Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Deborah E. de Lange
PII: S0959-6526(16)31230-6
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.080
Reference: JCLP 7872
Please cite this article as: de Lange DE, A social capital paradox: Entrepreneurial dynamism in a small
world clean technology cluster, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.080.
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to
our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all
legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
Abstract
PT
Clean tech entrepreneurs have struggled to gain investor confidence because of some particular
characteristics and circumstances of the industry. This research combines network and
RI
sustainable development literatures in the clean tech context to support the logic of a new
SC
investment approach that may stimulate sustainable investing in clean tech. Theory is proposed
to suggest that there may be an advantageous social capital paradox where strong ties in a cluster
U
lead to dynamism rather than decay. The clean tech industry provides a context where strong ties
AN
offer network stability in a small world cluster such that it is a value-creating organizational form
offering greater dynamism. Two related propositions are developed to support the social capital
M
paradox. They lead to a theoretical conclusion that long term integrated partner solutions where
partners are also resource constrained lead to successful alliances supporting a dynamic cluster
D
that will grow over time. A practical conclusion is that investing in a connected cluster of firms
TE
might be less risky compared to investing in a new firm or even a portfolio of well diversified
EP
assets. De-risking clean production investments may be achievable through a small world
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
1. Introduction
New investment models are needed by clean tech entrepreneurs who face greater funding
difficulties because venture capitalists (VCs) have been discouraged by recent firm failures in the
PT
risky clean technology industry (Pyper, 2014; Smith, 2013; Parad, Youngman, and Knowles,
RI
2013). Government subsidies and public-private partnerships have been helpful for supporting
clean tech product development and increasing investor confidence through early stage risk
SC
sharing (Bürer and Wüstenhagen, 2009; Loiter and Norberg-Bohm, 1999). However, as Olson
(2014: 73) states, “subsidies have not prevented numerous green technology bankruptcies
U
including the infamous 2011 closure of the California based solar panel producer Solyndra, and
AN
these failures have cost taxpayers and private investors billions in lost capital.” Many factors
have contributed to the challenges faced by clean tech including foreign competition, an
M
incumbent fossil fuel industry, and a multitude of competing technologies within subsectors such
D
as solar and energy storage. Moreover, as climate change and environmental pollution are
TE
increasingly urgent issues related to firm negative externalities, corporate social responsibility
(CSR) and sustainable entrepreneurship are more of a focus for all clean tech partners, whether
EP
Investors are beginning to understand the moral implications of their choices where their
C
investments may determine the survival of clean tech entrepreneurs’ startups that face a strong
AC
incumbent fossil fuel industry (Richardson, 2009). The industrialized West has been the primary
source for existing anthropogenic carbon emissions in the atmosphere (Bradshaw, 2010). Thus,
emerging and developing economies feel justified in adopting the same polluting path to
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
of living by producing commensurate per capita levels of pollution as in the West, this leads to
future climate disaster. The West must lead the way to change so that others will follow.
Therefore, this research focuses on a Western context with the view that many modern thinking
investors are seeking impact investing opportunities so as to support clean tech while also
PT
achieving satisfactory returns (Jackson, 2013; Richardson, 2009).
RI
Accordingly, this article sets out to build on previous work in a special issue of the
Journal of Cleaner Production called Financing Cleaner Production and other work since then
SC
such as Bocken’s (2105) work on sustainable venture capital. Bocken (2015) explains that
venture capital has an important role to play in financing sustainable start-ups. Recognizing the
U
challenges for investors who must balance risk, return, and responsible behavior, this research
AN
develops network theory in support of a new small world network cluster model of investment.
This model could reduce investment risk, whether in clean tech or other industries that display
M
related to clean technology and the financing of it. The interpretation of sustainable development
used in this work is that it “is development that meets the needs of the present without
EP
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” (Brundtland, et al.,
1987). Also, in accordance with Gosens, Lu, and Coenen (2015: 379), clean tech includes:
C
AC
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
PT
This research proposes that a small world clean tech network cluster may build social
RI
capital that creates a base for dynamism rather than decay. It is theorized that a clean tech cluster
avoids an often cited problem of redundant information circulating among its strong ties such
SC
that the cluster becomes stagnant and decays for a lack of new revitalizing information (Capaldo,
2007; Granovetter, 1973; Uzzi, 1997). Instead, the strong ties offer stability so that the cluster is
U
resilient to change and individual firm failures. This stability affords the otherwise risky firms
AN
opportunities to be dynamic, meaning that they partner and become increasingly active in joint
innovation and business activity. In accordance with Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998; 243), social
M
the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available
individual or social unit. Social capital thus comprises both the network and the
assets that may be mobilized through that network (Bourdieu, 1986; Burt, 1992).
C
AC
This definition is relevant for this work because it is the network cluster formation together with
the interactions of the cluster participants, the clean tech firms, which produce the social capital.
So, this research proposes that in some contexts, such as clean tech, there is increasing long term
cooperative innovation in and growth of the cluster. A firm network cluster can become more
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
vibrant because it offers a base of strength that acts like a springboard enabling action. New
information is produced by the firm interactions and innovations. Thus, propositions are
developed to address the research question, “Under what conditions will a stable cluster of firms
build social capital that leads to dynamism (innovation and growth) rather than stagnancy or
PT
decay?” It will be proposed that dynamic clusters result when a fast changing industry requires
RI
long term cooperation for the development of complex, integrated, and novel long term solutions
SC
that the longer term, stable partnerships in dynamic clusters lead to increasing cluster size, within
limits (Fleming, King, and Juda, 2007; Gulati, Sytch, and Tatarynowicz, 2012). Thus, the theory
U
provides some insight as to how small world networks might evolve under the conditions such as
AN
those of the clean tech industry. This theory development will be used to support practical
financial innovation that reduces risk in clean tech investing so that the adoption of cleaner
M
The next two sections briefly introduce network theory and the clean tech context. The
TE
third following section presents the development of the theory and propositions. Finally, the
article concludes and makes recommendations for future research based on the theoretical
EP
development.
C
Networks are relational structures where actors are connected through various types of
relationships such as business alliances as in this research (Wasserman and Faust, 1994).
Research characterizes small world networks as a form of social organization that is made up of
many clusters of tightly interconnected actors having sparse connections between the clusters
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
(Watts, 1999; Kogut and Walker, 2001; Uzzi and Spiro, 2005). Figure 1 shows an example
diagram of a small world network that illustrates the network concepts discussed in this research.
In clean tech, a small world network is made up of connections that are inter-firm alliances based
on, “…voluntary arrangements among independent firms to exchange or share resources and
PT
engage in the co-development or provision of products, services, or technologies.” (Gulati,
RI
1998). The clusters in Figure 1 are the groups of firms connected by inter-firm alliances.
Research suggests that, “a cluster should be thought of as a set of nodes that has more and/or
SC
better connections between its members than to the remainder of the network.” (Leskovec, Lang,
Dasgupta, and Mahoney, 2011: 29). Olson (2014) provides an example of these clusters in clean
U
tech through his discussion of green innovation value chains (GIVCs) in the context of the solar
AN
panel industry. Also, SunRun’s solar panel supply (e.g., Canadian Solar and REC Group of
Norway supply SunRun) and extensive installation partnership network is a specific example of
M
the importance that this residential solar supplier places on relying on partners in its network
D
This study is carried out at the network structural level considering a tightly knit cluster
AC
of firms not bound by geographic proximity. The small world cluster, as shown in Figure 1,
facilitates an interdependent group dynamic (Uzzi and Spiro, 2005), creating social capital
(Coleman, 1988; Walker et al., 1997) that may build a stronger and more stable entity for
investment than a new venture is on its own. The term social capital refers to the building of
beneficial social relationships that include the knowledge that circulates through the close
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
relationships (Aldrich, 1999; Coleman, 1988; Portes, 1998). Previous research has suggested that
cluster stability endures even when the cluster experiences external forces of change and/or
changes of individual members (Kogut and Walker, 2001). However, research has not
considered clusters as being able to create long term dynamic value. The inherent nature of
PT
sustainable technologies is that they will last and provide benefits over the long term. Network
RI
research does suggest that small world networks augment firms’ and the clusters of firms’
innovativeness because knowledge transfer is facilitated from cluster to cluster through weak ties
SC
(Fleming et al., 2007; Verspagen and Duysters, 2004; Schilling and Phelps, 2007). However, in
the case of within-cluster interactions, the literature tends to take the view that once the new
U
knowledge has been exhaustively shared the same information cycles around the group and the
AN
cluster becomes stagnant (Granovetter, 1973; Gulati et al., 2012; Uzzi, 1997).
This assumption in network literature that the strong ties within clusters circulate the
M
same information has remained generalized across contexts (Capaldo, 2007; Gulati, 1995a,
D
1995b). Thus, a cluster becomes insular and decays because of its stagnancy in terms of its
TE
learning abilities and level of business activity. It has succumbed to group-think (group members
adopt a set of homogeneous views) where only redundant information circulates (Granovetter,
EP
1973; Uzzi, 1997; Gulati et al., 2012). However, research finds that problem solving is improved
in these close relationships because they facilitate the exchange of fine-grained information
C
(Uzzi, 1996, 1997). But previous research also tends to take the view that new information is
AC
obtained through weaker bridging ties to other clusters in the small world network (Granovetter,
1973; McEvily and Zaheer, 1999; Burt, 2004). In small world networks, the within-cluster
connections are strong ties and the bridging ties are considered weak ties. Thus, weak ties
convey new information from different clusters whereas strong ties facilitate close working
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
relationships within clusters, but the partners are believed to share similar knowledge because
they are part of the same cluster (Walker, Kogut, and Shan, 1997; Watts, 1999; Uzzi and Spiro,
2005).
Within network clusters like those with the characteristics of the clean tech industry, this
PT
research discusses which attributes of networks are particularly relevant for clean tech and how
RI
they might differ compared to an expected general context. Previous research has not discussed
clusters as providing contexts that remain dynamic. The predominant assumption has been that
SC
these clusters decay due to a lack of new knowledge infusion. Some previous research has found
variation in the usefulness of strong ties across contexts (Rowley et al., 2000). Thus, this latter
U
research implies that the assertion made in this research that the behavior of small world clusters
AN
could change depending on contextual factors may be reasonable. Moreover, this examination of
network characteristics in the clean tech context could be instructive for other industries that do
M
Although a key assumption of network research is that firms learn through knowledge
TE
exchange, there is little recognition that they might generate significant new knowledge on their
own or jointly with existing partners (Gulati et al., 2012). Firms learn from a partner on making a
EP
connection (Burt, 2004; Gulati et al., 2012; Uzzi, 1997). If the new partner is from the same
cluster, then the learning will tend to be more incremental than if the new partner were from
C
another cluster (Burt, 2004; Gulati et al., 2012; Uzzi, 1997). After the information is shared, little
AC
or nothing new is exchanged or generated later. This research suggests that although this could
be the case in many established industries, it might be different in clean tech. In clean tech, long
term solutions (expected to last twenty to forty years and that may need maintenance and
upgrading over that time) require integrated solutions developed through partnerships of firms
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
having specialized knowledge and solutions. An illustration of these partnerships and the reasons
for them comes from Marra, Antonelli, Dell’Anna, and Pozzi (2015) where the
interconnectedness and complementarities of two hundred specialized clean tech start-ups in San
Francisco including the challenges they face are discussed. These SMEs (small and medium-
PT
sized enterprises) must work together to find solutions because they are individually resource
RI
constrained. It is the nature of their changing industry that they must continually innovate in their
areas of specialization. Innovation is costly but, they can find joint solutions when they work
SC
closely together.
3.
U
The clean tech context: Identification of challenges for clean tech compared to other
AN
high tech investment
Part of the aforementioned clean tech investment problem arises because VCs tend to
M
have investment return expectations based on the characteristics of the ICT (information and
D
communications technology) industry (Maake, 2012). ICT generally requires relatively low
TE
capital investment and offers quick exits, often through acquisitions, and high returns on
products often having shorter term lifecycles (Maake, 2012; Gersh, 2013). Clean tech has almost
EP
the opposite set of characteristics - high upfront costs and medium level returns over the long
term (CIE, 2014; Bocken, 2015). The capital intensity of many projects is illustrated with a solar
C
plant example. Installation of solar PV (photovoltaic) power plants based on current technologies
AC
that yield less than 15% efficiencies require large land areas compared to traditional power plants
(e.g., nuclear and fossil fuel), often in remote locations, and long transmission lines to populated
regions, generator and/or battery backup because of intermittent supply, and sometime subsidies
to compete with gas (Olson, 2014). As Bocken (2015) has discussed, sustainable start-ups face
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
challenges because of a lack of suitable investors, a strong incumbent industry (fossil fuels) and a
short-term investor mind-set. Others add that clean tech lacks support from financial institutions
Moreover, these firms do not have clear exit strategies and thus, VCs struggle with
PT
whether they are attractive investments or not (Bocken, 2015). According to recent literature,
RI
some VCs are interested in sustainable investing and can be helpful if they make patient
investments that will ultimately prove clean tech’s capability to be successful on a triple bottom
SC
line basis (Bocken, 2015; Bürer and Wüstenhagen, 2009). In a Tech Crunch article, Rob Day
(2015), a venture capitalist with Black Coral Capital explains that exits and returns have been
U
achieved in clean tech but not at the expected levels. He thinks that investor strategies may be
AN
more of a problem than the actual market itself. Although many VCs have lost enthusiasm,
corporations such as GE and Google have been increasing their investments. The acquisitions
M
that VCs would like to see sometimes occur, but not at the expected rate because SME clean tech
D
Thus, the networks tend to be maintained through cooperative strong ties built over the
lifetimes of projects. For example, the University of California San Diego had a micro-grid built
EP
cooperatively with OSISoft, Viridity, and Power Analytics (UCSD Case Study). Other
technology partners in solar on the same grid are SoiTech and Sanyo systems. In addition to this
C
specific example, at OSISoft’s website one can find a directory called OSIsoft EcoSphere
AC
Partners which lists hundreds of the firm’s technology partners (OSISoft, 2016). Such a network
grows over time through a great deal of effort. More evidence of the importance of partnering
and the longevity of these relationships is illustrated by NREL’s (The National Renewable
Energy Lab in the United States) stated orientation towards partnering over decades. This lab
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
seeks to establish what it calls CRADAs (cooperative research and development agreements) so
that its innovations are developed in partnership with market players (NREL, 2016). Partners in
clean tech work together over the long term because of the many years required for
multidisciplinary product development and integration into existing markets. Not even a large
PT
government lab like NREL seeks to do it alone. Instead, it aspires to be a wide reaching partner
RI
supportive of an entire industry. These illustrations are demonstrative that partnerships in clean
tech are of high importance, they do not tend towards decay, and remain in place over time.
SC
Prior network theory development has rarely used such a context. Network research has
used the ICT industry context (Coviello, 2006; Gulati et al., 2012; Rowley, Behrens, and
U
Krackhardt., 2000) and other industry contexts (Beckman, Haunschild, and Phillips, 2004; Bell,
AN
2005; Madhavan, Gnyawali, and He, 2004) or has been essentially industry agnostic, sometimes
specifying innovation or R&D networks broadly (Baum, Cowan, and Jonard, 2010; Eguíluz,
M
Biotech has been used in network studies (Walker, Kogut, and Shan, 1997) and although
TE
it is also unlike ICT, it is still different from clean tech. This needs explaining because the two
industries are often erroneously likened to each other. The differences are important because they
EP
are related to industry patterns of and time frames for partnering and exits such as acquisitions.
Biotech has established industry patterns where a small biotech firm is usually acquired by a
C
large pharma firm (Behnke and Hültenschmidt, 2007; Giniatullina, Boorsma, Mulder, and van
AC
Deventer, 2013).Venture capital tends to invest in a biotech firm so it can demonstrate early
efficacy and then find an exit through pharmaceutical firm takeover. Thus, long term
partnerships are not needed because the pharmaceutical firms have the resources to acquire
biotech and complete the drug approval stages (Behnke and Hültenschmidt, 2007; Giniatullina et
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
al., 2013). Venture capitalists enjoy this pattern in biotech as it reduces uncertainty for exits and
returns on their investments (Behnke and Hültenschmidt, 2007; Giniatullina et al., 2013).
funding initiative called the DOE Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium (GMLC) where
PT
many partnerships have been formed to work on multiple US electric grid projects all across the
RI
country (St. John, 2016). Examples abound of collaborative projects including many private
SC
“Stabilizing the Power System in 2035 and Beyond: Evolving from Grid-Following to Grid-
Forming Distributed Inverter Controllers”, the partners include: UC Santa Barbara, University of
U
Minnesota, Arduino, SunPower, HECO, and Schneider Electric working with the National
AN
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). Although few of these projects include small firms
likely because of the scale of these research projects, the list of these PPPs makes it evident how
M
important partnerships are for this industry even when many larger players are involved. The
D
biotech model will only sometimes apply when a large corporation buys a smaller clean tech
TE
firm, which happens, but VCs cannot count on this as recent history has shown (Day, 2015).
Whatever the barriers, investors are increasingly considering CSR and sustainability
EP
important to an extent that they are influencing firms towards cleaner production through their
investing choices (Huhtala, 2003a, b; O’Rourke, 2003). Opportunities for sustainable (often
C
referred to as “ethical” or “impact”) investment often take the form of screened mutual funds
AC
holding portfolios of large firms, and many of these funds have been providing competitive
returns (O’Rourke, 2003). Ethical investors can also choose to invest in clean-tech start-ups and
encourage the larger firms that they are invested in to invest in these start-ups (Huhtala, 2003a).
These investors together with the venture capitalists that Bocken (2015) identifies as potentially
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
supportive may be more encouraged if a new investment vehicle that reduces the risk in clean
tech investing were devised. In fact, Huhtala (2003b: 616) makes a key recommendation “for the
adoption of cleaner production investments world-wide” and says that there is a “need for the
PT
financial innovation.”
RI
Through the development of an understanding of how network theory applies to the clean
tech context, this research suggests a financial innovation which is a ‘small world cluster-backed
SC
security’. Theoretical propositions are advanced to support the logic of this practical financial
U
investment, and sustainable entrepreneurship theory on funding models. The stable small world
AN
network cluster could suggest an alternative investment approach preferable to a different
audience of longer term investors. They may be sustainable (or ethical) investors, but not
M
necessarily as it is hoped the rationale will be appealing to a wider range of investors looking for
D
lower risk medium level returns. Thus, sustainable investment might become mainstream and
TE
clean tech entrepreneurs will more easily find an interested investor audience.
EP
In the following section, two propositions are developed (See Figure 2). One of them
C
delineates conditions that could lead to a small world cluster becoming a longer term dynamic
AC
value-building organizational form. This supports the idea that a clean tech cluster could be
worth investing in as a less risky investment compared to clean tech firm on its own. The second
proposition suggests that a corollary to the discussion is increasing cluster size. Thus, the clean
tech cluster is resilient and active to an extent that it grows by attracting more firms.
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
The literature relating to small worlds examines how networks evolve and which
structures are effective for productive collaboration. Small world network configurations are
PT
widely believed to be efficient at supporting a variety of types of innovative activity (Cowan,
Jonard, and Zimmerman, 2007). These configurations are highly clustered, from a network
RI
perspective, but have low overall density and short characteristic path lengths. A characteristic
SC
path length is the mean geodesic length (average shortest distance) in the network (Watts, 1999;
Robins, Pattison, and Woolcock, 2005). Given a random network having n actors and k
U
relationships with limiting values for the average path length, ln(n)/ln(k), and clustering
AN
coefficients1 much greater than k/n, the network is considered a small world (Watts and Strogatz,
1998). For example, in the clean tech industry context, n would be the number of clean tech
M
firms in the network and k would be the number of alliances connecting all of those firms in the
network. If the clean tech network conforms to the specifications in the aforementioned
D
definition, then it is a small world network with the clusters, as previously discussed and
TE
illustrated in Figure 1.
As the cluster gains more members, they will have some redundant capabilities so if one
EP
partnership fails another cluster firm can fill the void quickly (Burt 2004; Granovetter 1973;
C
Schilling and Phelps, 2007). This makes the cluster resilient to an overall breakup or failure of
AC
Resilience is also facilitated by reputational knowledge that helps firms find substitute
partners. Reputational information travels in the cluster so that even if two cluster firms are not
1
“The local clustering coefficient is measured as the number of actual links connecting all
neighbors of a focal actor with one another, divided by the number of all possible ties among
those nodes. The measure is subsequently averaged over all the actors in the network and shows
whether one actor’s direct contacts typically also know each other.” (Gulati et al., 2012: 450)
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
directly connected, they will likely know of each other and each other’s connections (Ahuja,
2000; Baum, Shipilov, and Rowley, 2003; Gulati et al., 2012 ). This reputational knowledge is
limited to the local cluster (Johanson and Vahlne, 2003; Pattison and Robins, 2002; Rivkin and
Siggelkow, 2007). Because the cluster can offer this resilience, this research does not require an
PT
assumption that a stable cluster cannot have firm failures and alliance break-ups. Alliances have
RI
a high rate of failure (Schrank and Whitford, 2011). However, it is proposed that the cluster
remains stable overall because its social capital enables it to be self-healing (Kogut and Walker,
SC
2001). For example, the CrunchBase profile for a solar company called Brightsource Energy
provides evidence of the firm’s dense cluster of partners that offer it stability in the face of high
U
risks. It has a list of fifteen equity investors including a recent Alstom investment. It is also
AN
partnering to deliver customer solutions. A Greentechmedia article on the Brightsource
CrunchBase profile mentions its investment with NRG Energy and Google in a solar plant in the
M
Mojave Desert that is delivering electricity to Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) (Lacey, 2015).
D
One can find more stories of clean tech resilience. A123 Systems was a failing lithium
TE
ion battery firm in 2012. Fisker Automotive which is a luxury electric car maker comparable to
Tesla had used the A123 Systems batteries as a sole supplier. It also later sought bankruptcy, but
EP
Fisker was relaunched with BMW battery systems. Thus, another battery supplier in the network
was found that could replace A123 Systems. A123 Systems also bounced back with new owners
C
and sells microhybrid batteries to new partners including Mercedes-Benz, Porche, and others.
AC
This illustrates how interfirm network knowledge can facilitate the survival of clean tech firms
by matching them with new and replacement partners. Another observation from an investor’s
perspective is that one may have chosen to invest in Tesla over Fisker if one were to have placed
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
greater focus on the partnership networks rather than solely on knowledge about the individual
firms.
Some literature points to the cooperation and coordination required for learning complex
knowledge leading to alliance stability and success (Cowan, Jonard, and Zimmerman, 2007;
PT
Hamel, 1991; Garcia-Pont and Nohria, 2002). Although it is rare that research considers a long
RI
lasting alliance as valuable or successful (Arino, 2003) some has (Shrank and Whitford, 2011).
In clean tech, there is a necessity for longer term cooperation in partnerships because joint
SC
projects must be maintained and upgraded, including infrastructure and integrated software
systems, for decades (CIE, 2014). The earlier UC San Diego case is exemplary of this where
U
OSIsoft, Viridity and Power Analytics worked together to make the micro-grid function via
AN
integrated software systems over the long term. The other previous example where Brightsource
Energy, Google and NRG Energy were in partnership to deliver solar energy to PG&E is also
M
exemplary of long term partnering. When partners deliver these products and services together
D
they collectively learn how to improve their offerings, thus information and knowledge is
TE
generated through the joint projects. This further illustrates how long term cooperation and
reliability are critical in this industry – it enables success for all partners and infuses them with
EP
Repeated partnering with the same entity is advantageous especially if available follow-
C
on work extends the last project with the same customer or another customer needs somewhat
AC
similar solutions (Gulati, 1995a). For example, after the UC San Diego micro-grid project, an
announcement was made that OSIsoft together again with Viridity, Power Analytics, UC San
Diego, and SDG&E (and additional new partners, Conner Networks and Spirae) would work
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
three U.S. Navy facilities in the San Diego area (Brockman, 2013). See Figure 3, below, for a
pictorial illustration of the dynamism that can grow in a clean tech small world cluster. Notice in
the diagram, that partners think in advance about how they may work together beyond the
current project and build future strategies together. Thus, competition within clean tech
PT
partnerships is rarely a consideration (Khanna et al., 1998; Aggarwal et al., 2011) being
RI
counterproductive and leading to network reputational damage (Uzzi, 1996, 1997). Instead,
SC
{Place Figure 3 about here}
U
AN
Partnerships exist under circumstances of extremely constrained resources, as has been
illustrated by highly publicized news reports of many clean tech firm failures (e.g., Solyndra,
M
A123 Systems, Fisker) and venture capital shying away (Fehrenbacher, 2014; Pyper, 2014). The
constant requirement to invest in innovation is costly. Thus, searching out new partners for each
D
new project and learning to work with them is an unwanted diversion. They choose partners
TE
carefully because they can only manage a select few at any time, thus they prefer that
partnerships pay off over the long term (Gulati, Nohria, and Zaheer, 2000; San Diego
EP
discussions, 2012). In fact, research has demonstrated that a good reputation in a cluster and the
C
capability to maintain long-term alliances are competitive advantages valued by the market
AC
(Baum et al., 2003; Gulati et al., 2012; Kale, Dyer, and Singh, 2002). Moreover, maintaining a
technological lead through agility requires that the SMEs do not become large and, hence they do
not often buy each other out. Instead, partners keep their ties over the long term to coordinate on
projects that will require their unique capabilities and joint attention over decades.
17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
Thus, social capital in a dynamic cluster is valuable for finding partners and for building
cooperative and innovative relationships that offer long-lasting competitive advantage (Greif,
1993; Gulati et al., 2012). Stable cluster relationships that support dynamism create a base for
firm growth. See Figure 4, below, which depicts the new dynamic small world cluster theory
PT
developed here in the clean tech context as compared to the predominant theoretical view in
RI
network theory that has been generalized across contexts. Notice that under the new theory, a
network cluster does not need to receive information from other clusters to avoid decay.
U SC
{Place Figure 4 about here}
AN
This long term growth and development can be attractive to investors and thus this discussion
M
provides logic for their investment in a cluster. The following proposition summarizes the
D
preceding discussion by tying industry characteristics, where integrated partner solutions over
TE
cluster.
EP
P1: A small world network cluster will tend to become more dynamic as integrated partner
C
solutions tend towards the longer term and when the partnering firms are more resource
AC
constrained.
As has been established, the working history between firms that results because of the
aforementioned industry characteristics leads them to work on future projects together and
jointly innovate, thus extending, broadening, and/or deepening their relationships (Uzzi, 1997).
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
The UC San Diego micro-grid partners who later obtained the DOD’s contract is an excellent
example of this kind of success. Cluster partners build go-to-market strategies together. In this
process of lengthening their relationships, they dynamically move ahead and build positive
PT
Also of note about these clusters is that they offer safeguards against complete failure, in
RI
addition to resilience when a single or a few firms experience difficulties. This happens because
allied partners bring complementarities to projects so a cluster is rarely solely composed of firms
SC
in the same subsector or focused niche. Clusters offer some diversification alongside
interdependencies because some firms are not “pure plays” solely devoted to a particular clean
U
technology. For example, a manufacturer that is a cluster partner could make clean tech
AN
apparatus as well as other goods. Alternatively, a large strategic investor like GE, Siemens, or
Google could be invested in clean tech and other sectors. OSIsoft, a medium sized company
M
often associated with clean tech is a technological project partner working across many
D
industries. Other examples of technology partners that diversify the cluster may include drone
TE
companies looking to oversee the maintenance of solar and wind farms, software firms involved
in the energy management and maintenance systems, and smart grid firms among many other
EP
possibilities. They are all likely cluster partners which will diversify their customer bases and are
unlikely to go down because their pure play partners fail. Although it is possible that all firms in
C
a cluster could have problems at once, as could happen in a broad based financial crisis, a cluster
AC
investment is potentially a better investment strategy than many of the usual options. A cluster
offers better diversification than does a single firm. Moreover, a cluster that is doing well is
19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
investing and some comparative discussion is provided here to highlight the benefits of the new
possible approach (Markowitz, 1952; Perold, 1984). Normally, a set of independent firms is
PT
that an interconnected cluster of firms offers. The point in traditional portfolio theory is to reduce
RI
risk by making a variety of investments in select firms in industries that move in opposing
directions so that when one industry is down the others are up. With interdependencies, as a
SC
cluster has, one may first think that risk is very high because when the clean tech industry is
down, so is the entire cluster. However, this potential scenario is unlikely as explained earlier
U
due to the variation in types of partners and when considering the long term. A single firm might
AN
go bankrupt in the short term. Over the long term, the cluster investment may be safer and offer
better returns because long term projects continue to offer returns over their lives (decades in
M
clean tech) and the cluster is resilient, as explained earlier. Moreover, a cluster offers greater
D
upside potential. By avoiding full diversification, the upside potential is increased because gains
TE
A set of clean tech cluster investments can act more like a long term bond offering
EP
potentially higher value than a typical corporate bond. A related diversified corporation may
offer integrated value (and it has been shown to be more often of higher value than an unrelated
C
diversified firm), but a cluster is not the same (Bettis, 1981). Corporations often do not choose
AC
the right combination of businesses to be in and continue without clarity on this matter, perhaps
because a hierarchy controlled by boundedly rational actors attempts direction over and
coordination of all of the assets (Simon, 2010). However, a cluster’s alliances are self-organizing
and experience more market pressure to remain effective, as discussed earlier. Thus, clean tech
20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
alliances are disciplined by a stronger market mechanism than are difficult-to-measure corporate
synergies built among complementary subsidiaries (Tsai, 2002). Moreover, clean tech cluster
firms that are not large corporations cannot afford as much slack which is usually part of
corporations (Cyert and March, 1963; Singh, 1986). Slack can foster inertia rather than
PT
nimbleness and, in fact, corporations often strategically partner with small innovative firms for
RI
revitalization (de Lange, 2011; Nohria and Gulati, 1996; Pyper, 2014). Thus, a clean tech cluster
offers a set of more strongly related assets without the excess slack of a corporation. Ultimately,
SC
the long term projects and reputational effects that bind a stable clean tech cluster suggest that
investing in a cluster is a safe long term bet offering medium level returns.
U
In addition to the aforementioned cluster benefits, it is possible that the dynamic behavior
AN
among partners in the cluster becomes widely adopted behavior – thus, the cluster becomes
homogenous in this sense (Capaldo, 2007; Gulati et al., 2012). A culture of dynamism builds in
M
the cluster and it is self-reinforcing because the productive cooperative relationships generate
D
continuing success. Cooperation becomes a model for behavior amongst cluster partners.
TE
Moreover, the general success found through partnering is a basis for a positive reputation for the
entire small world cluster within the small world network. Reputation builds because brokers
EP
within the cluster relay positive information to other clusters which spreads to other parts of the
network (See Figure 1). Therefore, previous theory that says that strong ties in a cluster lead to
C
homogenization through their cohesion is applicable here (Capaldo, 2007; Gulati et al., 2012).
AC
However, these clusters exhibit dynamic homogenous behavior over the long term, not behavior
Furthermore, firms are under pressure to maintain this culture of success through
cooperation for themselves and their cluster. Deviating from established cluster norms by
21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
betraying a partner for short term gains is information that would travel around to other cluster
members. Such a deviating firm would lose the confidence of others in the cluster and would be
expelled in the sense that others would not ally with it (Brass, Galaskiewicz, Greve, and Tsai,
2004; Larson, 1992). The others understand that their norms of long term cooperation affect their
PT
own and their cluster’s likelihood of survival and success (Gulati et al., 2000). Maintaining
RI
cluster social capital is firm survival (Lin, 1999).
Moreover, the social capital offers a benefit to cluster firms where they can be
SC
knowledgeable about firms in other clusters. Brokers may facilitate this knowledge exchange.
Brokers are firms that reach across structural holes (structural holes exist where there is a single
U
tie connecting two clusters by a broker firm on each side) and can learn about other potential
AN
partners in other clusters in the small world network (Burt, 2004; Kogut and Walker, 2001;
Obstfeld, 2005). (Please see Figure 1 which shows the role of brokers in the network.) OSIsoft’s
M
directory of network partners is illustrative of its brokerage position across industries, not only
D
within clean tech. When new partners are needed, they can be found either within the same
TE
cluster or in another connected cluster through a broker firm that can recommend reliable
partners based on reputational knowledge. For example, in the case of the aforementioned DOD
EP
micro-grid contract, new partners (Conner Networks and Spirae) were added to work with the
original partners. Cluster growth ensues as new firms join the cluster whether because they are
C
attracted by the positive reputation of the cluster and seek a partner within it or because they are
AC
discovered through the network and are invited to join as a partner within the focal cluster.
Although the net result of failures, departures and additions to the cluster is difficult to predict, if
the general pattern is to maintain long term relationships, then the net changes to the cluster are
22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
Limits to cluster size would be found in the unlikelihood that an entire small world
network would aggregate into a single cluster (Gulati et al., 2012). The clusters would not
aggregate this way unless the industry became focused on a large monopoly firm which is
unlikely in the foreseeable future. Also, some firms are not technologically compatible or
PT
complementary in anyway so, they will not be in the same cluster. Moreover, strong, direct
RI
competitors may view it as in their interests to remain clear of each other. Larger firms such as
those in the electric car sector might keep certain partners exclusive so that proprietary
SC
knowledge is not leaked from one firm to another. However, Tesla has released all of its patents
for wide use and Elon Musk has stated that all cars are going to be electric in the future so he
U
does not see electric vehicles as a unique competitive sector (Musk, 2015). Among smaller clean
AN
tech firms, strong competition is found today in rooftop solar (Tong and Mickey, 2016).
However, solar firms are losing sales more often for reasons of customer risk aversion than due
M
to competition. Evidence shows that more competition in the sector is leading to more awareness
D
of solar as a distributed energy option which is positive for these firms (Tong and Mickey, 2016).
TE
Thus, the industry tends to be relatively cooperative. Where there are concerns about competition
for reasons of protection of intellectual property and employee retention, competitors are
EP
Overall, the long term productive alliances that foster a positive reputation for the
C
dynamic cluster will lead it to attract additional partners, so it will grow in size. From a
AC
sustainable investor’s perspective, this cluster growth is further indication of the increasing value
of the cluster as a whole. Therefore, rather than solely report on the growth of individual firms,
investment analysts could begin to map clean tech networks and watch clusters’ growth (and
contraction) in aggregate over time. They could also watch as firms migrate from one cluster to
23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
another. This sophisticated knowledge would inform savvy investors on industry trends and
better investment choices. Remembering an earlier example, if one were considering which firm
to invest in, Tesla or Fisker, their networks might provide additional valuable information along
with their individual financial information. Furthermore, because of the long term nature of these
PT
growing clusters, cluster-backed securities could be developed and invested into with this
RI
information. The following proposition reflects the aforementioned relationship relating the
SC
P2: As the longevity of network cluster partnerships increases, more firms will join the cluster
This research has made several contributions to theory by combining network and
D
sustainable development literatures. It has shown how clean tech is an applicable context for
TE
small world network theory as well as how some network theory may be modified for
sustainable technology contexts. Although a cluster might homogenize, it could build a common
EP
culture and set of behaviors that support dynamism among the cluster firms rather than
stagnancy. Thus, this article has put forward the theory that a small world cluster of firms can
C
build beneficial long term social capital using illustrative examples taken from previous
AC
academic literature and directly from the clean tech industry. This occurs when firms are
connected by alliances and where expectations are to build joint value over the long term, as is
often the case with clean tech. At the same time, many cluster clean tech SMEs are constrained
by a shortage of resources so, they do not often opt to buy their alliance partners. This places the
24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
connected firms under more pressure to maintain cooperation and rely on each other for
additional value building activities. Moreover, the cluster is self-healing. Thus, the cluster, as a
whole, remains stable over time and may grow, offering the firms a base for value creation that is
not necessarily only incremental. Instead, the shared long term cluster resources enable firms to
PT
discover solutions that may otherwise not be reachable via weak ties because of the specific
RI
assets they have built together. Additional contributions that fall out of this context are: 1) an
instance where long term alliances can be associated with success and value building, and 2) a
SC
mechanism for supporting long term alliances that being the small world cluster under the
conditions as outlined.
U
From a sustainable development perspective, the network theory has important
AN
implications for sustainable investment and funding. The small world network cluster of firms
offers stable support for the clean tech entrepreneur. The entrepreneur can seek out resources
M
easily and safely within the cluster community because reputation is so important for becoming
D
part of and maintaining long term projects. Moreover, a cluster of entrepreneurs could bundle
TE
their firms together as an investment asset for investors who would otherwise consider corporate
bonds, offering them higher returns with less risk than a corporation. A cluster is a set of many
EP
firms connected by market forces, as compared with a corporation having many parts not
necessarily connected by market rationale and therefore, with some inefficiencies. Some VCs
C
interested in supporting sustainable entrepreneurship may find an option here although they may
AC
In any case, VCs have been stepping away from clean tech so, clean tech may need to
find another audience for investment. The cluster may be attractive to a wider audience including
large institutional investors, even fitting into a mutual or pension fund. Also, larger corporate
25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
investors can use this vehicle to simultaneously invest in new clean technology and in CSR.
Impact investors are seeking investment opportunities that address our moral dilemma with
respect to the West’s responsibility to lead on the wide spread implementation of climate change
mitigation technologies that the developing world must also adopt. This issue may start to affect
PT
the decisions of large institutional investors as public concern regarding climate change increases
RI
since many of these large investors ultimately serve public stakeholders such as pensioners.
This work suggests many future research opportunities. First, this theory may be
SC
generalizable to other existing or future contexts that involve new sustainable technologies,
especially those that address market failures and face challenges attracting the investment that
U
they require to succeed. Another context to consider is eco-industrial parks where geographically
AN
proximate firms build networks through waste exchange for reuse, recycling, and reduction
rather than through informational ties. Whether these localized networks of firms could be
M
interesting investment targets for venture capitalists or other investors would need investigation.
D
As a theoretical limitation, this paper did not consider hierarchy associated with
TE
governance of a small world cluster. The network was assumed to have a flat structure in the
sense that no partner was particularly powerful over the cluster as a whole, often reflected by
EP
high centrality. Thus, an aspect to consider for future research is governance of or within clusters
(Baum et al., 2003; Eguíluz et al., 2005). For example, management of a clean tech small world
C
cluster may add value to it. More investigation is also needed into the factors that explain how
AC
and why small world systems evolve. This work added to this research dialogue in terms of
cluster growth.
Overall, this article presents the basic theory to support the possibility of a new
investment and funding model for clean tech. Thus, follow-on work could develop the
26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
practicalities of how to create a small world cluster-backed security and demonstrate the viability
of this financial innovation to entrepreneurs and investors with investment simulations. The
simulations would be instructive prior to making real investments. They could use historical data
that compares the rate of return and risk of a clean tech cluster of firms with a standard
PT
diversified investment portfolio and with individual firm performance. Clean tech clusters today
RI
are often composed of a mix of public and private firms, so gathering the financial data is
currently a challenge. Private firms often do not want to share sensitive financial information
SC
related to performance. However, when the industry has a lengthier history and the historical
U
information will be accessible for research that can test the theory proposed by this research. In
AN
the meantime, wealthy investors who are industry savvy and can afford to experiment could go
ahead and see if this cluster investing approach works for them.
M
D
References
TE
Aggarwal, V.A., Siggelkow, N., Singh, H., 2011. Governing collaborative activity:
EP
Ahuja, G., 2000. Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study.
AC
Arino, A., 2003. Measures of strategic alliance performance: an analysis of construct validity.
Baum, J. A., Cowan, R., Jonard, N., 2010. Network-independent partner selection and the
27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
Baum, J.A.C., Shipilov, A.V., Rowley, T. J., 2003. Where do small worlds come from?
Beckman, C.M., Haunschild, P. R., Phillips, D. J., 2004. Friends or strangers? Firm-specific
PT
uncertainty, market uncertainty, and network partner selection. Organization Science
RI
15(3), 259-275.
Behnke, N., Hültenschmidt, N., 2007. New path to profits in biotech: Taking the acquisition exit.
SC
Journal of Commercial Biotechnology 13, 78–85.
Bettis, R. A., 1981. Performance differences in related and unrelated diversified firms. Strategic
Bourdieu, P., 1986. The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
D
Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., Tsai, W. 2004. Taking stock of networks and
817.
AC
Brockman, T., 2013. Company announces partners for ESTCP microgrid project. Power
http://www.poweranalytics.com/company-announces-partners-estcp-microgrid-project/
28
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
Brundtland, G., Khalid, M., Agnelli, S., Al-Athel, S., Chidzero, B., Fadika, L., ..., Singh, M.
Bürer, M. J., Wüstenhagen, R. 2009. Which renewable energy policy is a venture capitalist's best
PT
Policy 37(12), 4997-5006.
RI
Burt, R. S., 1992. Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
SC
Burt, R.S., 2004. Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology 110, 349–99.
Capaldo, A., 2007. Network structure and innovation: The leveraging of a dual network as a
U
distinctive relational capability. Strategic Management Journal 28(6), 585-608
AN
Cleantech Incubation Europe (CIE), 2014. Cleantech Incubation Policy and Practice. European
Union, June.
M
Coleman, J.S., 1988. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
D
Coviello, N.E., 2006. The network dynamics of international new ventures. Journal of
Cowan, R., Jonard, N., Zimmermann, J. B., 2007. Bilateral collaboration and the emergence
Cyert, R. M., March, J. G., 1963. 3. A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
AC
Prentice-Hall.
Day, R., 2015. Cleantech is dead, long live cleantech. TechCrunch, April 18th [Accessed
2016].
29
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
de Lange, D., 2011. High-tech cluster revolution from an organizational ecology perspective.
Chapter 8 in Marcus, A., Shrivastava, P., Sharma, S. and Pogutz, S. (eds.) Cross-Sector
Leadership for the Green Economy: Integrating Research and Practice on Sustainable
PT
Eguíluz, V.M., Zimmermann, M.G., Cela-Conde, C.J., Miguel, M.S., 2005. Cooperation and the
RI
emergences of role differentiation in the dynamics of social networks. American Journal of
SC
Fehrenbacher, K., 2014. Even for investors with cleantech home runs like Tesla, digital energy is
U
Fleming, L., King, C., Juda, A.I., 2007. Small worlds and regional innovation. Organization
AN
Science 18(6), 938–954.
Giniatullina, A., Boorsma, M., Mulder. G. and van Deventer,S., 2013. Building for big pharma.
D
Gosens, J., Lu, Y., Coenen, L., 2015. The role of transnational dimensions in emerging
Granovetter, M., 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78, 1360
C
–1380.
AC
Greif, A., 1993. Contract enforceability and economic institutions in early trade: The Maghribi
Gulati, R., 1995a. Does familiarity breed trust? the implications of repeated ties for contractual
30
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
Gulati, R., 1995b. Social Structure and alliance formation patterns: a longitudinal analysis.
Gulati, R., 1998. Alliances and networks. Strategic Management Journal 19, 293–317.
Gulati, R., Nohria, N., Zaheer, A., 2000. Strategic networks. Strategic Management Journal 21,
PT
203-215.
RI
Gulati, R., Sytch, M., Tatarynowicz, A., 2012. The rise and fall of small worlds: Exploring the
SC
Hamel, G., 1991. Competition for competence and interpartner learning within international
U
Huhtala, A., 2003a. Special issue on cleaner production financing. Journal of Cleaner
AN
Production 11(6), 611-613.
Jackson, E. T. 2013. Interrogating the theory of change: evaluating impact investing where it
TE
Johanson, J., Vahlne, J.R., 2003. Business relationship learning and commitment in the
EP
Kale, P., Dyer, J. H., Singh, H., 2002. Alliance capability, stock market response, and long-term
alliance success: The role of the alliance function. Strategic Management Journal 23(8),
747-767.
Khanna, T., Gulati, R., Nohria, N., 1998. The dynamics of learning alliances: competition,
31
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
Kogut, B., Walker, G., 2001. The small world of German corporate networks in the global
Lacey, S., 2015. NRG could default on its contract with PG&E for the Ivanpah Concentrating
PT
Solar Plant. Greentechmedia.com, December 21. [Accessed
RI
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/nrg-could-default-on-its-contract-for-the-
SC
Larson, A. 1992. Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of
U
Leskovec, J., Lang, K. J., Dasgupta, A., Mahoney, M. W. 2009. Community structure in large
AN
networks: Natural cluster sizes and the absence of large well-defined clusters. Internet
Lin, N., 1999. Building a network theory of social capital. Connections 22(1), 28-51.
D
Loiter, J. M., Norberg-Bohm, V. 1999. Technology policy and renewable energy: public roles in
TE
Maake, M., 2012. ICT gets lion's share of venture capital funding. Business Times, September,
EP
30th.
Marra, A., Antonelli, P., Dell’Anna, L., Pozzi, C., 2015. A network analysis using metadata
C
17-26.
McEvily, B., Zaheer, A., 1999. Bridging ties: A source of firm heterogeneity in competitive
32
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
Musk, E. 2015. Elon Musk on why Hydrogen fuel cell is dumb (2015.1.13). [Accessed
https://www.nrel.gov/workingwithus/partnership-opportunities.html,
PT
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/gen/fy14/60986.pdf ,
RI
http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2016/24654 and
SC
Nahapiet, J., Ghoshal, S., 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
U
Nohria, N., Gulati, R., 1996. Is slack good or bad for innovation? Academy of Management
AN
Journal 39(5), 1245-1264.
https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID¼2988.
D
O’Rourke, A., (2003). The message and methods of ethical investment. Journal of Cleaner
TE
Obstfeld, D., 2005. Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in
C
Olson, E. L., 2014. Green innovation value chain analysis of PV solar power. Journal of Cleaner
Parad, M., Youngman, R., Knowles, V., 2013. The (continued) rise of the corporation in
33
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
Pattison, P.E., Robins, G.L., 2002. Neighborhood based models for social networks. Sociological
Perold, A. F., 1984. Large-scale portfolio optimization. Management Science 30(10) 1143-1160.
Portes, A., 1998. Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review
PT
of Sociology 24, 1–24.
RI
Pyper, J., 2014. Strategic or VC Investors? Where Cleantech Startups Are Finding Funding.
SC
Richardson, B. J. 2009. Climate finance and its governance: moving to a low carbon economy
58(03), 597-626.
U
AN
Rivkin, J.W., Siggelkow, N., 2007. Patterned interactions in complex systems: implications for
Robins, G., Pattison, P., Woolcock, J., 2005. Small and other worlds: global network structures
D
Rowley, T., Behrens, D., Krackhardt, D., 2000. Redundant governance structures: An analysis of
San Diego discussions. 2012. Confidential discussions with clean tech executives were
C
Schilling, M. A., Phelps, C. C., 2007. Interfirm collaboration networks: The impact of large-scale
Schrank, A., Whitford, J., 2011. The anatomy of network failure. Sociological Theory 29(3),
151-177.
34
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
Simon, H. A., 2010. A behavioral model of rational choice. Competition Policy International
6(1), 241-258.
Singh, J. V., 1986. Performance, slack, and risk taking in organizational decision making.
PT
Smith, R., 2013. A humbled Kleiner Perkins adjusts its strategy. The New York Times, May 7,
RI
p. B1.
St. John, J., 2016. Breaking down DOE’s new $220M grid modernization plan.
SC
Greentechmedia.com, January, 22nd [Accessed
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/breaking-down-does-new-220m-grid-
U
modernization-plan on February 17, 2016].
AN
Sunrun.com. [Accessed http://www.sunrun.com/how-it-works/faq#item-2406 on
Suzuki, M., 2015. Identifying roles of international institutions in clean energy technology
D
innovation and diffusion in the developing countries: matching barriers with roles of the
TE
Tong, J., Mickey, A. 2016. How to Turn Solar ‘Considerers’ Into Solar Adopters.
EP
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/How-to-Turn-Solar-Considerers-Into-
C
Truffer, B., 2012. The need for a global perspective on sustainability transitions. Env.
Dev. 3, 182e183.
35
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
179-190.
UCSD Case Study. Case Study: University of California San Diego Microgrid. [Accessed
PT
Uzzi, B., 1996. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for economic performance of
RI
organizations. American Sociological Review 61, 674–698.
Uzzi, B., 1997. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of
SC
embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly 42, 35-67.
Uzzi, B., Spiro, J. 2005. Collaboration and creativity: the small world problem. American
Walker, G., Kogut, B., Shan, W., 1997. Social capital, structural holes and the formation of an
D
Wasserman, S., Faust, K., 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8).
Watts, D.J., 1999. Small worlds: the dynamics of networks between order and randomness.
Watts, D.J., Strogatz, S.H., 1998. Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393,
AC
440-442.
36
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
PT
Figure 1: A diagrammatic example of a small world network and some associated concepts
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
37
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
PT
RI
Figure 2: A diagram of the main propositions
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
38
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
PT
RI
Figure 3: A pictorial diagram of the dynamism in a small world clean tech cluster
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
39
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Word count: 9841
Figure 4: A comparative diagram of the predominant network cluster theory versus the
new dynamic network cluster theory
PT
RI
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC
40
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Highlights
• Sustainable investors and entrepreneurs find that risk in clean tech is a barrier.
• Small world network clusters of firms can be a value-creating organizational forms.
PT
• In industries like clean tech, clusters may be dynamic rather than stagnant.
• Clean tech might be less risky through a small world cluster-backed security.
RI
• This financial innovation may resolve low investment in clean technology.
U SC
AN
M
D
TE
C EP
AC