Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Innovation in Multistakeholder Settings: The Case of a Wicked Issue in Health Care

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

Abstract

In this article, we offer an approach of how participative stakeholder innovation can be evaluated in complex multistakeholder settings that address wicked issues. Based on the principle of mutual value creation, we present an evaluation framework that accounts for the social interaction process during which stakeholders integrate their resources and capabilities to develop innovative products and services. To assess this evaluation framework, we collected multiple data from the case study of the Swiss Cardiovascular Network, which represents a multistakeholder setting related to the prevention of cardiovascular disease. Our findings indicate that the evaluation dimensions of the stakeholders’ mindsets, the process and context of the stakeholder interactions, as well as the outcomes are useful concepts to account for a cooperative process of innovation in a multistakeholder setting. We discuss both the theoretical and practical insights of our analysis for participative stakeholder innovation.

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

Abbreviations

EHHC:

European Heart Health Charter

SCVN:

Swiss Cardiovascular Network

References

  • Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 543–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auster, E. R., & Freeman, R. E. (2013). Values and poetic organizations: Beyond value fit toward values through conversation. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benner, T., Reinicke, W. H., & Witte, J. M. (2004). Multisectoral networks in global governance: Towards a pluralistic system of accountability. Government and Opposition, 39, 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrone, P., Surroca, J., & Tribó, J. A. (2007). Corporate ethical identity as a determinant of firm performance: A test of the mediating role of stakeholder satisfaction. Journal of Business Ethics, 76, 35–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boutilier, R. (2009). Stakeholder politics. Stanford, CA: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brickson, S. L. (2005). Organizational identity orientation: Forging a link between organizational identity and organizations’ relations with stakeholders. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 576–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burchell, J., & Cook, J. (2013). Sleeping with the enemy? Strategic transformations in business–NGO relationships through stakeholder dialogue. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 505–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camillus, J. C. (2008, May). Strategy as a wicked problem. Harvard Business Review, 86(5), 98–106.

  • Christensen, C. M. (2008). The innovator’s prescription: A disruptive solution for health care. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    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 

  • Daboub, A. J., & Calton, J. M. (2002). Stakeholder learning dialogues: How to preserve ethical responsibility in networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 41, 85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahan, N. M., Doh, J., Oetzel, J., & Yazji, M. (2010). Corporate–NGO collaboration: Co-creating new business models for developing markets. Long Range Planning, 43, 326–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dew, N., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2007). Innovations, stakeholders & entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 267–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20, 65–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23, 660–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esteves, A. M., & Barclay, M.-A. (2011). New approaches to evaluating the performance of corporate–community partnerships: A case study from the minerals sector. Journal of Business Ethics, 103, 189–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Heart Network. (2007). European heart health charter. Retrieved January 15, 2015, from http://www.ehnheart.org/projects/euroheart/european-health-charter.html.

  • Fleuren, M., Wieffering, K., & Paulussen, T. (2004). Determinants of innovation within health care organizations. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 16(2), 107–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flick, U. (2006). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B. L., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge, CT: University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Friese, S. (2012). Qualitative data analysis with ATLAS.ti. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frooman, J. (2010). The issue network: Reshaping the stakeholder model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 27, 161–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garriga, E. (2009). Cooperation in stakeholder networks: Firm’s ‘Tertius Iungens’ role. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 623–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, G. (2007). Analyzing qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gottschalg, O., & Zollo, M. (2007). Interest alignment and competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 32, 418–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, B., & Stites, J. P. (2013). Sustainability through partnerships. Retrieved January 15, 2015, from http://nbs.net/wp-content/uploads/NBS-Systematic-Review-Partnerships.pdf.

  • Greenwood, M., & van Buren, H. J., I. I. I. (2010). Trust and stakeholder theory: Trustworthiness in the organisation–stakeholder relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 425–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R. (2007). Managing network resources: Alliances, affiliations and other relational assets. Oxford: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gulati, R., & Nickerson, J. A. (2008). Interorganizational trust, governance choice, and exchange performance. Organization Science, 19, 688–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A. K., & Govindarajan, V. (2002). Cultivating a global mindset. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 116–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J. S., & Wicks, A. C. (2013). Stakeholder theory, value, and firm performance. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23, 97–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hemmati, M. (2002). Multi-stakeholder processes for governance and sustainability: Beyond deadlock and conflict. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzlinger, R. E. (2006, May). Why innovation in health care is so hard. Harvard Business Review, 84(5), 58–66.

  • Huxham, C., & Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. New York: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackall, R. (1988). Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society, 1, 598–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M. (1995). Instrumental stakeholder theory: A synthesis of ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, 20, 404–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., & Felps, W. (2013). Shareholder wealth maximization and social welfare: A utilitarian critique. Business Ethics Quarterly, 23, 207–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., Felps, W., & Bigley, G. A. (2007). Ethical theory and stakeholder-related decisions: The role of stakeholder culture. Academy of Management Review, 32, 137–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24, 206–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kallis, G., Kiparksy, M., & Norgaard, R. (2009). Collaborative governance and adaptive management: Lessens from California’s CALFED water program. Environmental Science and Policy, 12, 631–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kochan, T. A., & Rubinstein, S. A. (2000). Toward a stakeholder theory of the firm: The Saturn partnership. Organization Science, 11, 367–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolk, A., & Lenfant, F. (2012). Business-NGO collaboration in a conflict setting: Partnership activities in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Business & Society, 51, 478–511.

  • Kolk, A., Van Dolen, W., & Vock, M. (2010). Trickle effects of cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 123–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuenkel, P., Gerlach, S., & Frieg, V. (2011). Working with stakeholder dialogues. Norderstedt: Collective Leadership Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kujala, J., Heikkinen, A., & Lehtimäki, H. (2012). Understanding the nature of stakeholder relationships: An empirical examination of a conflict situation. Journal of Business Ethics, 109, 53–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Ber, M. J., & Branzei, O. (2010). (Re)forming strategic cross-sector partnerships. Business and Society, 49, 140–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicki, R., Gray, B., & Elliott, M. (2003). Making sense of intractable environmental conflicts: Concepts and cases. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maak, T. (2007). Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement, and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics, 74, 329–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J. T. (2012). Towards a stakeholder theory of strategic management. Working paper No. 12-0100. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

  • Manring, S. L. (2007). Creating and managing interorganizational learning networks to achieve sustainable ecosystem management. Organization and Environment, 20, 325–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margerum, R. D. (2008). A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management. Environmental Management, 41, 487–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matten, D., & Crane, A. (2005). Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 30, 166–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melé, D. (2009). The practice of networking: An ethical approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 487–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mena, S., & Palazzo, G. (2012). Input and output legitimacy of multi-stakeholder initiatives. Business Ethics Quarterly, 22, 527–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millar, C. C. J. M., & Choi, C. J. (2009). Networks, social norms and knowledge sub-networks. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 565–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse, R. S. (2010). Bill Gibson and the art of leading across boundaries. Public Administration Review, 70, 434–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulgan, G. (2007). Social innovation. Basingstoke: Basingstoke Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neville, B. A., & Menguc, B. (2006). Stakeholder multiplicity: Toward an understanding of the interactions between stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 66, 377–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Purnell, L., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 403–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prins, S. (2010). From competition to collaboration: Critical challenges and dynamics in multiparty collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 46, 281–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. (1972). On the planning crisis: System analysis of the “First and Second Generations”. Bedriftsøkonomen, 8, 390–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roloff, J. (2008). Learning from multi-stakeholder networks: Issue-focused stakeholder management. Journal of Business Ethics, 82, 233–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowley, T. (1997). Moving beyond dyadic ties: A network theory of stakeholder influences. Academy of Management Review, 22, 887–910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, S., & Rühli, E. (2011). Stakeholders matter: A new paradigm for strategy in society. Cambridge, CT: University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, S., Groth, H., & Schmitt, R. (2010). The ‘stakeholder view’ approach: An untapped opportunity to manage corporate performance and wealth. Strategic Change, 19, 147–162.

  • Santana, A., Vaccaro, A., & Wood, D. J. (2009). Ethics and the networked business. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 661–681.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savage, G. T., Bunn, M. D., Gray, B., Xiao, Q., Wang, S., Wilson, E. J., & Williams, E. S. (2010). Stakeholder collaboration: Implications for stakeholder theory and practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 21–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scherer, A. G., & Palazzo, G. (2011). The new political role of business in a globalized world: A review of a new perspective on CSR and its implications for the firm, governance, and democracy. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 899–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, R. (2010). Dealing with wicked issues: Open strategizing and the camisea case. Journal of Business Ethics, 96, 11–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher, E. G., & Wasieleski, D. M. (2013). Institutionalizing ethical innovation in organizations: An integrated causal model of moral innovation decision processes. Journal of Business Ethics, 113, 15–37.

    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 

  • Selsky, J. W., & Parker, B. (2010). Platforms for cross-sector social partnerships: Prospective sensemaking devices for social benefit. Journal of Business Ethics, 94, 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M., Dow, M., & Neath, G. (2006). Learning together: New partnerships for new times. Corporate Governance, 6, 420–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, B., & Magaldi, J. A. (2010). Analyzing the politics of health care: Let’s buy ourselves some civilization. Journal of Business Ethics, 92, 33–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2010). Mismeasuring our lives: Why GDP doesn’t add up. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, P. D. (2006). Creativity through constraints: The psychology of breakthrough. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoll-Kleemann, S., & Welp, M. (Eds.). (2006). Stakeholder dialogues in natural resources management. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. E., & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1995). Effects of mindset on positive illusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 213–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todd, S. (2002). Building consensus on divisive issues: A case study of the Yukon wolf management team. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22, 655–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utting, P., & Zammit, A. (2009). United Nations-business partnerships: Good intentions and contradictory agendas. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 39–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaccaro, A., Santana, A., & Wood, D. (2009). Introduction to the special issue on the impact of network ethics on business practices. Journal of Business Ethics, 90, 441–446.

  • van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008–1022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Nurturing collaborative relations: Building trust in interorganizational collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39, 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science, 6, 280–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Werhane, P. H. (1999). Moral imagination and management decision making. Oxford: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werhane, P. H. (2008). Mental models, moral imagination and system thinking in the age of globalization. Journal of Business Ethics, 78, 463–474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D. J., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 139–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the detailed comments on previous versions of this article made by the special issue editors Stefano Brusoni and Antonino Vaccaro as well as the anonymous reviewer.

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. Department of Business Administration, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 14, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland

      Edwin Rühli & Sybille Sachs

    2. Institute for Strategic Management, University of Applied Sciences in Business Administration Zurich, Lagerstrasse 5, 8021, Zurich, Switzerland

      Sybille Sachs & Thomas Schneider

    3. Institute of Humanities and Social Sciences, School of Engineering, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Bahnhofstrasse 6, 5210, Windisch, Switzerland

      Ruth Schmitt

    4. Institute of Psychology, University of Bern, Fabrikstrasse 8, 3012 Bern, Switzerland

      Thomas Schneider

    Authors
    1. Edwin Rühli
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Sybille Sachs
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Ruth Schmitt
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    4. Thomas Schneider
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Sybille Sachs.

    Additional information

    All authors contributed equally to the manuscript.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Rühli, E., Sachs, S., Schmitt, R. et al. Innovation in Multistakeholder Settings: The Case of a Wicked Issue in Health Care. J Bus Ethics 143, 289–305 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2589-1

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2589-1

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation