1.
Collaboration
between
the
World
Food
Programme
and
MNCs
An
exploratory
analysis
into
the
main
barriers
to
effective
collaboration
Master’s
Thesis
by
Frederik
Rasmussen
Supervisor:
Patricia
Plackett
Assistant
Professor,
Department
of
Operations
Management
Copenhagen
Business
School
Master
of
Science
in
International
Business
&
Politics
Department
of
Business
and
Politics
Copenhagen
Business
School
June
30th,
2015
Pages:
68
Characters:
155.287

2. 1
Abstract
The
objective
of
this
thesis
is
to
conduct
an
exploratory
study
into
the
main
barriers
to
effective
collaboration
between
the
World
Food
Programme
and
MNCs
within
the
context
of
Project
Laser
Beam
–
a
multi-­‐stakeholder
partnership
addressing
malnutrition
in
Bangladesh
and
Indonesia.
To
analyse
these
barriers
the
thesis
has
relied
on
semi-­‐structured
interviews
with
key
partnership
stakeholders
in
order
to
gain
an
in-­‐depth
insight
into
the
dynamics
behind
the
partnership.
Global
development
challenges
such
as
hunger,
poverty
and
climate
change
cannot
be
solved
by
any
actor
singlehandedly,
and
this
factor
presents
one
of
the
central
drivers
behind
the
increase
in
collaboration
between
UN
aid
agencies
and
multinational
companies.
In
addition,
the
respective
nexus
of
interests
of
these
actors
is
increasingly
aligning
in
terms
of
sustainability
challenges
within
developing
countries.
However,
despite
all
the
push-­‐factors
in
terms
of
the
incentive
to
collaborate,
there
are
still
obstacles
in
the
way
of
advancing
the
level
of
collaboration
among
UN
aid
agencies
and
multinational
companies.
Scholars
such
as
Benedicte
Bull
(2010)
point
to
a
divide
that
still
exists
between
the
UN
and
MNCs,
while
Venn
and
Berg
(2014)
highlight
that
cross-­‐sector
partnerships
are
challenging
in
terms
of
the
level
of
trust
and
integrative
collaboration
required
of
partners.
The
exploratory
research
into
the
barriers
to
effective
collaboration
between
the
WFP
and
its
corporate
partners
led
to
four
central
barriers
being
identified:
1)
headquarter-­‐driven;
2)
insufficient
interaction
among
field-­‐level
partners;
3)
overly
strong
WFP
gatekeeping
and;
4)
inherently
conflicting
goals.
The
theoretical
contextualisation
of
these
barriers
led
to
the
conclusion
that
the
four
main
barriers
are
to
a
large
extent
interlinked,
requiring
a
concerted
effort
to
address
all
four
barriers
collectively.
These
barriers
need
to
be
addressed
collectively
in
order
for
collaboration
to
reach
a
more
effective
and
transformational
stage.

3. 2
Table
of
Contents
Abstract
.................................................................................................................
1
Tables
and
Figures
.................................................................................................
4
Abbreviations
........................................................................................................
4
1
Introduction
.....................................................................................................
5
1.1
The
reach
and
impact
of
malnutrition
...........................................................................................
5
1.2
Defining
the
problem
area
..................................................................................................................
6
1.3
About
Project
Laser
Beam
...................................................................................................................
9
1.4
Problem
formulation
and
research
question
...........................................................................
10
1.4.1
Pre-­‐understanding
...........................................................................................................................
11
1.4.2
Plan
of
action
going
forward
.......................................................................................................
11
2
Methodology
..................................................................................................
13
2.1
Philosophy
of
Science
.........................................................................................................................
13
2.1.1
Ontology
................................................................................................................................................
14
2.1.2
Epistemology
......................................................................................................................................
15
2.2
Research
Design
...................................................................................................................................
17
2.2.1
Nature
of
the
Research
Design
...................................................................................................
17
2.3
Research
Strategy
................................................................................................................................
18
2.3.1
Empirical
Data
...................................................................................................................................
19
2.3.2
Interview
Structure
..........................................................................................................................
20
2.3.3
Summarising
of
Interview
Findings
.........................................................................................
21
2.4
Plan
of
Action
–
Analysis
...................................................................................................................
22
2.5
Research
Approach
.............................................................................................................................
23
2.6
Research
Validity
and
Reliability
..................................................................................................
24
2.7
Summary
..................................................................................................................................................
26
3
Theory
............................................................................................................
27
3.1
Main
considerations
...........................................................................................................................
27
3.2
Simple
Rules
for
Making
Alliances
Work
...................................................................................
28
3.2.1
Principle
1:
Focus
less
on
defining
the
business
plan
and
more
on
how
you’ll
work
together
................................................................................................................................................................
29
3.2.2
Principle
2:
Develop
metric
pegged
not
only
to
alliance
goals
but
also
to
alliance
progress
................................................................................................................................................................
30
3.2.3
Principle
3:
Instead
of
trying
to
eliminate
differences,
leverage
them
to
create
value
30
3.2.4
Principle
4:
Go
beyond
formal
governance
structures
to
encourage
collaborative
behaviour
.............................................................................................................................................................
31
3.2.5
Principle
5:
Spend
as
much
time
on
managing
internal
stakeholders
as
on
managing
the
relationship
with
your
partner
....................................................................................
31
3.3
Innovation
from
the
Inside
Out
.....................................................................................................
32
3.3.1
Theoretical
Background
................................................................................................................
32
3.3.2
Embedded
Innovation
Paradigm
...............................................................................................
33
3.3.3
The
Gatekeeping
Function
of
Trust
in
Cross-­‐sector
Social
Partnerships
.................
34
3.3.4
Social
Exchange
Along
the
Partnership
Continuum
.........................................................
35
3.3.5
The
Impact
of
Goal
Conflicts
on
Partnership
Performance
............................................
36
3.3.6
Trust
in
Cross-­‐sector
partnerships
............................................................................................
37
4
Analysis
..........................................................................................................
39
4.1
Main
considerations
...........................................................................................................................
39
4.2
Interview
Findings
..............................................................................................................................
40
4.2.1
Barrier
Nr.
1:
Headquarter-­‐driven
approach
excluded
key
stakeholder
input
.....
41

4. 3
4.2.2
Barrier
Nr.
2:
Insufficient
interaction
leading
to
conflict
...............................................
44
4.2.3
Barrier
Nr.
3:
Overly
strong
WFP
gatekeeping
a
barrier
to
extracting
additional
private-­‐sector
engagement
..........................................................................................................................
47
4.2.4
Barrier
Nr.
4:
Conflicting
goals
among
the
partners
is
an
inherent
obstacle,
driving
forward
the
need
to
address
the
first
three
barriers
........................................................
54
5
Discussion
......................................................................................................
59
5.1
Main
considerations
...........................................................................................................................
59
5.2
Discussion
of
Findings
.......................................................................................................................
59
5.2.1
Barrier
Nr.
1:
Headquarter-­‐driven
...........................................................................................
59
5.2.2
Barrier
Nr.
2:
Insufficient
interaction
......................................................................................
63
5.2.3
Barriers
Nr.
3
and
4:
WFP
Gatekeeping
and
conflicting
goals
.....................................
67
5.3
Conceptual
Framework
Discussion
.............................................................................................
72
6
Conclusion
......................................................................................................
78
6.1
Conclusion
of
Findings
......................................................................................................................
78
6.1.1
Headquarter-­‐driven
.........................................................................................................................
78
6.1.2
Insufficient
interaction
...................................................................................................................
78
6.1.3
WFP
gatekeeping
..............................................................................................................................
79
6.1.4
Inherently
conflicting
goals
.........................................................................................................
79
6.2
Main
Conclusion
...................................................................................................................................
80
6.3
Contribution
...........................................................................................................................................
81
6.4
Future
Questions
..................................................................................................................................
82
6.5
Experience
and
insights
....................................................................................................................
83
7
Bibliography
...................................................................................................
84
8
Appendices
....................................................................................................
89
Appendix
1
..........................................................................................................................................................
89
Appendix
2
..........................................................................................................................................................
93
Appendix
3
..........................................................................................................................................................
96
Appendix
4
..........................................................................................................................................................
99
Appendix
5
.......................................................................................................................................................
104
Appendix
6
.......................................................................................................................................................
109
Appendix
7
.......................................................................................................................................................
112
Appendix
8
.......................................................................................................................................................
115

5. 4
Tables
and
Figures
Table
1
-­‐
Thesis
Interviewees……………………………………………………………………………page
40
Figure
1
–
Headquarter-­‐driven
approach
of
PLB……………………………............................page
41
Figure
2
-­‐
Insufficient
interaction……………………………………………………………………...page
44
Figure
3
-­‐
WFP
gatekeeping………………………………………………………………………………page
47
Figure
4
–
Inherently
conflicting
goals………………………………………………………….……page
54
Figure
5
–
Conceptual
Framework
of
Barriers………………………………………………..…
page
73
Figure
6
–
Relationship
between
Barrier
1
and
2…………………………………………...….
page
74
Figure
7
–
Relationship
between
Barrier
2
and
3…………………………………………...….
page
75
Figure
8
–
Relationship
between
Barriers
3
and
4…………….……………………………….
page
76
Abbreviations
BOP
–
Bottom
of
the
pyramid
FAO
–
Food
and
Agriculture
Organization
of
the
United
Nations
GAIN
–
Global
Alliance
for
Improved
Nutrition
IFAD
–
International
Fund
for
Agricultural
Development
MDG
–
Millennium
Development
Goal
MNC
–
Multinational
Company
PLB
–
Project
Laser
Beam
WFP
–
World
Food
Programme

6. 5
1 Introduction
Tackling
malnutrition
is
among
the
greatest
challenges
of
the
21st
century
and
one
that
requires
effective
action
across
a
number
of
sectors
and
among
a
number
of
actors.
In
other
words,
“tackling
undernutrition
will
require
action
on
multiple
fronts.
We
need
direct
interventions
to
help
the
neediest
people,
but
also
market-­‐based
approaches
to
make
sure
nutritious
foods
are
produced,
and
all
people
have
access
to
them.
Aid
or
government
action
alone
will
not
be
enough”
(IDS
Globalisation
and
Development
Blog).
Addressing
global
development
challenges
has
increasingly
brought
the
UN
and
the
private
sector
together
because
of
the
growing
interest
on
the
part
of
multinationals
in
BOP
markets
and
sustainability
challenges.
Nonetheless,
the
heterogeneity
of
these
actors
has
meant
that
the
partnerships
process
can
be
problematic
at
the
best
of
times.
This
chapter
includes
a
general
introduction
to
the
topic
of
malnutrition
in
order
to
portray
the
complexity
of
the
issue,
and
why
there
is
increasing
collaboration
between
UN
aid
agencies
and
the
private
sector
to
address
malnutrition
challenges
in
developing
countries.
The
definition
of
the
problem
area
-­‐
which
provides
the
foundation
for
the
chosen
area
of
research
and
the
research
question
–
sets
the
foundation
for
the
subsequent
theoretical
perspectives
that
will
attempt
to
address
the
main
areas
where
effective
collaboration
between
the
WFP
and
its
MNC
partners
is
being
held
back.
1.1 The
reach
and
impact
of
malnutrition
The
topic
of
malnutrition
is
incredibly
complex
and
its
consequences
are
far-­‐
reaching.
Malnutrition
refers
to
both
undernutrition
(nutrition
deficiencies)
and
overnutrition
(unbalanced
diet
intake,
such
as
the
over-­‐consumption
of
calories)
(Concern
et
al,
2014;
p.
7).
In
terms
of
the
impact
of
malnutrition,
FAO
estimations
indicate
that
approximately
805
million
people
were
chronically
undernourished
in
2012-­‐2014,
which
is
a
reduction
of
around
100
million
compared
to
the
previous
decade
and
209
million
since
1990-­‐1992
(FAO
et
al,
2014;
p.
8)
In
terms
of
identifiable
targets,
it
does
not
appear
as
though
there
is
consensus
as
to
the
progress
of
tackling
global
food
insecurity.
Malnutrition

7. 6
factors
heavily
in
the
UN’s
Millennium
Development
Goals,
as
MDG
1
(MDG
1c)
involves
halving
the
proportion
of
undernourished
people
in
developing
countries
by
2015
(Ibid).
A
lack
of
food,
as
well
as
the
right
food
compromises
peoples’
health,
education,
ability
to
work,
and
ability
to
assert
their
rights
(CIDA,
2014;
p.
1).
Malnutrition
at
an
early
age
has
far-­‐reaching
consequences
in
terms
of
reduced
physical
and
mental
development
during
childhood
(WFP
-­‐
Malnutrition).
This
in
turn
has
consequences
for
the
level
of
education
and
employment
that
malnourished
people
can
pursue
later
in
life.
In
other
words,
proper
nutrition
is
important
for
the
cognitive
development
of
children,
and
therefore
vital
to
educational
success,
both
of
which
are
important
determinants
of
labour
productivity
and
therefore
economic
growth
(Horton
and
Hoddinott,
2014;
p.
1).
The
burden
as
a
result
of
insufficient
nutrition
is
placed
on
those
affected
as
well
as
society
as
a
whole,
as
malnutrition
impairs
physical
growth
and
learning,
limits
learnings,
and
ultimately
propagates
poverty
(GHI,
2014;
p.
23).
In
developing
countries
where
a
large
share
of
the
population
suffers
from
food
security
and
malnutrition
economic
growth
and
development
targets
will
be
unattainable.
This
points
to
a
mutual
interest
on
the
part
of
governments,
development
organisations
and
companies
to
tackle
the
issue.
1.2 Defining
the
problem
area
More
and
more
the
traditional
sector
roles
and
responsibilities
are
being
challenged
by
globalisation
changes
and
rising
global
development
challenges.
In
other
words,
the
boundaries
between
public
and
private
sector
actors
are
becoming
increasingly
blurred.
C.
K.
Prahalad
pioneered
the
concept
that
business
could
help
address
social
and
economic
gaps
by
creating
profitable
business
serving
the
approximately
4
billion
who
represent
the
most
poor
and
underserved.
As
Prahalad
and
Hammond
first
argued,
“improving
the
lives
of
the
billions
of
people
at
the
bottom
of
the
economic
pyramid
is
a
noble
endeavour.
It
can
also
be
a
lucrative
one.”
(Prahalad
and
Hammond,
2002;
p.
48)
In
other
words,
the
BOP
market
represent
profitable
opportunity
for
companies
to

8. 7
expand
their
portfolio,
as
the
demands
of
the
poorest
are
as
diverse
as
that
of
the
traditional
developed
world
consumer
base.
This
relates
to
the
scope
for
innovation
on
the
part
of
business
in
addressing
the
needs
of
the
poor,
including
areas
such
as
poverty
and
malnutrition.
Similarly,
Patrick
Cescau,
the
retired
CEO
of
Unilever,
has
acknowledged
that
“the
social
and
environmental
challenges
facing
us
in
the
twenty-­‐first
century
are
so
complex
and
so
multidimensional
that
they
cannot
be
solved
by
governments
alone.
Industry
has
to
be
part
of
the
solution.”
(Prahalad,
2011;
p.
19)
The
innovative
role
of
business
in
developing
products
and
services
for
Bottom
of
the
Pyramid
(BOP)
consumers
is
critical
to
solving
food
security
problems.
Similarly,
collaborative
initiatives
such
as
the
UN
Global
Compact
and
UN
Guiding
Principles
have
moved
the
boundaries
of
corporate
involvement
in
social
and
environmental
challenges,
emphasizing
the
responsibility
of
multinationals
to
respect
the
universal
principles
of
human
rights.
Development
challenges
such
as
malnutrition
mark
a
junction
whereby
the
agenda
of
sustainable
and
ethical
business
practises
is
not
merely
a
secondary
part
of
business
strategy
but
a
critical
component
of
business
growth.
In
addition,
development
organisations
are
in
consensus
about
the
critical
role
that
business
can
play
in
addressing
poverty
and
food
security
gaps.
According
to
the
UN,
long-­‐
term
sustainable
solutions
are
to
be
found
in
the
markets,
why
it
is
all
the
more
critical
that
the
private
sector
is
an
intimate
part
of
the
effort
to
meet,
among
other,
the
vast
nutritional
challenges
facing
the
developing
world
(UN
Global
Compact,
2008;
p.
25).
The
WFP
acknowledges
that
it
is
operating
in
an
increasingly
crowded
field
of
actors
–
both
state
and
non-­‐state
–
including
longstanding
partners
and
new
ones
such
as
local
NGOs,
private
sector
foundations
and
businesses
(WFP
Strategic
Plan,
2013;
p.
7).
Additionally,
the
WFP
validates
its
alliances
with
multinationals
because
of
the
fact
that
companies
contribute
to
making
the
WFP
more
effective
and
impactful;
whether
it
be
through
fundraising,
sharing
of
equipment
or
knowledge
sharing
(WFP
–
Private
Sector).
There
is
therefore
a
clear
recognition
on
multiple
fronts
that
donor
agencies
and
the
private
sector

9. 8
need
to
find
strategic
and
innovative
ways
to
partners
together
in
order
to
solve
both
short-­‐term
crises,
but
as
importantly,
work
together
on
achieving
progress
on
long-­‐term
development
goals
that
have
help
prevent
future
disasters
and
crises
or
at
least
mitigate
their
effects.
According
to
Zyck
and
Kent,
the
growing
role
of
business
within
aid
–
and
the
subsequent
leveraging
of
private
sector
resources
for
emergency
needs
–
has
a
great
deal
of
potential
and
wide-­‐ranging
benefits.
At
the
same
time,
this
poses
a
significant
challenge
to
the
humanitarian
sector
as
it
is
traditionally
conceived
(Zyck
and
Kent,
2014;
p.
1).
The
private
sector
is
being
increasingly
viewed
as
an
alternative
to
international
aid
agencies,
and
increasingly
aid
agencies
are
expected
to
provide
assistance
through
the
local
markets
rather
than
serving
the
traditional
role
of
frontline
aid
providers.
In
addition,
the
authors
stress
that
“businesses’
greatest
contribution
is
unlikely
to
be
monetary
[…]
These
benefits
may,
in
some
cases,
emerge
from
corporate
philanthropy,
though
they
are
far
more
likely
to
result
from
firms’
‘core
business’
and
pursuit
of
customers
and
long-­‐term
growth
opportunities
in
developing
countries
around
the
world”
(Ibid;
p.
5).
The
increase
in
collaboration
between
UN
aid
agencies
and
the
private
sector
is
therefor
arguably
a
reflection
of
the
need
to
speed
up
efforts
to
address
global
development
challenges
–
an
effort
that
the
UN
cannot
make
singlehandedly.
However,
increased
collaboration
between
the
UN
and
MNCs
is
not
without
its
complications.
Whilst
organisations
such
as
the
WFP
are
driven
by
the
objective
of
addressing
emergency
and
longer-­‐term
development
challenges,
profit-­‐
seeking
and
commercial
interests
primarily
drive
the
private
sector.
Fundamentally,
the
two
sets
of
actors
are
driven
by
entirely
different
motives.
The
inherent
conflicting
goals
therefore
lead
to
tensions
and
disagreements
that
can
hamper
the
impact
of
partnerships.
Different
goals
and
modes
of
operating
mean
that
mutual
understanding
is
lacking
between
the
two
sets
of
actors,
and
this
prevents
collaboration
from
intensifying.
Nonetheless,
in
the
same
way
that
Prahalad
has
argued
for
the
fact
that
the
private
sector
has
become
aware
of
the
growth
opportunities
in
BOP
markets
by
addressing
socially
impacting
challenges
(Prahalad,
2011),
Bull
argues
that
the
UN
has
become
aware
of
the

10. 9
advantages
to
adopting
private
sector
modes
of
operation
in
to
order
to
more
effectively
reach
those
most
vulnerable.
In
other
words,
the
search
for
PPPs
is
part
of
a
change
in
the
UN
system
that
also
has
included
an
adaption
of
the
structure
and
culture
of
the
organisations
to
the
private
sector
mode
of
operation”
(Bull,
2010;
p.
491).
1.3 About
Project
Laser
Beam
Project
Laser
Beam
was
established
in
2009
as
a
collaborative
effort
between
the
WFP,
GAIN,
Unilever,
Royal
DSM
and
Mondeléz
International
(formerly
Kraft
Foods).
It
was
a
five-­‐year,
$50
million
multi-­‐sector
partnership.
Hailed
as
a
‘ground-­‐breaking
initiative’,
the
public-­‐private
partnership
was
created
with
the
explicit
aim
of
harnessing
the
influence
and
capabilities
of
leading
multinational
companies
and
ending
hunger
and
malnutrition
among
children
in
the
developing
world.
Project
Laser
Beam,
as
an
idea,
was
first
conceived
at
the
World
Economic
Forum
at
Davos
in
2009.
The
initiative
was
announced
by
former
US
President
Bill
Clinton
at
the
Clinton
Global
Initiative,
was
to
combine
the
unique
development
know-­‐how
of
the
WFP
with
the
business
expertise
of
Unilever,
Royal
DSM
and
Mondeléz
International.
The
WFP’s
Executive
Director
at
the
time,
Josette
Sheeran,
championed
the
joint
initiative
by
arguing
that:
“With
the
numbers
of
hungry
growing
up,
we
need
the
private
sector
to
join
us
in
the
fight…
It’s
a
battle
that’s
too
big
for
any
one
player…”
(WFP
-­‐
PLB
Release
Statement,
2009)
The
aim
of
Project
Laser
Beam
was
to
create
a
scalable,
replicable
and
sustainable
model
for
addressing
child
malnutrition,
representing
a
significant
contribution
to
achieving
the
Millennium
Development
Goal
of
eradicating
poverty
and
hunger
(UN
Millennium
Development
Goals
-­‐
MDG
1c).
Project
Laser
Beam
is
remarkable
first
and
foremost
because
it
is
a
partnership
that
has
brought
together
a
wide
variety
of
partners
–
both
in
terms
of
the
multinational
companies
behind
the
establishment
of
the
partnership,
but
also
due
to
the
vast
number
of
local
partners
within
each
country.
Therefore,
the
partnership
is
arguably
holistic
in
two
respects:
Holistic
in
its
approach
to
addressing
both
direct
and
underlying
causes
of
malnutrition
and
holistic
in

11. 10
terms
of
the
number
of
partnership
stakeholders.
The
holistic
and
multi-­‐
dimensionality
of
malnutrition
necessitates
a
response
with
the
same
characteristics.
Multi-­‐stakeholder
initiatives
such
as
PLB
that
involve
multiple
stakeholders,
each
with
diverging
interests,
take
time
and
effort
to
come
into
proper
effect.
However,
the
first
part
of
the
analysis
is
first
and
foremost
concentrated
on
discussing
on
the
findings
of
the
interviews
conducted.
On
the
face
of
things
PLB
has
epitomized
the
integrative
approach
called
for
by
various
UN
aid
agencies,
both
in
terms
of
the
wide
range
of
partners
and
the
range
of
focus
areas.
In
terms
of
the
process
of
the
initiative,
the
aim
has
been
to
leverage
the
strengths
of
public
and
private
sector
actors
in
order
to
create
new
methods
and
approaches
to
addressing
malnutrition,
as
well
as
sustainable
markets
that
will
continue
to
be
viable
beyond
the
project’s
lifetime.
The
following
part
of
the
analysis
will
critically
examine
the
key
challenges
during
PLB
and
connecting
these
with
the
theoretical
debates
introduced
in
the
theory
and
literature
review
section
of
the
thesis.
1.4 Problem
formulation
and
research
question
On
the
basis
of
the
above-­‐defined
problem
area,
the
aim
of
this
thesis
is
to
critically
address
the
main
barriers
to
improved
collaboration
between
the
WFP
and
Multinational
companies.
The
point
of
departure
will
be
Project
Laser
Beam
–
a
five-­‐year
multi-­‐stakeholder
partnership
between
the
WFP,
Unilever,
Royal
DSM,
Mondeléz
International
and
the
Global
Alliance
Against
Malnutrition
(GAIN).
On
the
basis
of
selected
theoretical,
literary
and
methodological
frameworks
the
thesis
consequently
asks
the
following
research
question:
What
are
the
barriers
and
how
do
they
affect
the
collaborative
performance
of
multi-­‐stakeholder
partnerships
between
the
World
Food
Programme
and
MNCs
aimed
at
addressing
malnutrition
in
developing
countries?

12. 11
1.4.1 Pre-­‐understanding
The
thesis
supports
the
interpretive
paradigm
position
introduced
by
Fuglsang
and
Olsen
that
the
author
cannot
be
considered
entirely
objective,
and
therefore
acknowledges
that
pre-­‐conceived
values
and
interests
of
the
author
affect
the
domain
of
the
investigation
(Fuglsang
and
Olsen,
2009;
p.
318).
As
such,
the
pre-­‐
conceived
understanding
of
the
problem
area
becomes
of
significant
importance
to
how
it
is
approached
and
analysed.
Our
understanding
of
topics
and
issues
are
arguably
affected
by
both
context
and
history.
Therefore,
the
analysis
and
discussion
undertaken
by
this
thesis
is
admittedly
influenced
by
the
author’s
pre-­‐conceived
views,
presuppositions,
experiences,
values,
as
well
as
historical
and
cultural
context
shaping
the
author
throughout
life
(Fuglsang
and
Olsen,
2009;
p.
321).
Hans-­‐Geoerg
Gadamer’s
notion
that
understanding
constitutes
pre-­‐understanding
and
prejudice,
and
therefore
the
foregoing
understanding
of
the
topic
together
with
the
influence
from
prejudices
have
an
impact
on
the
author’s
ability
to
interpret
and
it
affects
how
the
topic
is
understood
(Fuglsang
and
Olsen,
2009;
p.
322).
As
a
result,
it
is
therefore
concluded
that
it
is
important
to
inform
the
reader
that
the
author
of
this
thesis
is
has
been
heavily
involved
in
a
UN
student
organisation
–
United
Nations
Youth
Association
Global
Health
Working
Group
–
and
has
recently
been
involved
in
a
United
Nations
Youth
Associated-­‐led
case
competition
at
the
UN
City
in
Copenhagen.
It
is
acknowledged
that
this
could
potentially
bias
the
choice
of
information
and
the
interpretation
of
information.
However,
these
experiences
also
serve
as
a
focal
point
for
the
interest
in
the
overall
topic
of
UN-­‐
Business
collaboration.
1.4.2 Plan
of
action
going
forward
This
chapter
demonstrated
that
the
nexus
occurring
between
the
growing
challenge
of
malnutrition
along
with
the
increasing
interest
by
the
private
sector
into
BOP
markets
and
developing
countries,
which
has
brought
them
into
the
domain
traditionally
occupied
by
the
UN.
Whilst
multinational
companies
have

13. 12
increasingly
shown
an
interest
in
addressing
sustainability
challenges,
the
chapter
also
attempted
to
highlight
the
inherently
conflicting
goals
separating
UN
aid
agencies
and
private
sector
partners.
The
following
chapter
will
address
the
methodological
approach
of
the
thesis,
critically
reflecting
on
the
methodological
choices
made
in
the
collection,
analysis
and
subsequent
discussion
of
the
empirical
data.
The
methodology
chapter
will
be
succeeded
by
a
review
of
the
theoretical
and
literary
perspectives
that
are
drawn
upon
in
the
thesis.
This
subsequently
leads
to
the
respective
analysis
and
discussion
chapters.
The
analysis
will
include
a
presentation
of
the
data
based
on
key
methodological
choices,
and
the
subsequent
discussion
will
draw
on
the
chosen
theoretical
and
literary
perspectives
in
order
to
reflect
on
the
analysis
of
the
empirical
data.
This
will
then
lead
to
the
chapter
on
the
key
conclusions
from
the
results
and
reflections
in
the
analysis
and
discussion
chapters.
In
addition,
the
conclusion
chapter
will
include
reflections
on
the
thesis
and
future
questions.

14. 13
2 Methodology
The
following
chapter
aims
at
describing
the
research
methods
used
to
guide
the
plan
of
action
in
addressing
the
research
of
question.
The
chapter
will
address
the
philosophical
considerations
–
including
ontological
and
epistemological
reflections
-­‐
that
have
guided
the
research
design
and
strategy
of
the
thesis.
Additionally,
the
thesis
will
provide
a
reflection
of
the
empirical
setting,
the
empirical
data
collected,
as
well
as
a
description
of
how
the
thesis
intends
to
answer
the
research
question.
This
chapter
will
include
an
overview
and
description
of
how
the
interviews
were
conducted
and
what
secondary
data
will
be
used.
Lastly,
this
chapter
will
address
reflections
about
the
validity
and
reliability.
These
methodological
reflections
are
considered
important
foundations
for
the
ability
of
the
researcher
to
effectively
address
research
question,
and
therefore
this
chapter
deserves
adequate
attention.
The
methodological
framework
is
necessary
to
explain
the
design
of
the
research
strategy
of
the
thesis.
The
methodological
considerations
are
important
in
the
sense
that
they
underpin
the
research
strategy
and
the
methods
chosen
as
part
of
that
strategy
(Saunders
et
al.,
2012;
p.
128).
As
inferred,
an
introduction
to
the
methodological
considerations
will
subsequently
lead
to
a
discussion
on
the
research
strategy
and
methods
applied
in
answering
the
research
question
and
its
objectives.
Additionally,
the
choice
of
theory
has
consequences
for
the
outcome
of
the
analysis
as
it
provides
the
framework
within
which
a
social
phenomenon
is
to
be
understood
and
how
the
findings
are
interpreted
(Bryman,
2012;
p.
20).
2.1 Philosophy
of
Science
In
order
to
study
the
phenomenon
of
the
changing
nature
of
the
WFP’s
strategic
collaboration
with
the
private
sector,
the
perception
of
the
nature
of
social
reality
and
how
it
should
be
examined
must
be
established
(Bryman,
2012;
p.
19).
The
research
philosophy
adopted
in
this
paper
is
heavily
influenced
by

15. 14
practical
considerations,
as
well
as
the
research
question
itself.
Nonetheless,
the
main
influence
is
the
particular
view
on
what
constitutes
acceptable
knowledge
and
how
to
arrive
at
this
knowledge.
2.1.1 Ontology
Ontology
refers
to
assumptions
on
how
the
world
operates.
Within
this,
Saunders
et
al
explain
that
there
are
two
philosophical
approaches:
objectivism
and
subjectivism.
Objectivism
represents
the
position
that
social
entities
exist
in
reality
external
to
and
independent
of
social
actors
e.g.
the
organisational
structure
and
culture
of
a
company
(Saunders
et
al,
2012;
p.
131)
This
paper
leans
in
favour
of
the
more
subjectivist
position,
as
the
analysis
rests
on
the
subjective
opinions
of
key
stakeholders
in
order
to
critically
analyse
strategic
collaboration
between
the
WFP
and
its
MNC
partners.
According
to
the
subjectivist
ontological
position,
social
phenomena
are
created
through
the
perceptions
and
consequent
actions
of
the
social
actors
involved.
Therefore,
because
interaction
among
actors
is
a
continual
process,
social
phenomena
are
constantly
revised
(Saunders
et
al,
2012;
p.
132).
This
lends
itself
to
the
social
constructivist
view,
whereby
people
interpret
situations
different
to
others.
In
terms
of
the
research
question
and
the
objectives
of
this
paper,
it
is
therefore
of
utmost
importance
that
the
thesis
attempts
to
understand
the
subjective
reality
of
the
partnership
stakeholders
in
order
to
able
to
make
meaning
of
and
understand
their
motives,
actions
and
intentions
in
a
manner
that
clarifies
the
barriers
being
analysed.
Social
constructivism
departs
from
objectivism
by
deconstructing
the
taken-­‐for-­‐
granted
social
facts.
According
to
Søren
Wenneberg,
social
constructivism
can
be
divided
into
four
domains;
1)
the
critical
perspective;
2)
social
theory;
3)
epistemology;
and
4)
ontology
(Wenneberg,
2000;
pp.
17-­‐19).
The
critical
perspective
deconstructs
the
natural,
obvious
and
typical
to
uncover
the
natural
phenomenon
and
consequently
constructs
a
void.
Through
social
theory
this
void
is
addressed
through
a
perception
that
society
is
a
humanly
constructed
expression.
However,
this
position
assumes
that
society
is
either
constructed
by

16. 15
materiality
or
that
it
is
self-­‐constructed.
The
epistemological
position
supposes
that
all
knowledge
is
socially
constructed.
The
epistemological
position
is
divided
by
a
focus
on
knowledge
about
the
social
world
or
the
physical
world.
The
ontological
position
recognizes
the
world
as
socially
constructed,
and
in
this
case
assumptions
are
divided
between
those
about
the
social
and
physical
world.
In
other
words,
the
relation
between
the
observer
and
reality
is
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
reality
is
produced
while
it
is
being
observed
(Andersen,
2009;
p.
29).
In
addressing
the
WFP
collaboration
with
the
private
sector
the
thesis
draws
on
the
ontological
position
that
physical
and
social
reality
are
both
manifested
by
social
constructs,
relying
on
the
assertion
that
reality
is
shaped
by
our
recognition
thereof
(Andersen,
2009;
pp.
29-­‐30;
Wenneberg,
2000;
pp.
119-­‐120).
Ontological
constructivism
adopts
two
opposing
positions
–
a
radical
and
less
radical
position.
The
radical
position
assumes
that
no
reality
is
recognised
until
social
constructions
enable
it
to,
while
the
less
radical
approach
of
social
constructivism
assumes
the
existence
of
a
proto-­‐reality
where
reality
takes
shape
through
the
recognition
of
it
through
division
and
differentiation
in
order
to
construct
it
(Andersen,
2009;
pp.
29-­‐30;
Wenneberg,
2000;
pp.
119-­‐120).
The
thesis
will
adopt
the
less
radical
view
that
reality
is
influenced
and
shaped
through
people’s
recognition
of
it.
As
pointed
out
by
social
constructivists,
societal
phenomenon
changes
through
historical
and
societal
processes,
and
because
people
create
them
they
are
also
susceptible
to
change
at
the
hands
of
people
(Fuglsang
&
Olsen,
2009;
p.
349).
Social
constructivism
recognises
social
phenomenon
as
historically
and
socially
phenomenon.
Therefore
they
can
and
will
change
over
time
through
the
actions
of
people.
During
investigations
of
a
social
phenomenon
there
will
always
be
a
subject
(people)
recognising
it,
and
an
object
(the
phenomenon)
to
be
recognised
(Fuglsang
and
Olsen,
2009;
p.
349).
2.1.2 Epistemology
Epistemology
refers
to
what
constitutes
as
acceptable
knowledge.
The
main
philosophical
components
associated
with
it
are
positivism,
realism
and

17. 16
interpretivism.
The
positivist
approach
is
more
akin
to
the
philosophical
stance
of
the
natural
scientist
because
of
the
preference
for
an
observable
reality
and
causal
relationships
in
order
to
create
law-­‐like
generalisations
(Saunders
et
al,
2012;
p.
134).
Another
important
component
of
positivism
is
its
value-­‐free
approach.
However,
this
paper
relies
on
the
subjective
opinions
of
partnership
stakeholders
through
person-­‐to-­‐person
interviews
that
do
not
adopt
a
strict
format
more
akin
to
large-­‐scale
surveys.
Due
to
the
fact
that
the
thesis
is
conducting
an
in-­‐depth
case
study
analysis,
excluding
the
personal
values
of
the
author
and
interviewees
is
not
realistic.
Therefore,
because
of
the
nature
of
the
research
question
and
its
objectives,
the
two
main
components
of
positivism
are
rejected:
1)
only
phenomena
that
is
observable
will
lead
to
the
production
of
credible
data,
and;
2)
research
must
be
undertaken
in
a
value-­‐free
way.
Overall
the
positivist
approach
lends
itself
to
quantifiable
observations
leading
to
statistical
analysis
(Saunders
et
al.,
2012;
pp.
134-­‐135),
which
is
not
the
focus
of
this
thesis.
The
nature
of
the
analysis
of
the
research
questions
means
that
the
research
philosophy
also
departs
from
that
of
the
realist
approach.
Overall,
realism
is
similar
to
positivism
in
that
it
assumes
a
scientific
approach
to
the
collection
of
data
(Saunders
et
al,
2009;
p.
114).
There
are
two
components
of
realism:
direct
and
critical
realism.
According
to
direct
realism,
what
is
observed
is
reality.
Direct
realism,
on
the
other
hand,
argues
that
there
are
two
steps
to
observing
reality:
The
first
step
is
observing
the
event;
the
second
step
is
the
mental
process
that
occurs
subsequently
after
the
sensation
meets
out
senses
(Saunders
et
al;
2012;
p.
136).
Critical
realists
believe
that
our
senses
in
some
way
deceive
us,
that
what
we
experience
are
sensations
and
not
reality.
Rather
than
being
strictly
adopted,
this
thesis
supports
the
interpretivist
view
that
it
is
necessary
to
understand
the
subtle
and
distinct
differences
between
individuals
in
their
role
as
social
actors
(Saunders
et
al.,
2012;
p.
137).
This
is
due
to
the
fact
that
in
order
to
understand
the
dynamics
of
collaboration
between
the
WFP
and
private
sector
partners,
the
importance
of
‘social
actors’
is
keenly
recognized
throughout
the
thesis
because
of
the
reliance
on
key
stakeholder
insights
rather
than
objective
structures.

18. 17
2.2 Research
Design
The
research
design
sets
the
plan
for
how
the
research
question
will
be
answered.
The
nature
of
the
research
question,
the
research
context
and
likely
research
consequences
are
the
main
determinants
of
the
most
fitting
choice
of
method.
Therefore,
the
exploratory
nature
of
the
research
question
as
well
as
the
reliance
on
project
stakeholder
interviews
in
order
to
disseminate
key
learnings
about
the
initiative
have
invariably
led
the
thesis
in
the
direction
of
a
qualitative
research
design.
However,
whether
one
chooses
a
quantitative
or
qualitative
approach
is
not
simply
based
on
a
distinction
between
numeric
and
non-­‐numeric
data,
or
both.
The
adoption
of
the
research
design
is
based
on
the
philosophical
assumptions,
as
well
as
research
strategy
considerations
(Saunders
et
al,
2012;
p.
161).
The
qualitative
nature
of
the
methodological
approach
of
the
thesis
is
therefore
a
clear
manifestation
of
the
philosophical
assumptions
of
the
author.
According
to
Saunders
et
al,
qualitative
research
is
most
closely
associated
with
an
interpretive
research
philosophy
because
of
the
fact
that
“researchers
need
to
make
sense
of
the
subjective
and
socially
constructed
meanings
expressed
about
the
phenomenon
being
studied”
(Saunders
et
al,
2012;
p.
163).
This
ties
in
well
with
the
approach
in
this
thesis
to
rely
on
the
experiences
and
opinions
of
stakeholders
involved
in
PLB,
recognising
the
reality
that
the
interviewees
themselves
are
‘social
actors’
and
the
reality
that
they
express
in
the
interviews
are
a
reflection
of
the
social
constructivist
position
that
individuals
“may
perceive
different
situations
in
varying
ways
as
a
consequence
of
their
own
view
of
the
world”
(Ibid,
2012;
p.
132).
2.2.1 Nature
of
the
Research
Design
An
exploratory
study
is
a
useful
approach
to
finding
out
“what
is
happening;
to
seek
new
insights;
to
ask
questions
and
to
assess
phenomena
in
a
new
light”
(Robson,
2002
in
Saunders
et
al,
2009;
p.
139).
Saunders
et
al
make
the
argument
that
this
approach
is
particularly
advantageous
in
instances
where
the

19. 18
researcher
wishes
to
clarify
his
or
her
understanding
of
a
problem
because
of
uncertainty
about
the
precise
nature
of
the
problem
(Ibid).
PLB
is
a
unique
and
innovative
multi-­‐stakeholder
partnership,
but
there
exists
little
empirical
information
on
the
partnership
besides
the
official
project
report
published
in
2014
(Accenture,
2014).
As
such,
in
order
to
gain
a
more
critical
perspective
on
the
dynamics
of
the
partnership
process,
it
is
the
position
of
the
author
of
the
thesis
that
the
exploratory
approach
was
the
best
method
in
extrapolating
key
information
about
PLB.
Saunders
et
al
list
three
ways
of
conducting
exploratory
research:
1)
literature
search;
2)
interviewing
‘experts’
within
the
topical
field
and;
3)
conducting
focus
group
interviews
(Saunders
et
al,
2009;
p.
140).
The
method
selected
for
this
thesis
is
that
of
expert
interviews
with
key
stakeholders
involved
in
PLB,
and
one
expert
interview
with
a
person
not
involved
in
the
partnership.
This
is
in
large
part
due
to
the
relative
non-­‐existence
of
literature
on
both
PLB
and
they
type
of
partnership
that
it
represents.
There
are
several
advantages
to
the
use
of
an
exploratory
research
approach.
The
thesis
supports
the
position
that
an
exploratory
study
“is
a
valuable
means
to
ask
open
questions
to
discover
what
is
happening
and
gain
insights
about
the
topic
of
interest.
It
is
particularly
useful
if
you
wish
to
clarify
your
understanding
of
a
problem”
(Ibid;
p.
171).
Also,
exploratory
research
is
useful
in
the
sense
that
it
“is
flexible
and
adaptable
to
change.
If
you
are
conducting
exploratory
research
you
must
be
willing
to
change
your
direction
as
a
result
of
new
data
that
appear
and
new
insights
that
occur
to
you”
(Ibid;
p.
171).
2.3 Research
Strategy
The
research
strategy
of
the
thesis
broadly
refers
to
the
plan
of
action
in
answering
the
research
question,
the
ultimate
goal
of
the
thesis.
The
choice
of
research
strategy
is
primarily
guided
by
the
research
question
and
the
objectives
of
analysing
the
barriers
to
effective
collaboration
between
the
WFP
and
MNCs.
The
nature
of
the
research
question
has
led
to
the
thesis
pursuing
the
case
study
approach
in
order
to
gain
a
detailed
understanding
of
partnership
dynamics
between
the
WFP
and
MNCs
within
the
context
of
Project
Laser
Beam.

20. 19
Case
studies
are
a
valuable
approach
for
numerous
reasons.
First
of
all
they
provide
more
detailed
information
compared
to
research
strategies
such
as
surveys.
The
definition
provided
by
Robert
Yin
is
that
of
a
case
study
as
“an
empirical
inquiry
that
investigates
a
contemporary
phenomenon
within
its
real-­‐life
context,
especially
when
the
boundaries
between
object
of
study
and
context
are
not
clearly
defined”
(Yin,
2003;
pp.
13-­‐14).
A
definition
which
is
far
more
indicative
of
the
research
strategy
of
this
thesis
is
the
one
provided
by
Dul
and
Hak,
where
they
define
a
case
study
as
a
study
in
which
a
single
case
in
its
real
life
context
is
selected,
and
results
gathered
are
analysed
in
a
qualitative
manner
(Dul
&
Hak,
2008;
p.
4).
Nonetheless,
Yin
differentiates
between
four
case
study
strategies:
1)
single
case
study;
2)
multiple
case
studies;
3)
a
holistic
case
study
and;
4)
an
embedded
case
study.
This
thesis
will
adopt
the
single
case
study
approach,
which
is
because
PLB
“represents
a
critical
case
or,
alternatively,
an
extreme
or
unique
case”
(Saunders
et
al,
2012;
p.
179).
It
is
acknowledge
by
the
author
of
this
thesis
that
relying
on
a
single
case
study
would
be
deemed
as
insufficient
in
generating
any
definitive
conclusions
or
generalities
beyond
PLB.
However,
Flyvbjerg
argues
the
following
in
defence
of
relying
on
single
case
studies:
“One
can
often
generalize
on
the
basis
of
a
single
case,
and
the
case
study
may
be
central
to
scientific
development
[…]
‘the
force
of
example’
is
underestimated”
(Flyvbjerg,
2007;
p.
245).
2.3.1 Empirical
Data
The
primary
data
collection
method
chosen
was
the
use
of
in-­‐depth,
semi-­‐
structured
interviews.
The
advantage
of
using
semi-­‐structured
interviews
is
that
they
combine
flexibility
with
structure,
and
often
produce
data
of
very
good
quality
(Gillham,
2005
in
Skúladóttir,
2013;
p.
34).
Admittedly,
the
disadvantage
lies
in
that
the
interviews
are
less
generalizable
and
comparable.
The
method
was
chosen
to
gain
a
clear
and
holistic
picture
of
the
barriers
to
strategic
collaboration
between
the
WFP
and
MNCs
–
both
in
terms
of
PLB
and
the
wider
partnership
arena,
and
to
do
this
through
gaining
a
deep
understanding
of
the
personal
experiences
of
the
interviewees
The
empirical
data
is
provided
in
the

21. 20
form
of
primary
data
from
interviews
with
people
from
the
public
and
private
sector
stakeholders
involved
in
PLB.
Interviews
were
conducted
with
the
following:
a
WFP
Private
Sector
Partnership
department
representative,
WFP
country
office
representatives
from
Indonesia
and
Bangladesh,
and
a
representative
from
Royal
DSM’s
Sustainability
department.
Only
one
interviewee
expressed
a
willingness
to
have
said
person’s
name
publicised
in
the
thesis.
Therefore,
for
the
sake
of
consistency,
all
of
the
interviewees
are
referred
to
by
their
operative
titles.
The
author
of
the
thesis
also
reached
out
to
representatives
from
GAIN,
Unilever
and
Mondeléz
International
in
an
attempt
to
get
their
insights
on
the
partnerships.
This
would
have
provided
the
thesis
with
a
holistic
collection
of
insights
into
the
success
and
shortcomings
of
PLB
and
the
overall
barriers
and
drivers
of
effective
collaboration
between
the
WFP
and
MNCs
in
multi-­‐
stakeholder
partnerships.
2.3.2 Interview
Structure
As
mentioned,
the
approach
to
the
interviews
was
a
semi-­‐structured
format
with
the
objective
of
revealing
some
of
the
main
barriers
to
effective
collaboration
between
the
WFP
and
its
MNC
partners.
The
exploratory
approach
of
the
thesis
meant
that
the
researcher
went
into
the
thesis
with
a
handful
of
questions
in
mind,
but
with
the
mind-­‐set
of
adapting
the
questioning
according
to
the
topics
of
discussion
raised
by
the
interviewees.
The
main
question
that
all
the
interviewees
were
asked
was:
In
your
opinion,
what
worked
well
during
the
partnership
and
what
did
not?
Besides
the
interviewee
from
WFP’s
Private
Sector
Partnership
department,
who
was
asked
more
generally
about
the
reasoning
behind
partnering
with
the
private
sector,
all
of
the
interviewees
were
also
asked
the
following
question:

22. 21
What
was
the
strategic
reasoning
behind
Project
Laser
Beam
–
and
pursuing
a
broad
multi-­‐stakeholder
approach?
From
there
on
the
interviews
took
on
a
more
adaptive
approach
due
to
the
fact
that
the
interviewees
were
given
the
freedom
to
address
the
issues
that
they
felt
were
important.
The
line
of
questioning
largely
remained
the
same
throughout
the
interviews,
as
the
objective
was
to
understand
the
barriers
to
effective
collaboration
within
the
context
of
PLB,
as
well
as
within
the
larger
partnership
arena.
Therefore,
the
interviews
also
included
questioning
focused
on
the
dynamics
between
the
WFP
(and
UN)
and
MNCs
beyond
PLB,
in
an
attempt
to
reveal
additional
barriers.
The
first
interview
conducted
was
with
the
WFP
Private
Sector
Partnership
department
representative,
and
therefore
a
large
part
of
the
interview
also
focused
on
the
wider
partnership
between
the
WFP
and
MNCs
after
the
discussion
had
initially
focused
on
PLB.
The
same
approach
was
taken
during
all
the
interviews,
with
an
equal
focus
on
PLB
itself
and
the
wider
partnership
arena.
Besides
the
two
questions
referenced
to
above,
the
line
of
questioning
in
the
subsequent
interviews
were
in
part
inspired
by
the
insights
provided
during
the
first
interview,
which
took
on
a
focus
beyond
PLB.
2.3.3 Summarising
of
Interview
Findings
According
to
Kvale
and
Brinkmann,
the
analysis
of
interviews
consists
of
five
steps,
all
of
which
will
be
followed
in
the
subsequent
analysis
(Kvale
and
Brinkmann,
2009;
p.
228):
1) First
the
researcher
reads
the
entire
interview
transcript
in
order
to
gain
a
holistic
understanding
the
interview;
2) The
researcher
then
decides
on
the
relevant
‘units
of
analysis’
/
statements,
as
expressed
by
the
interviewees;
3) For
the
third
step
the
researcher
summarises
the
statements
in
order
to
categorise
the
statements
according
to
chosen
themes;

23. 22
4) The
fourth
step
entails
critically
analysing
the
themes
in
accordance
with
the
objectives
of
the
research;
5) The
final
step
consists
of
attaching
the
most
important
themes
are
linked
together
in
a
descriptive
statement.
This
form
of
summarising
data
can
be
used
to
analyse
extensive
and
often
complex
interview
transcripts
by
looking
for
the
most
significant
/
important
statements
and
interpret
subsequent
themes
(Kvale
and
Brinkmann,
2009;
p.
228).
The
objective
is
to
use
these
themes
as
the
foundation
for
the
analysis
and
the
critical
discussion.
2.4 Plan
of
Action
–
Analysis
Saunders
et
al,
2009;
p.
482)
(Saunders
et
al,
2009;
p.
491
–
Dimensions
of
qualitative
analysis)
The
table
and
figure
above
suggest
that
the
analysing
of
qualitative
data
is
more
loosely
coupled
and
less
structured
than
the
analysis
of
quantitative
date.
According
to
Kvale
and
Brinkmann,
the
open-­‐ended
format
of
the
interview
investigation
can
be
advantage
as
well
as
a
challenge.
In
other
words,
there
are

24. 23
no
standard
procedures
or
rules
for
how
to
carry
out
an
interview
investigation
(Kvale
and
Brinkmann,
2009;
p.
119).
Nonetheless,
the
objective
of
this
thesis
is
to
approach
the
analysis
of
the
interview
data
appropriated
in
a
structured
manner.
There
are
several
research
tools
available
that
can
help
organise
the
interview
data.
The
following
section
will
present
that
methodological
approach
to
presenting
and
analysing
the
data
from
the
interviews.
The
objective
of
the
interviews
was
to
gather
key
insights
about
the
multi-­‐
stakeholder
process.
Therefore,
the
thesis
took
the
approach
of
summarising
the
interview
data
in
order
to
extract
key
themes
from
the
interviews.
These
key
themes
were
used
to
guide
the
subsequent
analysis
of
the
findings.
The
condensation
of
data
involves
that
the
statements
and
opinions
provided
by
the
interviewees
are
expressed
in
a
shortened
form.
Long
statements
are
summarised
into
shortened
statements,
whereby
the
main
significance
of
what
was
said
is
rephrased
into
a
few
words
(Kvale
&
Brinkmann,
2009;
p.
227).
2.5 Research
Approach
The
thesis
is
using
an
inductive
research
approach
in
order
to
address
the
research
question.
The
exploratory
nature
of
the
research
question
has
led
to
the
approach
of
collecting
the
data
and
then
exploring
it
to
find
out
which
issues
and
themes
to
follow
up
and
concentrate
on.
According
to
Saunders
et
al,
this
type
of
approach
is
also
referred
to
as
a
grounded
approach,
and
it
has
the
following
characteristics
(Saunders
et
al,
2009;
p.
490):
• The
study
is
not
begun
with
a
clearly
defined
theoretical
framework;
• Relationships
are
identified
between
the
data,
and
the
researcher
develops
questions
and
hypotheses
or
propositions
to
be
tested;
• The
theoretical
framework
emerges
from
the
data
collection
and
subsequent
analysis.

25. 24
This
thesis
does
not
follow
the
step
of
developing
hypotheses,
as
it
was
concluded
that
the
empirical
foundation
was
not
comprehensive
enough
for
this
undertaking.
The
thesis
supports
the
four
reasons
provided
by
Saunders
et
al
that
validate
using
an
inductive
research
approach.
Firstly,
an
inductive
research
can
be
used
to
generate
a
direction
for
further
research
to
be
undertaken.
Secondly,
adopting
restrictive
theoretical
propositions
that
do
not
reflect
the
views
of
the
interviewees
or
their
experiences
potentially
restricts
the
scope
of
the
research.
They
argue
that
an
inductive
approach
should
provide
a
‘good
fit’
between
the
social
reality
of
the
research
participants
and
the
subsequent
theory
that
emerges,
which
will
be
‘grounded’
in
that
reality.
Third,
the
theory
can
potentially
be
used
to
make
suggestions
for
appropriate
action
as
it
is
derived
from
the
events
in
which
the
research
took
place.
Lastly,
the
theory’s
generalizability
can
be
tested
in
other
contexts
(Saunders
et
al,
2009;
pp.
502-­‐
503).
In
conclusion,
Saunders
et
al
offer
an
important
reasoning
for
the
inductive
research
approach:
“The
avoidance
of
a
predetermined
theoretical
basis
in
this
type
of
approach
is
related
to
the
desire
to
search
for
and
recognise
meanings
in
the
data
and
to
understand
the
social
context
and
perceptions
of
your
research
participants”
(Ibid;
p.
503).
It
must
also
be
clarified
that
despite
this
thesis
supporting
the
above
mentioned
support
of
an
inductive
research
approach,
the
objective
was
not
to
develop
a
grounded
theory
as
is
articulated
by
Saunders
et
al.
Instead,
the
objective
was
to
use
the
theoretical
reflections
of
the
data
to
establish
a
conceptual
framework.
2.6 Research
Validity
and
Reliability
During
all
stages
of
the
research
process
the
aspect
of
validity
must
be
given
a
lot
of
consideration.
This
is
done
so
that
the
findings
of
the
research
conducted
are
as
precise
and
credible
as
possible.
The
aspiration
is
that
the
careful
selection
and
description
of
the
research
methods
and
design
chosen
can
significantly
help
achieving
that
objective.
William
Trochim
addresses
four
different
types
of
validity
that
are
important
when
doing
scientific
research:
1)
Internal
validity;
2)
external
validity;
3)
construct
validity
and;
4)
conclusion
validity.
They
are
all

26. 25
connected
to
different
elements
of
the
scientific
research
process
(Trochim,
2006
in
Skúladóttir,
2013;
p.
39).
1) Internal
validity
refers
to
the
causal
relationship
in
scientific
research.
If
the
objective
of
the
research
study
is
to
establish
a
cause
and
effect
relationship
between
two
variables
then
consideration
must
be
given
to
internal
validity
to
limit
the
risk
of
bias.
Internal
validity
is
therefore
directly
connected
to
the
quality
of
design
and
structure
of
the
research
study.
2) External
validity
refers
to
the
generalizability
of
the
research
study
and
to
what
extent
the
conclusions
of
the
thesis
can
be
transferred
to
other
contexts.
External
validity
is
therefore
directly
correlated
with
the
sampling
process.
Three
factors
can
threaten
the
external
validity
of
a
thesis;
people,
place
and
time.
3) Construct
validity
is
also
related
to
generalizability.
One
of
its
main
concerns
is
the
correlation
between
the
theoretical
and
observational
sphere,
and
the
measurement
behind
these
observations.
4) Conclusion
validity
refers
to
the
analytical
part
of
the
thesis.
It
addresses
the
conclusions
that
are
made
about
the
relationships
and
links
in
the
empirical
data,
and
whether
or
not
they
are
justified.
Conclusion
validity
is
therefore
important
to
the
credibility
of
the
thesis
Research
reliability
refers
to
the
data
collection
techniques.
It
refers
to
if
and
how
these
techniques
will
produce
similar
results
if
the
research
process
was
repeated.
Reliability
also
refers
to
the
likelihood
another
research
will
reach
the
same
conclusions
(Saunders
et
al,
2009;
p.
156).
Replication
in
qualitative
studies
is
notoriously
difficult
because
of
changing
conditions.
Therefore,
it
is
vital
to
produce
a
detailed
description
to
ensure
the
reliability
of
the
research
conducted.
A
significant
threat
to
the
reliability
and
credibility
of
the
research
is
that
of
observer
bias.
As
Delbridge
and
Kirkpatrick
argue,
“because
we
are
part
of
the
social
world
we
are
studying
we
cannot
detach
ourselves
from
it,
or
for
that
matter
avoid
relying
on
our
common
sense
knowledge
and
life
experiences
when
we
try
to
interpret
it”
(Delbridge
and
Kirkpatrick,
1994;
p.
43).
This
thesis

27. 26
therefore
supports
the
acknowledgement
that
it
is
impossible
for
the
researcher
to
avoid
observer
bias.
2.7 Summary
This
chapter
presented
a
detailed
description
of
the
methods
used
for
answering
the
research
question.
Considerations
regarding
the
research
philosophy
and
the
research
design
were
provided,
as
was
an
explanation
of
the
empirical
data
used.
In
addition,
this
chapter
introduced
the
interviewees
as
well
as
a
description
of
how
the
interviews
were
conducted.
Consideration
was
also
given
to
the
issue
of
reliability
and
validity.

28. 27
3 Theory
3.1 Main
considerations
The
following
chapter
is
dedicated
to
presenting
the
theoretical
concepts
and
literary
insights
found
relevant
for
analysing
the
findings,
and
subsequently
addressing
the
research
question.
The
theory
and
literature
are
instrumental
in
forming
the
discussion
of
the
themes
selected
through
the
interviews.
The
aim
was
to
introduce
literature
and
theory
that
could
contextualise
the
barriers
identified
through
the
interviews,
and
provides
a
relevant
critical
perspective
beyond
that
of
the
author.
In
order
to
further
contextualise
the
barriers
identified,
the
thesis
relied
on
theoretical
perspectives
from
business
strategy
in
the
form
of
‘Innovation
from
the
Inside
Out’
by
Erik
Simanis
and
Stuart
Hart,
and
‘Simple
Rules
for
Making
Alliances
Work’
by
Jonathan
Hughes
and
Jeff
Weiss.
Whilst
the
theoretical
perspective
by
Simanis
and
Hart
is
mostly
relevant
in
terms
of
the
interaction
between
an
organisation
and
external
stakeholders
in
the
form
of
consumers
in
the
surrounding
communities,
it
was
also
used
to
address
key
deficiencies
in
the
interaction
among
the
partnership’s
top-­‐level
and
internal
stakeholders
on
the
ground.
Therefore,
this
theoretical
perspective
was
used
to
address
the
importance
of
including
relevant
stakeholders
in
multi-­‐stakeholder
initiatives.
The
focus
of
Hughes
and
Weiss
on
the
important
steps
to
successful
alliances
was
chosen
because
their
focus
is
on
strategic
mistakes
that
occur
in
partnerships
between
heterogeneous
actors,
such
as
the
case
with
the
WFP
and
its
MNC
partners.
In
addition,
they
address
strategies
to
overcome
these
strategic
mistakes,
which
is
relevant
in
terms
of
secondary
objective
of
addressing
areas
to
drive
collaboration
forward.
Finally,
Ronald
Venn
and
Nicola
Berg
address
a
multitude
of
issues
surrounding
the
overall
nexus
of
interests
occurring
between
traditional
development
actors
and
the
private
sector.
The
departure
point
of
their
discussion
–
the
blurring

29. 28
lines
between
development
actors
and
the
private
sector
–
is
similar
to
that
of
this
thesis.
However,
the
importance
of
their
theoretical
perspectives
lies
in
their
discussion
surrounding
the
areas
that
create
conflict
between
public
and
private
sector
partners
in
development
projects
in
terms
of
conflicting
goals
and
trust.
In
support
of
the
use
of
Venn
and
Berg’s
theoretical
perspectives,
the
thesis
will
rely
on
the
literary
insights
by
Benedicte
Bull.
Her
chapter
provides
a
useful
empirical
context
in
which
to
complement
the
theoretical
perspectives
of
Venn
and
Berg.
Overall,
the
approach
of
the
thesis
has
been
to
use
these
the
theory
and
literature
to
guide
the
discussion
of
the
findings
in
order
to
arrive
at
the
subsequent
conceptual
framework.
3.2 Simple
Rules
for
Making
Alliances
Work
Looking
into
the
barriers
associated
with
strategic
collaboration
between
the
WFP
and
the
private
sector,
the
thesis
chose
to
investigate
literature
examining
the
critical
aspect
of
collaboration.
The
academic
insights
of
Jonathan
Hughes
and
Jeff
Weiss
(2007)
address
important
issues
that
pertain
to
partnerships,
albeit
their
focus
is
on
corporate
alliances.
Nonetheless,
it
is
the
position
of
this
thesis
that
their
work
provides
important
and
topical
insights
into
the
barriers
and
drivers
associated
with
strategic
collaboration,
which
is
of
course
the
main
focus
of
this
thesis.
According
to
Hughes
and
Weiss,
that
despite
the
fact
that
corporate
alliances
are
showing
an
increase
of
approximately
25
per
cent
a
year,
the
failure
rate
lies
between
60
and
70
per
cent
(Hughes
and
Weiss,
2007;
p.
122).
As
with
multi-­‐
stakeholder
partnerships,
Hughes
and
Weiss
argue
that
corporate
alliances
require
a
high
degree
of
interdependence
among
partners,
including
being
able
to
manage
significant
differences
between
the
strengths
and
operating
styles
of
the
respective
partners.
Hughes
and
Weiss
thus
advocate
for
5
principles
that
need
to
be
followed
in
order
to
strengthen
alliances
between
corporations.
These
principles
simultaneously
highlight
key
barriers
within
the
context
of
PLB.