Co-production of knowledge, co-creation of shared value and networks for sustainable development R.A.H.J. Clemens March 2015
In this article sustainable development planning in a crowded world is considered a dead-end street without deep-rooted valuation and appreciation of knowledge and values of others resulting in new knowledge that leads to honest collaboration. Co-production of knowledge and the co-creation of shared value in networks and partnerships embody the inclusive, joint problem-solving approaches promoted for sustainable development. Collective leadership and availability of space for emerging initiatives to meet and gain strength is a necessary condition to build capacities inherent to sustainable development and its governance. It is argued that in Mexico, both need and opportunity are there to build an innovative thematic network on sustainable development.
knowledge integration is commonly termed
Values and knowledge
“Joint Knowledge Production” (Offermans Sustainable development planning
& Glasbergen 2015), but here we refer to it
requires the linking of stakeholders with
as the co-production of knowledge as a
sometimes very different worldviews in
way to align it to the concept of co-creation
networks / partnerships. This way they
of values. The main message is the added
have the potential to function as boundary
value of doing it together.
organizations that bring together different Knowledge is the starting point of a vision
domains of society (state, market and civil
and an important ingredient of planning.
society) to produce knowledge and link it
But it is quite a challenge to value
to action. Although knowledge from these
knowledge from another domain as
actors differs in nature, an integration of
equally important as our own and this
different knowledge types is believed to
seriously complicates the possibility of
create unique benefits for vision building
results being more than de sum of its
and decision making. This process of 1
elements. Knowledge has to be valued in
from the market and civil society
order to make it an instrument for further
(Glasbergen, 2007, p. 1). Discussing
knowledge and usable as guidance for
partnerships thus brings us to the heart of
action.
the debate on public and private responsibilities, their relationships and
With the involvement of stakeholders in
even the possibility to unite them as a new
networks and partnerships, scientific
management strategy for sustainable
knowledge is increasingly faced with
development within the liberal democratic
competition from other knowledge
order. […] The development of
providers. Jointly producing knowledge is
partnerships for sustainable development
an important way of creating the shared
is a process in which actors from various
values that ultimately weigh knowledge as
sectors of society (state, market and civil)
being important or not.
restructure and build new social relationships to create a more sustainable management practices. […] In the relevant
Governance and management
literature we recognize three perspectives
practice
on this issue. From the first, partnerships are studied as single collaborative
The conditions in which knowledge
arrangements. From the second
emerges are fundamental for its use. And
perspective, attention is turned to the
especially in more limited conditions it is
external effects of partnerships. The third
maybe even more important to build
perspective takes a broader view on the
mechanisms that can lead us to
governance system. Attention is focused
knowledge that otherwise might not
on the changes that partnerships make in
emerge in the first place and therefore not
the configuration of public decision-making
become part of any management practice
structures. […] These perspectives are
at all. Instead of a strong state to govern
connected in a Ladder of Partnership
sustainability issues, we need to face the
Activity (see fig. 1), a conceptual device
opportunities of a strong society, which is
that allows us to better understand and
at least partly based on private initiatives
analyse partnerships (Glasbergen 2011).
2
Figure 1: The ladder of partnership activity. Source: Glasbergen 2011
Conceptualizing partnerships as a suit of
Shared knowledge and shared values
instruments in sustainability governance
For too long, business and society have
(McAllister & Taylor 2015), they become
been put in competition with each other
fundamental for vision building and long-
and this has complicated the joint
term planning of policies and action. In
production of knowledge and the use of
recent decades we have witnessed a shift
the shared results. Without shared values
in the manner of orientating social change,
it is at least unlikely to happen, and even if
away from the autonomy of the three
it does, it probably will be ineffective. The
domains (state, market, civil society)
concept of shared value resets the
towards their interdependencies. It is now
boundaries of capitalism. That is in part
believed that public choices have to be
because economists have legitimized the
made in a multi-actor context, in which
idea that to provide societal benefits,
private actors and civil society need to,
companies must temper their economic
and are able to, take responsibility for
success. […] By better connecting
public issues as well. Networks have
companies’ success with societal
become fundamental new agents for this.
improvement, it opens up many ways to serve new needs, gain efficiency, create differentiation, and expand markets (Kramer, Mark R.; Porter 2011).
3
Development. These partnerships are
Networks and partnerships
voluntary strategic alliances on
A well-managed thematic network of
sustainability issues between actors from
stakeholders for sustainable development
different societal domains such as
with partnerships as important elements
government, business and/or civil society.
can play a fundamental role in a country
MUNPOP consists of international
such as Mexico in effectively using
research projects and a series of PhD
existing capacities and having new ones
projects.
emerge to increase competitiveness in development policies and science. Co-
Benefits of networks for their members
production of knowledge by the different
can vary for each one in scope and in
domains offers opportunities that we can
time. Both networks and partnership
already see reflected in existing
arrangements (that are network
partnerships in other places like the
organizations by themselves) are
Sustainable Food Lab and the Munpop
considered here as tools for deliberate
programme on partnerships based in the
societal change and can increase
Netherlands. The Sustainable Food Lab
significantly the possibilities for more
incubates partnership projects, sometimes
effective policies and management.
manages those projects, and always
Networks facilitate access to knowledge,
collects and shares learning. They are
information, experience, organisations and
focusing most of their attention on the
people and new links emerge especially
following three priorities: 1) Agriculture and
when functioning under system leadership.
Development; 2) Climate Change and
Having things emerge that formerly made
Sustainability Metrics; and 3) Sustainable
up no part of the vision might be one of the
Commodity Production. The mission of
main strength of networks and co-
Sustainable Food Lab is to accelerate
production. Sometimes you do not exactly
market-driven progress toward a
know where you are heading but you do
sustainable mainstream food system by
recognize it when you see it.
supporting diverse and influential leaders. MUNPOP is a joint research program on Partnerships for Sustainable
4
Emerging initiatives as drivers of change
inertia that were seen as intractable problems before, now can be perceived as
With an overall level of education and
opportunities for innovation and
technique that allows for easy connecting,
(structural) change. And organizational
one might think the most important
self-interest becomes re-contextualized,
conditions are fulfilled for new initiatives to
as people discover that their and their
emerge. And in fact it does help a lot, but
organization’s success depends on
for initiatives to build up into drivers of
creating well-being within the larger
change we should not try too much to set
systems of which they are a part (Senge et
the agenda. The mind and capacity of any
al. 2015).
person trying to plan too much from the beginning is most likely too limited and if
System leaders shift the conditions
one does try, this denies potential new
through which others (those who want to
options that didn’t exist (or one wasn’t
have a problem solved) can learn
aware of) when starting the planning from
collectively and take action. In 2004 a
a beforehand elaborated vision not
group of thirty leaders from business,
connected to the wider system.
NGOs, and government on three continents founded the Food Lab to
System leaders catalyse collective
accelerate sustainability in the mainstream
leadership by having the ability to see
food system. […] The complexity of the
reality through the eyes of people very
food system and the trade-offs that food
different from themselves. By this they
companies must make to reduce their
encourage other people to be more open
environmental impact are daunting. Food
as well. Indeed, one of their greatest
companies need good reputations
contributions can come from the strength
because much of the value of the
of their ignorance, which gives them
corporation lies in its brands. They want to
permission to ask obvious questions and
be associated with cleaning up waterways
to embody an openness and commitment
and improving the lives of small farmers.
to their own ongoing learning and growth
They also need a reliable supply of
that eventually infuse larger change efforts
ingredients, which requires abundant
(Senge et al. 2015). This way, polarized
water and healthy soils. They need the
situations and situations suffering from
approbation of global NGOs like Oxfam 5
and the World Wildlife Fund, and they
that can eventually cause change to be
have learned to benefit from the technical
self-sustaining. They need distinctive
expertise of field staff from these groups.
powers to create space for change (Senge
Food companies need to collaborate with
et al. 2015). If system leadership results in
competitors in order to create common
collaborative project work it really can be
standards and measurement tools. To
transformative. Food Lab is an interesting
accomplish all of this, food companies and
example of knowledge co-production
NGOs need system leaders. […] Larry
resulting in action on the ground.
Pulliam, one of the founders of this Food Lab partnership is a conservative Republican from Houston, and before
Mexico
retirement he was one of the senior executives running a $40 billion company
In Mexico existing conditions could make
later said: It's pretty unusual that fierce
good use of the mentioned mechanisms
competitors can come together and work
and there seems to be good opportunity
for the higher good. That's what it's all
since co-production of knowledge for
about. The essence, the power, of the
example fits perfectly in thematic networks
Sustainable Food Lab is that we can do
as stimulated by Conacyt (the National
100 fold, 1,000 fold more together than we
Council of Science and Technology that
can.do by ourselves. What we're doing is
was established in 1970 as the Mexican
the right thing to do, the good thing to do-
government's advisory body in charge of
for the world. It’s also good for our
implementing public policies on behalf of
businesses. There's a competitive
the Federal Government, to promote
advantage for Sysco to be involved, but
scientific and technological research,
we can't fully realize that competitive
innovation and technological development)
advantage without working together with
has initiated thematic research networks.
others in this group to mainstream
The objective of the thematic research
sustainability (Hamilton 2015).
networks is to create multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional research groups
Often leaders try to make change happen,
addressing national development issues in
but system leaders focus on creating the
strategic themes, by linking academia, the
conditions that can produce change and 6
public sector, and civil society. The
When establishing a thematic network it is
networks aim at reverting the regional
suggested to study its partnering
asymmetries in the country. In 2010,
mechanism from the three perspectives
seven new thematic networks were
mentioned by Glasbergen in order to
created and 11 in 2011, adding to a total
ensure the multi-scale analysis required
of 31 networks. Each network has an
for vision building and strong feedback
allocated budget of €594,000 in 2010, the
mechanisms, to optimize the flow of
latest data available.
knowledge and guide management decisions.
The strategic themes being addressed are: water; genetics; complexity, science
Sustainable development is one of the
and society; physics and energy; energy
issues that can apply for support for the
sources; environment and sustainability;
formation of a thematic network. Co-
nanosciences and nanotechnology; new
production, co-creation and networks
trends in medicine; food, agriculture and
embody the inclusive, joint problem-
biotechnology; information technologies;
solving approaches promoted for
mathematic and computing modelling;
sustainable development. Establishing a
ecosystems; poverty and urban
thematic network for sustainable
development; condensed matters; aging,
development offering space and collective
health and social development; robotics
leadership for new initiatives to emerge
and mechatronics; natural disasters due to
and based on innovative mechanism that
climate change; etno-ecology and bio-
ensure the co-production of knowledge
cultural patrimony; space technologies and
and the co-creation of shared value, could
scientific research; as well as civil society
harness a lot of underutilized energy in the
and democracy (Source: ERAWATCH,
Mexican society for the common good for
Platform on Research and Innovation
now and later.
Policies from the European Union: http://erawatch.jrc.ec.europa.eu . Retrieved 16-03-2015).
7
References: Glasbergen, P., 2011. Understanding partnerships for sustainable development analytically: The ladder of partnership activity as a methodological tool. Environmental Policy and
Governance, 21, pp.1–13. Hamilton, H., 2015. Leading Systems. Stanford Social Innovation Review, (Winter), pp.1–9. Kramer, Mark R.; Porter, M.E., 2011. Creating Shared Value. Harvard business review, (Januari-februari). Available at: http://hbr.org/2011/01/the-big-idea-creating-sharedvalue. McAllister, R.R. & Taylor, B.M., 2015. Partnerships for sustainability governance: a synthesis of key themes. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 12, pp.86–90. Available at: http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.084921479096&partnerID=tZOtx3y1. Offermans, A. & Glasbergen, P., 2015. Boundary work in sustainability partnerships: An exploration of the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil. Environmental Science &
Policy, 50, pp.34–45. Available at: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1462901115000180. Senge, P., Hamilton, H. & Kania, J., 2015. The Dawn of System Leadership. Stanford Social
Innovation Review, Winter.
8