180
ber of stakeholders involved in a project has to be in a manageable order. One pragmatic solution is to limit the number of stakeholders, while allowing other
stakeholders to observe the progress of strategy building and provide meaningful
inputs to the process. There is no theoretically defendable answer, however, as to the
boundary of stakeholders to be considered in the strategy.
The second challenge is uncertainty regarding the implementation of the strategy. While mutual-gains approach is more resilient in this aspect than the inflexible
command and control approach, shifting political environment might block the
implementation of formerly agreed arrangement. For instance, a new president
might be elected on a totally different platform on biofuels. In such instance, the
strategy has to be revisited, and a new round of negotiation between stakeholders
has to be organized. In addition to political uncertainties, there are also scientific
uncertainties. We still do not know exactly what would happen if the concentration
of greenhouse gases continues to increase, for example. We do not know what kind
of innovations might occur in the future in the field of biofuels. In order to deal with
such scientific uncertainties, the strategy has to have an embedded system that
would allow periodical redesign of the strategy for incorporating the up-to-date
scientific knowledge and innovations.
The last challenge is the tension between creating and claiming value. Theories
of negotiation found the innate difficulties of bringing parties together for collaboration because the collaboration always has an aspect of competition (Lax and
Sebenius 1986). In the context of biofuel strategy building, some stakeholders might
hold on to their positional statements in the hope of obtaining more concessions
from other parties. This is an inevitable challenge in implementing the mutual-gains
approach to strategy building and has to be dealt with by professional process managers who have expertise in managing the tension among stakeholders in similar
situations.
11.1.5 Mutual-Gains Biofuel Policy-Making in Action
There are a few examples of such mutual-gains approach identified in this volume.
The utilization of bagasse for the electricity generation, described in Sect. 2.1.2,
is an interesting example of mutual-gains approach by involving different stakeholder groups in the picture of plantation development. While it would be difficult
to justify the environmental impact of sugarcane-based ethanol production from the
viewpoint of life cycle assessment, the same project can be justified by involving the
interest of utility companies and electricity users who have concerns about the CO2
emissions from additional coal fire power plants. Electricity generation from
bagasse is a typical but an ideal “win-win” solution that brings about benefits to all
involved parties. The most interesting aspect of this case study is that, however, this
predictable collaboration is now supported by a detailed study of life cycle assessment. This seems to provide evidence that the mutual-gains approach is in fact economically more efficient than conventional approaches encourage each stakeholder
to focus only on their preconceived interests.
M. Matsuura and H. Shiroyama
ber of stakeholders involved in a project has to be in a manageable order. One pragmatic solution is to limit the number of stakeholders, while allowing other
stakeholders to observe the progress of strategy building and provide meaningful
inputs to the process. There is no theoretically defendable answer, however, as to the
boundary of stakeholders to be considered in the strategy.
The second challenge is uncertainty regarding the implementation of the strategy. While mutual-gains approach is more resilient in this aspect than the inflexible
command and control approach, shifting political environment might block the
implementation of formerly agreed arrangement. For instance, a new president
might be elected on a totally different platform on biofuels. In such instance, the
strategy has to be revisited, and a new round of negotiation between stakeholders
has to be organized. In addition to political uncertainties, there are also scientific
uncertainties. We still do not know exactly what would happen if the concentration
of greenhouse gases continues to increase, for example. We do not know what kind
of innovations might occur in the future in the field of biofuels. In order to deal with
such scientific uncertainties, the strategy has to have an embedded system that
would allow periodical redesign of the strategy for incorporating the up-to-date
scientific knowledge and innovations.
The last challenge is the tension between creating and claiming value. Theories
of negotiation found the innate difficulties of bringing parties together for collaboration because the collaboration always has an aspect of competition (Lax and
Sebenius 1986). In the context of biofuel strategy building, some stakeholders might
hold on to their positional statements in the hope of obtaining more concessions
from other parties. This is an inevitable challenge in implementing the mutual-gains
approach to strategy building and has to be dealt with by professional process managers who have expertise in managing the tension among stakeholders in similar
situations.
11.1.5 Mutual-Gains Biofuel Policy-Making in Action
There are a few examples of such mutual-gains approach identified in this volume.
The utilization of bagasse for the electricity generation, described in Sect. 2.1.2,
is an interesting example of mutual-gains approach by involving different stakeholder groups in the picture of plantation development. While it would be difficult
to justify the environmental impact of sugarcane-based ethanol production from the
viewpoint of life cycle assessment, the same project can be justified by involving the
interest of utility companies and electricity users who have concerns about the CO2
emissions from additional coal fire power plants. Electricity generation from
bagasse is a typical but an ideal “win-win” solution that brings about benefits to all
involved parties. The most interesting aspect of this case study is that, however, this
predictable collaboration is now supported by a detailed study of life cycle assessment. This seems to provide evidence that the mutual-gains approach is in fact economically more efficient than conventional approaches encourage each stakeholder
to focus only on their preconceived interests.
M. Matsuura and H. Shiroyama