IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/bstrat/v31y2022i5p2568-2587.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Managing tensions in sustainable development in Chinese and New Zealand business partnerships: Integrative approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Sitong (Michelle) Chen
  • Gabriel Eweje

Abstract

Existing research posits that there are tensions in addressing divergent sustainability issues which need to be managed and embraced by firms. However, if these tensions cannot be addressed adequately, it will not only have negative impacts on individuals' interests but also on the development of organisations and ultimately the prosperity of the society, ultimately resulting in unethical consequences. Hence, this paper empirically examines tensions in addressing divergent sustainability issues and how to manage them between Chinese and New Zealand firms in business partnerships. Guided by an interpretivist philosophy, this research adopts a qualitative and abductive approach as the preferred research method. In doing so, 33 in‐depth individual interviews alongside one informal group discussion were carried out at 16 relatively large Chinese and New Zealand firms known for their commitment to sustainability that are in business partnerships. Interestingly, we find that these companies are faced with complex and multiple sustainability tensions. In order to better manage these tensions, we found that these firms adopt integrative approaches with opening, surfacing, collaborative and synergistic strategies which can help these companies to enhance their organisational ambidexterity.

Suggested Citation

  • Sitong (Michelle) Chen & Gabriel Eweje, 2022. "Managing tensions in sustainable development in Chinese and New Zealand business partnerships: Integrative approaches," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(5), pages 2568-2587, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:31:y:2022:i:5:p:2568-2587
    DOI: 10.1002/bse.3044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3044
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/bse.3044?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Garima Sharma & Anand Kumar Jaiswal, 2018. "Unsustainability of Sustainability: Cognitive Frames and Tensions in Bottom of the Pyramid Projects," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(2), pages 291-307, March.
    2. Diether Gebert & Sabine Boerner & Eric Kearney, 2010. "Fostering Team Innovation: Why Is It Important to Combine Opposing Action Strategies?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(3), pages 593-608, June.
    3. Roland Somlai, 2022. "Integrating decision support tools into businesses for sustainable development: A paradoxical approach to address the food waste challenge," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1607-1622, May.
    4. Kirsti Iivonen, 2018. "Defensive Responses to Strategic Sustainability Paradoxes: Have Your Coke and Drink It Too!," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(2), pages 309-327, March.
    5. Herman I. Stål & Maria Bengtsson & Siarhei Manzhynski, 2022. "Cross‐sectoral collaboration in business model innovation for sustainable development: Tensions and compromises," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 445-463, January.
    6. Carolin Brix‐Asala & Stefan Seuring & Philipp C. Sauer & Axel Zehendner & Lara Schilling, 2021. "Resolving the base of the pyramid inclusion paradox through supplier development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 3208-3227, November.
    7. Tobias Hahn & Frank Figge & Jonatan Pinkse & Lutz Preuss, 2018. "A Paradox Perspective on Corporate Sustainability: Descriptive, Instrumental, and Normative Aspects," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(2), pages 235-248, March.
    8. Tamsin Angus‐Leppan & Suzanne Benn & Louise Young, 2010. "A sensemaking approach to trade‐offs and synergies between human and ecological elements of corporate sustainability," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 19(4), pages 230-244, May.
    9. Natalie Slawinski & Pratima Bansal, 2015. "Short on Time: Intertemporal Tensions in Business Sustainability," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 531-549, April.
    10. Tobias Hahn & Jonatan Pinkse & Lutz Preuss & Frank Figge, 2015. "Tensions in Corporate Sustainability: Towards an Integrative Framework," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 127(2), pages 297-316, March.
    11. Natalia Ortiz-de-Mandojana & Pratima Bansal, 2016. "The long-term benefits of organizational resilience through sustainable business practices," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(8), pages 1615-1631, August.
    12. Sebastian Raisch & Julian Birkinshaw & Gilbert Probst & Michael L. Tushman, 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 685-695, August.
    13. Philip H. Howard & Daniel Jaffee, 2013. "Tensions Between Firm Size and Sustainability Goals: Fair Trade Coffee in the United States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-18, January.
    14. Qing Cao & Eric Gedajlovic & Hongping Zhang, 2009. "Unpacking Organizational Ambidexterity: Dimensions, Contingencies, and Synergistic Effects," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 781-796, August.
    15. Andreas Georg Scherer & Guido Palazzo & David Seidl, 2013. "Managing Legitimacy in Complex and Heterogeneous Environments: Sustainable Development in a Globalized World," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 259-284, March.
    16. Tobias Hahn & Frank Figge, 2011. "Beyond the Bounded Instrumentality in Current Corporate Sustainability Research: Toward an Inclusive Notion of Profitability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 325-345, December.
    17. Constantine Andriopoulos & Marianne W. Lewis, 2009. "Exploitation-Exploration Tensions and Organizational Ambidexterity: Managing Paradoxes of Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(4), pages 696-717, August.
    18. Maria Vincenza Ciasullo & Raffaella Montera & Nicola Cucari & Francesco Polese, 2020. "How an international ambidexterity strategy can address the paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Evidence from Chinese emerging market multinationals," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(5), pages 2110-2129, July.
    19. Kim S. Cameron, 1986. "Effectiveness as Paradox: Consensus and Conflict in Conceptions of Organizational Effectiveness," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(5), pages 539-553, May.
    20. Mark G. Edwards, 2021. "The growth paradox, sustainable development, and business strategy," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(7), pages 3079-3094, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Teresa Riso & Carla Morrone, 2023. "To Align Technological Advancement and Ethical Conduct: An Analysis of the Relationship between Digital Technologies and Sustainable Decision-Making Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-21, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Simone Carmine & Valentina De Marchi, 2023. "Reviewing Paradox Theory in Corporate Sustainability Toward a Systems Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 184(1), pages 139-158, April.
    2. Maria Vincenza Ciasullo & Raffaella Montera & Nicola Cucari & Francesco Polese, 2020. "How an international ambidexterity strategy can address the paradox perspective on corporate sustainability: Evidence from Chinese emerging market multinationals," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(5), pages 2110-2129, July.
    3. Karen LaPierre & Naomi Wakayama & Toshiro Wakayama, 2016. "Creating Shared Value In The Presence Of Conflicts And Tradeoffs: A Paradox Perspective On Business And Society," Working Papers EMS_2016_11, Research Institute, International University of Japan.
    4. Al-Atwi, Amer Ali & Amankwah-Amoah, Joseph & Khan, Zaheer, 2021. "Micro-foundations of organizational design and sustainability: The mediating role of learning ambidexterity," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(1).
    5. Jeon, Euiju & Maula, Markku, 2022. "Progress toward understanding tensions in corporate venture capital: A systematic review," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 37(4).
    6. Tobias Hahn & Frank Figge & Jonatan Pinkse & Lutz Preuss, 2018. "A Paradox Perspective on Corporate Sustainability: Descriptive, Instrumental, and Normative Aspects," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(2), pages 235-248, March.
    7. Roland Somlai, 2022. "Integrating decision support tools into businesses for sustainable development: A paradoxical approach to address the food waste challenge," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1607-1622, May.
    8. Julia Benkert, 2021. "Reframing Business Sustainability Decision-Making with Value-Focussed Thinking," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 174(2), pages 441-456, November.
    9. Alessia Anzivino & Marta Galli & Roberta Sebastiani, 2021. "Addressing Tensions and Paradoxes in Sustainable Wine Industry: The Case of the Association “Le Donne Del Vino”," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-19, April.
    10. Enrico Fontana & Hyemi Shin & Chikako Oka & Jos Gamble, 2022. "Tensions in the strategic integration of corporate sustainability through global standards: Evidence from Japan and South Korea," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 875-891, March.
    11. Carolina Rojas-Córdova & Amanda J. Williamson & Julio A. Pertuze & Gustavo Calvo, 2023. "Why one strategy does not fit all: a systematic review on exploration–exploitation in different organizational archetypes," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 17(7), pages 2251-2295, October.
    12. Mario Vaupel & David Bendig & Denise Fischer-Kreer & Malte Brettel, 2023. "The Role of Share Repurchases for Firms’ Social and Environmental Sustainability," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(2), pages 401-428, March.
    13. Kirsti Iivonen, 2018. "Defensive Responses to Strategic Sustainability Paradoxes: Have Your Coke and Drink It Too!," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(2), pages 309-327, March.
    14. Jan Ossenbrink & Joern Hoppmann & Volker H. Hoffmann, 2019. "Hybrid Ambidexterity: How the Environment Shapes Incumbents’ Use of Structural and Contextual Approaches," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(6), pages 1319-1348, November.
    15. Michael Yao-Ping Peng & Zhaohua Zhang & Hsin-Yi Yen & Shu-Mi Yang, 2019. "Dynamic Capabilities and Firm Performance in the High-Tech Industry: Quadratic and Moderating Effects under Differing Ambidexterity Levels," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-15, September.
    16. Gerard Farias & Christine Farias & Isabella Krysa & Joel Harmon, 2020. "Sustainability Mindsets for Strategic Management: Lifting the Yoke of the Neo-Classical Economic Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-14, August.
    17. David B. Audretsch & Maribel Guerrero, 2023. "Is ambidexterity the missing link between entrepreneurship, management, and innovation?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 1891-1918, December.
    18. Koryak, Oksana & Lockett, Andy & Hayton, James & Nicolaou, Nicos & Mole, Kevin, 2018. "Disentangling the antecedents of ambidexterity: Exploration and exploitation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 413-427.
    19. George Ferns & Kenneth Amaeshi & Aliette Lambert, 2019. "Drilling their Own Graves: How the European Oil and Gas Supermajors Avoid Sustainability Tensions Through Mythmaking," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 158(1), pages 201-231, August.
    20. Úbeda-García, Mercedes & Claver-Cortés, Enrique & Marco-Lajara, Bartolomé & Zaragoza-Sáez, Patrocinio, 2020. "Toward a dynamic construction of organizational ambidexterity: Exploring the synergies between structural differentiation, organizational context, and interorganizational relations," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(C), pages 363-372.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:31:y:2022:i:5:p:2568-2587. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0836 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.