A rising literature suggests the benefits for organizations to take a paradoxperspective toward tensions emerging when aiming at increasing corporate sustainability performance. We suggest that if companies have not full agency inresponding to such tensions , the effectiveness of this approach can be heavilyundermined. We argue this is especially the case of suppliers part of Global Value Chains (GVCs), which characterize an increasing number of industries. Suppliers aresignificantly constrained by their powerful lead firms in deciding how to address sustainability challenges, so that even if they are willing to manage sustainability tensions , they might finally not to, resulting in poor sustainability performance. Bythe mean of an in-depth analysis of a specific tensions , we investigate the role ofagency in coping with sustainability related tensions using a paradox lens andadopting a multi-level perspective, considering the different actors part of the chain.Our analysis suggests that considerable tensions are generated by working in GVCs,because of the different framing of sustainability of buyers and suppliers, worseningthe overall sustainability outcomes of the system despite the best intentions andeffort of the actors engaged. Furthermore, we show that the management of such tensions depends on the agency of the actors, resolving in actions that emphasizesone pole of contradiction -- the one of the most powerful actor. Accordingly, wecontribute to a critical reading of paradox theory in sustainability by i) taking a GVCwide (vs organizational wide) perspective, responding to the call for a systemsapproach in paradox studies; and ii) focusing on a critical contextual condition ininfluencing the response that actors can implement in managing tensions : bargaining power.

GAME OF GREEN THRONES. Sustainability Tensions and Power in Global Value Chains

Simone Carmine
;
Valentina De Marchi
2022

Abstract

A rising literature suggests the benefits for organizations to take a paradoxperspective toward tensions emerging when aiming at increasing corporate sustainability performance. We suggest that if companies have not full agency inresponding to such tensions , the effectiveness of this approach can be heavilyundermined. We argue this is especially the case of suppliers part of Global Value Chains (GVCs), which characterize an increasing number of industries. Suppliers aresignificantly constrained by their powerful lead firms in deciding how to address sustainability challenges, so that even if they are willing to manage sustainability tensions , they might finally not to, resulting in poor sustainability performance. Bythe mean of an in-depth analysis of a specific tensions , we investigate the role ofagency in coping with sustainability related tensions using a paradox lens andadopting a multi-level perspective, considering the different actors part of the chain.Our analysis suggests that considerable tensions are generated by working in GVCs,because of the different framing of sustainability of buyers and suppliers, worseningthe overall sustainability outcomes of the system despite the best intentions andeffort of the actors engaged. Furthermore, we show that the management of such tensions depends on the agency of the actors, resolving in actions that emphasizesone pole of contradiction -- the one of the most powerful actor. Accordingly, wecontribute to a critical reading of paradox theory in sustainability by i) taking a GVCwide (vs organizational wide) perspective, responding to the call for a systemsapproach in paradox studies; and ii) focusing on a critical contextual condition ininfluencing the response that actors can implement in managing tensions : bargaining power.
2022
Academy of Management Proceedings
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11577/3481419
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? ND
social impact