Integrating Agile Methodologies and Behavioural Tactics for Knowledge Transfer in Responsible Organizations

Abstract submitted to the Paper Presentation Sessions of the 36th IABS Annual Conference in Maastricht, The Netherlands, April 2025

Keywords: knowledge transfer, knowledge loss, responsible business, ESG standards, conceptual framework

Introduction

In the era of the knowledge economy, employee’s knowledge has become a key competitive advantage (Grant, 1991). Knowledge transfer (KT), which involves targeted knowledge retrieved from the source, and directed and transferred onto the recipient/s (Levy, 2011), is critical in the modern knowledge economy. Organizations face increasing challenges associated with the loss of knowledge (KL), defined as the failure to retain or transfer valuable organizational knowledge between employees (Beazley et al., 2002). This is especially problematic when key employees leave the organization, taking with them tacit knowledge and specialized expertise that is not captured or documented(Jasimuddin et al., 2011; Liebowitz, 2018). Although KL has predominantly been viewed in the literature in light of retiring employees, it presents a significant challenge in general when it comes to knowledge transfer in organizations (DeLong, 2004). KL can result from several factors, including the inability to capture knowledge at the organizational level, the failure to convert individual knowledge into organizational knowledge, and the challenges associated with maintaining up-to-date knowledge management systems (Massingham, 2008).

The rise of responsible business practices, particularly in the context of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting, has added an additional layer of complexity to the knowledge transfer process (Friede et al., 2015). Many large organizations, especially in Europe, are required to report on their ESG impact, and the knowledge needed to do so often resides in silos within specialized departments. This fragmentation of knowledge poses a significant challenge to the integration of responsible business practices across the organization, limiting the potential for systemic change and long-term sustainability (Eccles et al., 2014). These issues are compounded by the need for organizations to transfer knowledge beyond initial formal training to ensure that employees are equipped to respond to new and emerging business challenges. This is important, as the effect of these learning modes is estimated to account for 75% of the learning that occurs in contemporary organizations (Noe et al., 2014). In the words of Ford et al. (2018, p. 20):

“The challenge ahead is to confront the unknown by studying transfer in new and more contemporary ways that provide useful insights for the benefit of those who actively design and execute training initiatives.”

As a contemporary approach originating from the software development industry, agile is defined as a set of iterative and flexible practices that promote continuous improvement and learning, has the potential to accelerate the KT process by embedding knowledge-sharing behaviours into the daily operations of the organization (Beck et al., 2001). Agile principles have successfully been implemented in human resources and project management. At the same time, a less researched effect of agile methods is the stimulation of behavioural tactics, such as habit formation and motivational reinforcement, suitable for promoting long-term behavioural change (Gardner & Rebar, 2019) and ensuring that knowledge-sharing becomes an automatic part of the organizational culture (Lally et al., 2013). By integrating these two approaches, this research explores the potential use of agile methodologies and behavioural tactics as complementary strategies for enhancing KT in responsible organizations. The purpose is to create a framework for continuous learning and knowledge transfer that aligns with their broader ESG and sustainability goals. This framework will be applicable to all businesses experiencing knowledge loss, regardless of their industry or extent of adoption of sustainability practices.

Research Questions

Linked to the identified gaps in the literature, this research is guided by the following research questions:

• Research Question 1: Which contemporary agile methodologies can be integrated in a guiding framework for improving knowledge transfer in organizations by forming habits, particularly in the context of responsible business practices?
• Research Questions 2: How do agile practices, such as iterative learning and feedback loops, impact the effectiveness of knowledge transfer and reduce knowledge loss in responsible organizations?

To answer the research questions, this paper will adopt a conceptual approach, detailed in the following section.

Methods

This conceptual paper aims at conceptual integration across multiple theoretical perspectives (Jaakkola, 2020). The methodology employs a systematic approach to integrating agile methodologies, behavioural tactics, and responsible business practices to enhance knowledge transfer in organizations. The methodology is divided into three stages: (1) review and synthesis of existing literature, (2) development of the conceptual framework, and (3) identification of synergies and propositions for future research.

1. Literature Review and Synthesis

The first step involves conducting a comprehensive review of existing literature across three domains: agile methodologies, behavioral science, and responsible business practices. This stage aims to:

• Identify core principles, techniques, and practices associated with agile frameworks such as Scrum, Kanban, and Lean, focusing on elements like iterative learning, feedback loops, and cross-functional teams (Cohen et al., 2004; Shore & Warden, 2021)
• Explore key behavioral theories relevant to knowledge transfer, including nudging, motivation enhancement, social proof, and goal-setting frameworks (Eyal, 2014; Lally et al., 2010)
• Review research on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) practices to understand how knowledge transfer aligns with ethical practices and sustainability goals (Gillan et al., 2021)

This review synthesizes findings from these domains to establish foundational knowledge for constructing the conceptual framework (Cornelissen, 2017). The primary sources include peer-reviewed journal articles, books, and case studies from the fields of organizational learning, management, and behavioural economics. The outcome is a clear understanding of how these fields intersect with knowledge transfer processes in organizations (Corley & Gioia, 2011; Cropanzano, 2009).

2. Development of the Conceptual Framework

In the second phase, insights from the literature are used to develop a conceptual framework that integrates agile methodologies which have the potential to lead to behavioural forming tactics, and responsible business frameworks. The framework illustrates the synergies between these components, highlighting how agile methodologies and behavioural tactics can enhance each other in the context of knowledge transfer. This conceptual framework emphasizes the dynamic interaction between these practices, rather than treating them as discrete elements, positioning knowledge transfer as central to organizational performance and responsible behaviour (Ford et al., 2011).

3. Identification of Synergies and Propositions

The final phase involves identifying key synergies between agile methodologies, behavioural tactics, and responsible business practices (Gilson & Goldberg, 2015). This paper formulates propositions that can guide future empirical research, such as:

• How agile feedback loops can enhance the effectiveness of behavioural nudges in fostering knowledge-sharing behaviours.
• The role of iterative learning in supporting the achievement of CSR goals through continuous improvement and knowledge dissemination.
• How motivation-enhancement techniques align with CSR-driven corporate culture to incentivize knowledge transfer across teams and stakeholders.

These propositions form the basis for future empirical testing and provide a roadmap for researchers to explore the practical applications of the conceptual framework. They also provide a roadmap for the implementation of the framework in responsible organizations and beyond.

Preliminary Results

While this study is ongoing, preliminary findings from the literature review and initial conversations with business representatives suggest that the integration of agile methodologies and behavioural tactics offers a promising approach to addressing the challenge of knowledge loss in responsible organizations. Agile practices, such as sprints, retrospectives, and cross-functional team collaboration, have been shown to create environments where knowledge is continuously shared and applied in real-time (Abrahamsson et al., 2001). This iterative approach to learning and problem-solving allows organizations to adapt quickly to changes in the business environment, while also embedding knowledge-sharing behaviours into their daily operations. At the same time, behavioural tactics such as habit formation and motivational reinforcement have been found to play a critical role in sustaining knowledge-sharing behaviours over the long term (van der Weiden et al., 2020). For example, nudging techniques—small environmental changes that prompt specific behaviours—have been used to encourage employees to contribute to knowledge repositories, participate in cross-functional teams, and share their expertise with colleagues (Hummel et al., 2017). Habit-forming techniques that emphasize consistency and the use of contextual cues have been shown to accelerate the development of automatic knowledge-sharing behaviours (Lally et al., 2010). One of the key challenges identified in the preliminary research is the need to align agile and behavioural tactics with the organization’s broader ESG and CSR goals. In some cases, knowledge related to ESG reporting and compliance is siloed within specific departments, limiting its impact on the organization (Babkin et al., 2023). However, organizations that have successfully integrated these tactics report that they have been able to break down these silos, ensuring that ESG knowledge is disseminated across the organization and incorporated into everyday business practices (Friede et al., 2015). Another preliminary finding is that agile and behavioural tactics can help bridge the intention-behaviour gap, a common challenge in knowledge transfer (Daghfous et al., 2013). While employees may intend to share knowledge, competing priorities and lack of motivation often prevent them from doing so.

Conclusion

The integration of agile methodologies and behavioural tactics provides a powerful framework for improving knowledge transfer in responsible organizations. By fostering continuous learning, creating feedback loops, and promoting habit formation, these approaches can help organizations mitigate knowledge loss and ensure that valuable knowledge is shared across the organization. As businesses increasingly integrate ESG and CSR goals into their operations, the need for effective knowledge transfer becomes even more critical. This research contributes to the growing body of literature on knowledge transfer and knowledge loss, offering practical insights for organizations seeking to enhance their knowledge-sharing capabilities. Future research is needed to explore the long-term impact of these integrated approaches on organizational performance, particularly in relation to ESG outcomes. Additionally, future studies should examine the specific challenges associated with implementing agile and behavioural tactics in diverse organizational contexts, with a focus on industries where knowledge loss poses a significant risk to business continuity and sustainability.

Acknowledgement

This research is performed within the framework of the Erasmus+ project 2024-1-BG01-KA220-ADU-000254766 “AGILE MIND SCRIBE”, funded by the European Union. However, the views and opinions expressed are entirely those of their author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the European Union or of the Center for the Development of Human Resources as granting authority. Nor is the European Union responsible for them, nor the granting authority. The project is coordinated by the School of Business Competences, Sofia, Bulgaria.

References

Abrahamsson, P., Salo, O., J. R. preprint (2017). Agile software development methods: Review and analysis. Arxiv.Org. https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.08439

Babkin, A., Shkarupeta, E., Tashenova, L., Malevskaia-Malevich, E., & Shchegoleva, T. (2023). Framework for assessing the sustainability of ESG performance in industrial cluster ecosystems in a circular economy. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JOITMC.2023.100071

Beazley, H., Boenisch, J., & Harden, D. (2002). Continuity management: preserving corporate knowledge and productivity when employees leave. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5c-qTkU-OmkC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=Beazley++et+al.,+2002&ots=G7KrdJ6X20&sig=wHPT7UdewX1_vukPHwLcWmsDA8k

Beck, K., Beedle, M., Bennekum, A. Van, & Cockburn, A. (2001). The agile manifesto. https://www.agilealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/agile-manifesto-download-2019.pdf

Cohen, D., Lindvall, M., Comput., P. C.-Adv. (2004). An introduction to agile methods. Books.Google.Com. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2458(03)62001-2

Corley, K., & Gioia, D. (2011). Building theory about theory building: What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 12–32. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0486

Cornelissen, J. (2017). Editor’s comments: Developing propositions, a process model, or a typology? Addressing the challenges of writing theory without a boilerplate. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0196

Cropanzano, R. (2009). Writing nonempirical articles for Journal of Management: General thoughts and suggestions. Journal of Management, 35(6), 1304–1311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206309344118

Daghfous, A., Belkhodja, O., & Angell, L. C. (2013). Understanding and managing knowledge loss. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-12-2012-0394

DeLong, D. (2004). Lost knowledge: Confronting the threat of an aging workforce. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7A8TDAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=DeLong+2004&ots=QNDF4TVRC9&sig=Iz7Asqqj2dklnsHgxlYd_xIoyZk

Eccles, R. G., Ioannou, I., & Serafeim, G. (2014). The impact of corporate sustainability on organizational processes and performance. Management Science, 60(11), 2835–2857. https://doi.org/10.1287/MNSC.2014.1984

Eyal, N. (2014). Hooked: How to build habit-forming products. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=dsz5AwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT6&dq=forming+habits&ots=KCFDlxwnVH&sig=mAQEzJj_uK6OyAEXibQ_CMNUCDM

Ford, J. K., Yelon, S. L., & Billington, A. Q. (2011). How much is transferred from training to the job? The 10% delusion as a catalyst for thinking about transfer. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 24(2), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/PIQ.20108

Friede, G., Busch, T., & A. B.-J. of sustainable finance, & 2015, undefined. (2015). ESG and financial performance: aggregated evidence from more than 2000 empirical studies. Taylor & Francis, 5(4), 210–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2015.1118917

Gardner, B., & Rebar, A. L. (2019). Habit Formation and Behavior Change. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1093/ACREFORE/9780190236557.013.129

Gillan, S., Koch, A., Finance, L. S.-J. of C., & 2021, undefined. (n.d.). Firms and social responsibility: A review of ESG and CSR research in corporate finance. Elsevier. Retrieved October 11, 2024, from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0929119921000092

Gilson, L. L., & Goldberg, C. B. (2015). Editors’ comment: So, what is a conceptual paper? Group & Organization Management, 40(2), 127–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601115576425

Hummel, D., Experimental, A. M.-J. of B. and, & 2019, undefined. (2017). How effective is nudging? A quantitative review on the effect sizes and limits of empirical nudging studies. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2019.03.005

Jaakkola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS Review, 10(1–2), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/S13162-020-00161-0

Jasimuddin, S. M., Connell, N., & Klein, J. H. (2011). Knowledge transfer frameworks: an extension incorporating knowledge repositories and knowledge administrationi sj_382 1..15. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00382.x

Lally, P., review, B. G.-H. psychology, & 2013, undefined. (2013). Promoting habit formation. Taylor & Francis, 7(SUPPL1), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2011.603640

Lally, P., Van Jaarsveld, C. H. M., Potts, H. W. W., & Wardle, J. (2010). How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world. Wiley Online Library, 40(6), 998–1009. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.674

Levy, M. (2011). Knowledge retention: Minimizing organizational business loss. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(4), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673271111151974/FULL/XML

Liebowitz, J. (2018). The quick basics of knowledge management. Knowledge Management in Public Health, 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315211091-1/QUICK-BASICS-KNOWLEDGE-MANAGEMENT-JAY-LIEBOWITZ

Noe, R. A., Clarke, A. D. M., & Klein, H. J. (2014). Learning in the Twenty-First-Century Workplace. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 245–275. https://doi.org/10.1146/ANNUREV-ORGPSYCH-031413-091321

Shore, J., & Warden, S. (2021). The art of agile development. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=kXZIEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=agile&ots=M2NjFuUu2i&sig=JGy3O9BUbxMCjMkS_-ccA4sMoNM

van der Weiden, A., Benjamins, J., Gillebaart, M., Ybema, J. F., & de Ridder, D. (2020). How to Form Good Habits? A Longitudinal Field Study on the Role of Self-Control in Habit Formation. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2020.00560/FULL

1. Introduction

In recent years, several scholars study what is called the ‘wicked sustainability problems’ pointing to the interdependencies between social actors and stressing that “cross-sector collaborations can co-create the knowledge and momentum that is needed” (Pedersen et al., 2021).

This realization has led to increased attention on the nature and benefits of interorganizational relationships (IORs) within and beyond the business sector. Collaborative relationships between large organizations and their stakeholders have emerged as an institutionalised tool to address sustainability challenges. Research suggests that firms are more likely to achieve business benefits from these collaborations when they go beyond simple philantropic cash donations, integrating expertise, access to strategic knowledge, and in-kind resources (Hess et al., 2002; Austin, 2000; Selsky & Parker, 2005).

Interorganizational relationships (IORs) - such as alliances, buyer-supplier relationships, and cross-sector partnerships - are built on the principles of collaboration, coordination, and cooperation. The authors argue that distinction among these terms remains unclear and are often used interchangeably in the literature (Castañer & Oliveira, 2020).

When it comes to small and medium enterprises (SME)[1], literature on sustainability driven collaboration is rather limited. Although social responsibility among SMEs have been a flourishing topic of discussion over the last twenty years (Soundararajan et al., 2018), knowledge on interorganizational relationships (IORs) among SMEs on CSR is fragmented. We know that voluntary collaboration on CSR among SMEs is known as one possible path to finding innovative solutions to the inherent SME resource constraints (Murillo & Lozano 2009; Fassin, 2008; Fuller & Tian 2006). There is also evidence that SMEs gain access to complementary resources via collaboration with various stakeholders at the community level (Courrent et al., 2018; Jenkins 2009; Torugsa et al. 2012 ; Von Weltzien Høivik & Shankar, 2011). Nevertheless, we lack in knowledge of the specific modalities and the types of collaborative relationships that SMEs put in place to work towards collectively agreed goals.

To counter the lack of knowledge on this topic, we propose to explore the process in which small firms collaborate with their peers within a CSR focused collaborative platform. This study is designed to answer the following research question: How cross-sector collaboration is organized among small firms? With this question in mind, we aim to explore the underlying dynamics of the formation and the collaborative processes among SMEs within a cross-sector partnership.

1. Literature Review

SMEs can pursue collaboration to address challenges related to their unique characteristics and resource limitations (Battaglia et al. 2010; Jenkins 2006, 2009; Lepoutre and Heene 2006; Murillo and Lozano 2009). This paper examines the role that collaboration in cross-sector partnerships plays for SMEs in the context of CSR. From the perspective of social capital theory, Spence, Schmidpeter, and Habisch (2003) argue that SMEs may collaborate and network to exchange relevant information. Spence, Jeurissen and Rootherfoord (2000) proposed ‘institutionalization of stakeholder cooperation’ as a specific ‘cooperation regime’ among small firms to promote pro-environmental behavior. Lepoutre and Heene (2006) recommend that SMEs seek collaboration to mitigate time and knowledge constraints and enhance absorptive capacity. The benefits of collaboration for SMEs include gaining external expertise, improving relations with local authorities, facilitating compliance, networking, and identifying future partners.

Studies have shown that inter-organizational collaboration can be an important driver for innovation performance (Powell et al., 1996; Radziwon & Bogers, 2019). However, SMEs might be reluctant to engage in collaborations for innovation because of their lack of time, financial resources and expertise and skills (Dubouloz et al., 2021). But paradoxically, as pointed out by Dubouloz et al. (2021), these same barriers also represent SMEs main drivers to collaborate. SMEs might also face a cultural barrier linked to the fear of opening up (which is seen as a risk) due to SME vulnerability (Dubouloz et al., 2021).

1. Methodology

To extend knowledge on collaborative mechanisms in the specific context of SMEs, we take a qualitative approach, using a single case study of a regional SME-driven CSR network in France. Since collaboration among SMEs on CSR is still a relatively underexplored topic, we were eager to study the solutions that SME owner managers deployed in order to work on their CSR strategy in a voluntary manner. The creation of an independent CSR platform called ‘CSR Occitanie’ (‘RSE Occitanie’ in French) gave us the perfect opportunity to explore various voluntary interactions and collaborations among SMEs.

3.1. Sample

‘CSR Occitanie’ network was launched in 2020. Its ambition is to connect organizations committed to CSR in the Occitanie Region, France. The collaborative platform gathers organizations that are already committed to CSR and thus the sample of organizations allows direct access to organizations that strive to implement CSR. 65 organizations from different sectors have joined the network to advance their CSR (as of September 2024).

The network is a private membership initiative, based on three pillars:

1) An on-line directory of organizations displaying their labels and best practices;

2) Listing of members’ job offers;

3) A group of premium members with privileged access to workshops, conferences and working groups (face to face and on-line). Recordings and presentation materials are available at the on-line depository to these members after the events. Timeline and key themes are described in the Figure 1 in Appendix.

It is the latter group of 23 premium members (Table 1 in Appendix) that we were most interested in as their membership status allowed for continuous direct interaction and collaboration during the organized face to face and on-line meetings.

3.2. Data Collection and Interview Protocol

Our key informants were the premium members of ‘CSR Occitanie’ network (owner-managers, managers, consultants and the founders of the network). In parallel, we also interviewed external CSR experts who were active in the CSR arena locally.

Semi-structured interviews with 21 premium members and 2 founders were conducted (25h in total). To facilitate the interviews, an interviewer guide focused on the following key themes: general information about the interviewee and the organization, CSR, innovation that spurs from CSR, collaboration on CSR, participation in ‘CSR Occitanie’ network (eg, motivation to join the network, the ways it is used, how much time is allocated etc.), regional support on CSR, and future of CSR and future of growth.

Direct participatory observations were done on a regular basis, as we were involved in targeted meetings and programs proposed to the “CSR Occitanie” premium members (55 hours in total between September 2020 and September 2024). Figure 1 in appendix serves as a timeline to show key dates and themes since the creation of the network. Secondary data was gathered to achieve triangulation.

3.3.Coding and Analysis

We applied qualitative, iterative, and abductive content analysis approach (Gioia et al., 2013). Our reasoning is abductive as we went back and forth between literature and our empirical outcomes, resulting in multiple interactions between theories and “CSR Occitanie” network.

Interviews were recorded and transcribed, then coded using MaxQDA software following a content analysis method (Miles and Huberman, 1994). In this process we started working on the data structure (Gioia et al., 2013), identifying first order, second order and aggregate dimensions of what we have discovered. Findings were triangulated with secondary data (meeting notes, field notes, deliverables from the collective work sessions, members’ communication materials).

1. Preliminary Findings

In this section we will share the initial findings from this ongoing study that describe the underlying motivation and the ways in which SMEs engage in collaborative work.

We have identified several reasons why SMEs decide to join a voluntary CSR network – 1) to make their CSR engagement visible by other market players and thus attract new clients. That is achieved by having their firm logo and their best practices or labels posted on the network’s website and using networking opportunities; 2) to improve awareness, knowledge and skills on CSR, including new or upcoming regulation on CSR and thus accelerate decision making while working on their CSR strategy (eg, which label to choose or perhaps adopt a purpose driven company status instead of a label); 3) to learn from best practice of others to get fresh ideas; 4) to improve their brand image and promote their involvement in a community of committed actors, thus attracting talents (recruitment challenges are mentioned often by the members and CSR is collectively seen as a solution, especially after Covid-19); 6) to post their job openings; 5) to escape the sense of isolation and to create social links and social proximity and reassurance in the face of growing uncertainty in the market.

Formation

The platform was launched in October 2020 by a consultant and trainer on CSR and an owner-manager of a small communications agency in the Occitanie Region in France. Both created a specific economic status "Economic Interest Group", which is a legal entity in France where companies come together to pool resources without merging their identities or creating a new firm. Occitanie Region subsidized the creation of this entity. Local economic actors (eg, local chamber of commerce) showed great interest and helped to relay information on the newly created platform. The founders attracted participants from their respective networks of clients and partners. SMEs often spread the word by word of mouth about the new platform. Flexibility on the level of participation is important (financial regarding membership fees, timewise regarding number of meetings, openness regarding information shared). This freedom of choice is crucial given members’ limited resources, conflicting goals, and tensions.

Technical network

One of the key values that SMEs obtain in joining a CSR network is the up to date, high quality CSR specific information (future legal requirements, best practice, and newest trends in CSR). Knowledge transfers take place in a safe space with like-minded local market players that seek to innovate on CSR. They are willing to share their experience in an open manner. Their similarities (geography, size, values) and differences (sector, clients, suppliers) guarantee that knowledge exchange is both relevant and diverse. The founders’ ambition is to develop additional services and to form partnerships with relevant CSR related services: a carbon assessment & consultancy agency; CSR management tools; CSR auto-evaluation tool and CSR training on diverse topics that correspond to the needs of members.

“It's a community of actors, and it's a technical network. The exchange among members is essential, creating a community of people who share human and professional values. It's also a technical network where best practice, workshops, and crucial information is shared by all, allowing us to build a highly specialized and relevant CSR professional culture. Personally, I gain a lot from it, even though it also enhances my firm’s legitimacy.” (Informant #1)

Authenticity

Another key reason to join the network is the quest for authenticity. Members are driven by a common value-based desire to work on a ‘true’ CSR versus ‘greenwashing’. The collective provides members with a feeling of security in the face of uncertainty (emotional factor) and their investment of resources on CSR is being validated by seeing that other local market players are also investing financial and human resources to advance the ‘true’ CSR (financial factor) without immediate regulatory enforcement or certain return on investment (ROI). In this sense, exchanges among members are perceived as a possibility to discuss CSR as risk management and long-term investment strategies.

Trust

Trust is another central theme as expressed by the collective members: trust to ensure open exchanges; trust regarding founders to build pertinent program & activities and finally building trust among regional actors. Decision to join the collective is made based on the trust regarding founders or on peer recommendation. In the absence of formal framework agreement, trust is crucial to provide basis for this collaborative space. New business partnerships are established between members based on the shared values and their collective effort on CSR.

“It’s about having a network of trust in which they can improve their skills. And obviously potentially find business with actors who have the same values as them.” (Informant #3)

Membership

Organizations with CSR orientation can become members (self-declared best practice or labelling certification is required upon subscription). Three types of members exist: basic; premium and partners. Basic members have their logo and best practices published on the website. Premium members in addition to the basic level, have access to thematic workshops, seminars and working groups. Partners have all the previously mentioned benefits but more visibility. Several members are granted free access to the network based on their in-kind services or specific knowledge that they can add to the agenda or based on a very close relationship with the founders.

Content

Challenges that the founders face while coordinating members’ work are linked to the strategy that the network has adopted – it is conceived for firms that have some basic CSR engagement in place. This positioning excludes those who are about to start their CSR journey. On the other hand, those who are advanced with their CSR strategy struggle to get pertinent support that correspond exactly to their needs at that specific moment, depending on their sector.

Interactions

Active members agree that the most enjoyable part of being a member of the network are the human interactions when face-to-face meetings take place. They enjoy speaking ‘the same language’ and by sharing their current business challenges, often freely sharing their advice on the approach to be taken or a supplier to choose (or not to choose). The degree of openness during those exchanges is very high and most members express their satisfaction in being able to advance the global sustainability agenda collectively as they believe that it serves a common purpose. Those face-to-face meetings serve as collective intelligence sessions on CSR and this format is rewarding as SME owner managers learn a lot, in a short period of time and social ties are enforced.

Lack of time

There is a sense of not participating enough in networks. Members seek a life-work balance where participation in networks would not come at a cost of that balance. Lack of time is the most frequent challenge mentioned by members:

“We have difficulties getting fully involved in networks because we let ourselves be overwhelmed by our daily tasks. We are unable to take the necessary time to become substantially involved in professional networks…we don't do it enough. We have very full days...if it's for a meeting in the evening at 6pm...we have our lives on the side.” (Informant #2)

Lack of time is also a challenge for the founders of the CSR network because their stable income is generated by their respective firms that they both are running on a daily basis and not from the membership fees of the network. Thus, they are constantly balancing their time investment dedicated to the network. The network has a good reputation, and it is sometimes frustrating to the founders not to be able to ensure the quality and quantity of activities that they would aspire to.

Space

Lastly, we can observe that members have access to three types of collaborative spaces: 1) interactions with members during their face-to-face or virtual meetings; 2) access to the digital resources depending on their membership type (basic members access only the public facing website with members information; premium members have access to a dedicated members space with all previous meeting reports and resources); 3) access and interactions that are organized at the natural site of the platform (a garden) with the aim to place participants in a natural environment in order to enhance their creativity and curiosity around environmental issues.

Goals

Each participant of the platform, including founders, have their specific goals and agenda in mind at specific stages while participating in the collaborative process. We would like to further explore the distinct stages of collaboration, cooperation and coordination keeping in mind the ‘the temporal stage and the type of goal’ as proposed by Castañer & Oliveira (2020).

1. Contributions

Our findings expand the current literature on SME collaboration by revealing some additional insights on how SMEs participate in cross-sector partnerships. We propose to look at the collaboration process from the following angles: formation, technical network, authenticity, trust, membership, content, interactions, lack of time, space and goals.

Face-to-face meetings serve as collective intelligence sessions on CSR and this format is rewarding as SME owner managers can learn in an accelerated speed, the learnings are tailored to the size and geography of the firm and social ties are enforced. Discussing collectively their CSR implementation tensions and conflicting goals, help them adopt coping mechanisms to those tensions. This also helps them combat feelings of isolation amid uncertainty and growing CSR pressures in the market. The network serves as a hub for CSR topics and guidance.

We would like to further explore the distinct stages of collaboration, cooperation and coordination keeping in mind the ‘the temporal stage and the type of goal’ as proposed by Castañer & Oliveira (2020).

We encourage local authorities and policy makers to create collaborative spaces among SMEs based on geographical and social proximity and relying on values and trust among members.

[1] The broad EU definition of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) include firms with fewer than 250 employees. This definition does not apply globally and may vary depending on other national or regional criteria. In Europe ‘SME’ seems to be largely recognized, but in the United States, for example, ‘small business’ is preferred. By SMEs we also refer to micro enterprises, having less than 10 employees.

Grassroots activists play a critical role in holding corporations accountable for irresponsible business practices, particularly in contexts where local communities experience harm first-hand. Existing scholarship highlights how activists use framing processes to mobilize social pressure, often leveraging transnational advocacy networks in so-called 'boomerang' models of corporate responsibilization. However, these pathways may not apply to corporations insulated from social judgment due to their strategic national importance or ties to powerful actor constellations. In this paper, we address the theoretical and empirical gap regarding how grassroots activism can succeed in pressuring firms that are shielded from external scrutiny. Through an in-depth case study of the Letpadaung copper mine in Myanmar—a joint venture between the Chinese state-owned conglomerate Norinco and Myanmar's military—we examine how activists challenged the corporate behavior of a firm embedded in a socially insulated setting. Our findings reveal a novel responsibilization pathway, the 'slingshot' model, whereby activists bypassed the local subsidiary and its operations, targeting instead the reputational vulnerabilities of the ultimate owner. This model expands the current understanding of corporate responsibilization and offers practical insights for activists confronting firms operating in authoritarian or weak governance contexts.

This study examines the CSR engagements of firms managed by family CEOs. Drawing upon the social network approach to the utility of connections, we propose the non-market connections as facilitators for the family CEO – CSR engagement linkages. Speicfically, the non-market connections are categorized into pipes or prisms, based on what those connections provide. For empirical testing, we collected a unique dataset from Thailand, one of the family-capitalist countries. The results support all proposed hypotheses. This paper provides theoretical and practical implications about the roles of family CEOs and non-market connections with respect to CSR engagements in emerging economies.

Abstract

Purpose

Two issues have been identified in measuring social impact in the value chain: (a) trade-offs between data accessibility and qualitative data characteristics (e.g., accuracy, relevance), and (b) shared accountability for digital data. This study investigates their interconnectedness to (1) identify tensions between social impact measurement and accountability conditions, and (2) examine how these tensions align with the qualitative data characteristics in accounting. The main objective is to develop a framework for identifying the tensions between impact measurement practices and accountability conditions for social impact in the downstream value chain.

Design/methodology/approach

To ensure grounding in practitioners’ experiences with social accounting, a Participatory Action Research was conducted in an IT company. Multiple sources (document and literature review, interviews, focus groups, and a survey) were analysed inductively to identify tensions in social impact measurement. The tensions were investigated using the IFRS conceptual framework and the five conditions of accountability.

Findings

Five categories of tensions were identified that hinder accurate measurement of the technologies’ social impacts. Using the IFRS conceptual framework and the five conditions of accountability, we show that these tensions relate to trade-offs between qualitative data characteristics and can lead to incomplete accountability of the IT company for its social impact in the downstream value chain.

Originality/value

The originality of this study lies in demonstrating how the challenges of measuring the social impact of digital technology are linked to the conditions under which IT companies can be held accountable for their own activities and those of their customers.