steel and semiconductor industries. Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rufín, C., & Rivera-Santos, M. (2008). Global village vs. small town: Understanding networks at the base of the pyramid. Unpublished paper.

  • Schirmer, H. (2013). Partnership steering wheels. Journal of Corporate Citizenship, 23–46.

  • Schmutzler, J., Gutiérrez, R., Reficco, E., & Márquez, P. (2013). Survival and demise of alliances within a portfolio to develop an inclusive business. In M. Seitanidi & A. Crane (Eds.), Social partnerships and responsible business. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seitanidi, M. M., & Crane, A. (2009). Implementing CSR through partnerships: Understanding the selection, design and institutionalisation of nonprofit-business partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 413–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seitanidi, M. M., & Lindgreen, A. (2010). Cross sector social interactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seitanidi, M. M., & Lindgreen, A. (2011). Editorial: Cross-sector social interactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(S1), 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seitanidi, M. M., & Ryan, A. M. (2007). A critical review of forms of corporate community involvement: From philanthropy to partnerships. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 12, 247–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Simanis, E. (2011). The margin myth: Why low margins sink businesses at the bottom of the pyramid, Working paper, Cornell University, Center for Sustainable Global Enterprise.

  • Simanis, E., & Hart, S. L. (2008). Beyond selling to the poor: Building business intimacy through embedded innovation. Ithaca, NY: Working Paper, Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simanis, E., & Hart, S. L. (2009). Innovation from the inside out. Sloan Management Review, 50, 77–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swoboda, B., Meierer, M., Foscht, T., & Morschett, D. (2011). International SME alliances: The impact of alliance building and configurational fit on success. Long Range Planning, 44, 271–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wassmer, U. (2010). Alliance portfolios: A review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 36(1), 141–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiser, J., Kahane, M., Rochlin, S., & Landis, J. (2006). Untapped: Creating value in underserved markets. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wernerfelt, B., & Karnani, A. (1987). Competitive strategy under uncertainty. Strategic Management Journal, 8(2), 187–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, O. E. (1991). Comparative economic organization: The analysis of discrete structural alternatives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(June), 269–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia

    Roberto Gutiérrez & Ezequiel Reficco

  2. University of San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA

    Patricia Márquez

Authors
  1. Roberto Gutiérrez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patricia Márquez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ezequiel Reficco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Patricia Márquez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gutiérrez, R., Márquez, P. & Reficco, E. Configuration and Development of Alliance Portfolios: A Comparison of Same-Sector and Cross-Sector Partnerships. J Bus Ethics 135, 55–69 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2729-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2729-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation