The complexity of actor interaction
by
Sophie Cantillon
A dissertation submitted to the Norwegian University of Science and Technology for the degree of PhD
Abstract
This study is about actor interaction and it is set in the Norwegian seafood industry. Since fish is a commodity, the idea of market complexity may not be the first thing that springs to mind. Markets defined by commodities are usually studied by models which are underpinned by neoclassical assumptions. Researchers from the Industrial Marketing and Purchasing (IMP) Group consider interaction to be a fundamental part of business exchange and this may explain why related studies are usually based in empirical contexts that have a perceived technical complexity. However, closer inspection of interaction between seafood actors reveals a complexity that is not well described by traditional marketing models. Thus, the IMP perspective provides an alternate view that formally captures more of the richness of the empirical setting.
The data analysed has come from large seafood actors which are based in three different countries (Britain, Portugal and Chile), each of which is connected to seafood actors based in Norway. The interaction between the seafood actors in these settings are analysed to find out whether interaction is as straightforward as certain marketing models assume it to be. Once this has been done it is possible to see how a generic marketing organisation, the Norwegian Seafood Export Council (NSEC), is affected by the interaction.
This study presents a way of considering the complexity of actor interaction and how this develops over time from the interplay between direct and indirect interaction effects. This identification makes it possible to consider what NSEC can do in response to the indirect effects of seafood actor interaction. The study employs a multiple case study design and the cross sectional-like data enable interesting insights into the development of seafood networks. The actor interaction development model is one specific outcome of the analytical work and this, together with other aspects of the inquiry, contributes to the existing body of IMP literature.
Keywords: network; complexity; actor interaction; direct and indirect effects; change; dynamics; quango; Norway; seafood; fish; commodity
Acknowledgements
A thank you first to NewMark colleagues, Håkan Håkansson, Frans Prenkert, Atle Følgesvold, Svanhild Haugnes, Håkon Raabe, Thomas Hoholm, Lars Huemer, Debbie Harrison, and Morten Abrahamsen. We enjoyed good times together, didn’t we? Your support throughout the duration of the project and beyond has been invaluable. Frans in particular has offered great assistance and inspiration. Generous funding from the Norwegian Research Council made the project and, thus, this study possible, so I am especially grateful for this financial support. While on the subject of NewMark, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge the managers who agreed to be interviewed. Their time and willingness to participate provided me/us with an unparalleled wealth of data.
Thank you to the Department of Marketing at BI Norwegian School of Management, Oslo, which was ‘home’ for most of my PhD time. In particular, I want to thank Ingvild Kobberstad for making me feel so welcome, encouraging me in my determination to learn Norwegian and her support in matters great and small. And I cannot pass by the opportunity of mentioning that life would have been much duller without the presence of Carl Arthur Solberg.
My colleagues at Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, have gone out of their way to make it possible for me to finish this work. Thank you so much for this and for making me so welcome in the department. I am also indebted to the Elof Hansson project for providing me with additional financial support. Great thanks goes to Lars-Erik Gadde and Frida Lind who found time to read final versions of my work and give me helpful ‘bringing it together’ pointers.
One of the nicest things about my time in Norway was the wonderful people I met. Over the years, this amounted to a great many, all of whom made living in Oslo a treasured experience. Those who were constants during this time, who showed me Norwegian traditions and were there for fun times, as well as bolstering my spirits during low points, include Lene Bygballe, Bente Flygansvær, Atle Følgesvold, Niina Halvorsen, Erna Engebrethsen, Leif-Magnus Jensen, Hilde Kjølset, and Nina Olsen.
Outside of Norway, many fun and interesting people have helped, inspired and/or impressed me in one form or another. Kristin Munksgaard, Birgitte Forsström, Annika Tidsström, Carla Ramos, Susanne Åberg, Stephan Henneberg and Stephanos Mouzas all deserve this recognition. I would especially like to thank Alexandra Waluszewski for inviting me to spend time at the STS Centre in Uppsala University where I was able to benefit from the energetic research group there. Related to this experience, my thanks also goes to Enrico Baraldi who opposed my work during my ‘sluttseminar’ and provided a helpful critic of my work.
David Ford and Pete Naude can claim a large assist in helping me to find this path. Who’d have thought an MBA would lead to this? You have my gratitude for seeing potential and continuing to be interested in my welfare and progress.
Sarah Edwards, Clare Levine, and Carl and Peggy Brønn, as well as my parents and my brother Richard have been there for me through thick and thin. At times they have dropped everything to help me out or they have been there when I have needed to escape. No one could be luckier to have such abundant love and support. While on this note, I have to wonder whether I would be here writing this at all if Adam and Oona Scott had not been in my life.
My final words are reserved for the person who has influenced me the most these past years – someone who I respect enormously and whose company is never dull. Taking on board my supervisor’s comments and teaching can be likened to reading between the lines. There is no straight answer; nor should there be. What a journey this has been, Håkan! Thank you for believing in my determination. Thank you for your enthusiasm to share what you know. Working with you has been very special.
Contents
Abstract iii
Acknowledgements v
Contents vii
Figures xi
Tables xiii
1. Setting the research scene 15
1.1 A word or two on commodities 16
1.2 Norwegian seafood and NSEC 16
1.3 Types of interaction between seafood actors 17
1.4 Principles for interaction 18
1.5 Research problems 20
1.6 Structure of the dissertation 21
2. The design of NSEC 23
2.1 Norwegian Seafood Export Council (NSEC) 23
2.2 Different types of collective bodies 24
2.3 Organisations introduced by politicians 25
2.4 Quangos and business exchange 27
2.5 Theory of public good 29
2.6 An organisation designed to influence business exchange 30
3. Interaction in markets and networks 33
3.1 Interaction in a market 34
3.1.1 Commodity 34
3.1.2 Characteristics of interaction in a neoclassical market 35
3.2 Interaction in a network 37
3.2.1 The interaction approach 37
3.2.2 The network interaction approach – activities resources actors (ARA) 39
3.2.3 Resource interaction 44
3.2.4 The business exchange activity systems model 45
3.3 The analytical framework 47
3.3.1 The six interactions analytical framework 49
3.4 Refining the research problem 52
4. Method 55
4.1 Multiple case study design 55
4.2 Use of systematic combining 57
4.3 Data from single points in time 59
4.4 Elements of the data collection 61
4.4.1 Interview guide 62
4.4.2 Team of researchers 63
4.4.3 Interviews 64
4.4.4 Secondary data 65
4.4.5 Language 66
4.4.6 Selection of countries and interviewees 67
4.5 Structure of the cases 68
4.5.1 Case 1: White fish in the UK 68
4.5.2 Case 2: Bacalhau in Portugal 69
4.5.3 Case 3: Farmed salmon in Chile 70
4.6 Trustworthiness 70
5. White fish in the UK 73
5.1 Short background on white fish in the UK 74
5.2 Short background on supermarkets 75
5.3 Short background on secondary seafood processors 76
5.4 Interaction between secondary processors and supermarkets 76
5.5 Interaction between secondary processors and fish suppliers 79
5.6 Interaction between actors related to GFM 82
5.7 Within-case analysis 84
5.7.1 Pure exchange 85
5.7.2 Light cooperation 86
5.7.3 Buying & selling 86
5.7.4 Producing & using 87
5.7.5 Close cooperation 88
5.7.6 Networking 89
5.7.7 Summary 89
6. Bacalhau in Portugal 91
6.1 Short background on bacalhau in Portugal 92
6.2 Short background on supermarkets 93
6.3 Short background on bacalhau exporters 94
6.4 Interaction between the supermarkets and their suppliers 95
6.5 Within-case analysis 100
6.5.1 Pure Exchange 101
6.5.2 Light cooperation 101
6.5.3 Buying & selling 102
6.5.4 Producing & using 102
6.5.5 Close cooperation 103
6.5.6 Networking 103
6.5.7 Summary 103
7. Farmed salmon in Chile 105
7.1 Short background on salmon farming in Chile 105
7.2 Interaction between salmon farmers and customers 107
7.3 Interaction between salmon farmers and suppliers 111
7.3.1 Feed 111
7.3.2 Vaccines 114
7.3.3 Transportation and polyboxes 116
7.3.4 Storage 117
7.4 Within-case analysis 118
7.4.1 Pure exchange 119
7.4.2 Light cooperation 119
7.4.3 Buying & selling 120
7.4.4 Producing & using 121
7.4.5 Close cooperation 122
7.4.6 Networking 123
7.4.7 Summary 123
8. Direct and indirect interaction effects 125
8.1 Interaction in the fish market is not isolated 126
8.2 Cross-case analysis 128
8.2.1 Direct interaction effects 128
8.2.2 Indirect interaction effects 132
8.3 The actor interaction development model 140
8.3.1 Time and dynamics 142
8.4 Summary 145
9. The effect of seafood actor interaction on NSEC 147
9.1 The UK – NSEC is peripherally involved in the network 148
9.2 Portugal – NSEC is involved in the network 150
9.3 Chile – NSEC is between networks 152
10. The complexity of actor interaction 155
10.1 Trying to influence interaction in a network 155
10.2 The actor interaction development model 157
References 161
Appendix 1. 171
Appendix 2 183
Figures
Figure 2.1: NSEC’s design based on a market view of business exchange 31
Figure 2.2: NSEC is trying to influence interaction in a network, not a market 32
Figure 3.1: classification of interaction processes (adapted from Håkansson, 1982:278) 38
Figure 3.2: basic structure of the ARA model (Håkansson and Johanson, 1992:29) 41
Figure 3.3: development effects of business relationships (Håkansson and Snehota, 1995:45) 43
Figure 4.1: systematic combining (Dubois and Gadde, 2002:555) 58
Figure 5.1: the main actors and actor groups in the white fish case 73
Figure 5.2: actors related to Grimsby Fish Market 83
Figure 5.3: interaction between seafood actors involved in white fish in the UK 85
Figure 6.1: the actors in the bacalhau case 92
Figure 6.2: interaction between seafood actors involved in bacalhau in Portugal 101
Figure 7.1: the actors and actor groups in the farmed salmon case 105
Figure 7.2: interaction between seafood actors involved in salmon farming in Chile 119
Figure 8.1: illustration of the actor interaction development model 141
Figure 9.1: reminder of the research problem 148
Figure 9.2: NSEC’s peripheral involvement in the network 150
Figure 9.3: NSEC’s involvement in the network 152
Figure 9.4: NSEC between networks 154
Tables
Table 3.1: interactions and resources in industrial systems (Prenkert, 2003) 46
Table 3.2: six interactions analytical framework 52
Table 4.1: primary data collection activities in the NewMark project 62
Table 5.1: size of UK secondary processors and their main customers 77
Table 5.2: white fish imports into the UK by export nation 80
Table 5.3: types of interaction in the white fish case 84
Table 6.1: size of the Portuguese supermarkets 93
Table 6.2: size of the three largest Norwegian producers of bacalhau 95
Table 6.3: types of interaction in the bacalhau case 100
Table 7.1: size of large salmon farmers based in Chile 107
Table 7.2: number of important actors interviewed in Chile 107
Table 7.3: types of interaction in the salmon farming case 118
Table 8.1: direct interaction effects 128
Table 8.2: indirect interaction effects 132
Table 8.3: the actor interaction development model 141
xiv
1. Setting the research scene
Chapter one starts a little differently from the forthcoming chapters. It requires quite a lot from the reader and in a bid to aid understanding, the following paragraphs are included. Something that has been of considerable importance to the researcher has been conciseness. Often it is possible to be more concise when one has a greater understanding of one’s theme. The trouble with this is that the reader is unlikely to have spent the same amount of time getting to know the same area. In which case, conciseness can lead to confusion. It is not supposed that the introduction can alleviate all problems, in fact it may well cause new ones, but at least it may go some way towards easing the otherwise rather abrupt tone of the chapter.
The purpose of chapter one is to provide a very brief introduction to the theme in order to set out the research problems, which are then further developed in chapters two and three. In a bid to cut straight to the chase, the chapter begins with the briefest of hints towards commodities. A more extensive discussion comes later. The inclusion up front like this is to suggest that products treated as commodities tend to be viewed through marketing research lenses that emphasise conditions such as homogeneity, independence and the importance of price. However, just because they are commodities does not necessarily mean that this is the only way for such exchanges to be understood.
Following this, you are rather abruptly brought into the research context, which is fish. A fish is a commodity product and thus the link with commodities is established. Fish in general are not being studied of course. It is the companies that manufacture and/or use fish that are of interest and how these involved companies come to be in this study is based on their association with Norway. Since seafood is an important export for Norway, the Norwegians have introduced a generic marketing organisation[1] called the Norwegian Seafood Export Council (NSEC). NSEC is important to the study because, pending the findings from the research carried out on the interaction between seafood companies, another marketing perspective – one which is not founded on neoclassical economic principles – may aid understanding of how such an organisation affects and is affected by interaction. This means, as far as this study is concerned, there is no intention to understand NSEC more than the establishment of its organisational make-up, which is presented in chapter two. (This is also why NSEC is interviewed in the way that it is.)
Knowing when and where to bring NSEC into the study has been tricky right from the beginning, and no elegant solution could be found in this document either. Its placement here in chapter one is to enable the short discussion on types of implicit interaction, which then gives rise to the ‘principles for interaction’ and finally the research problems. Given that NSEC is mentioned ahead of the discussion on actor interaction, it may be confusing to see the research problems placed in apparently reverse order. However, in order to deal with the NSEC problem, it is necessary to see what seafood actor interaction looks like.