Journal of Cleaner Production 191 (2018) 400e416

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

A holistic model integrating value co-creation methodologies towards

the sustainable development
~o Caiado b, c, d, *, Sergio Luiz Braga França a, b,
Claudia Kruger a, Rodrigo Goyannes Gusma
Osvaldo Luiz Gonçalves Quelhas a, b, c
a
Department of Post-Graduation in Management Systems, Federal Fluminense University, Rua Passo da Pa tria, 156, 24210-240, Nitero
i, Brazil
b
Doctoral Program in Sustainable Management Systems, Federal Fluminense University, Rua Passo da Pa tria, 156, 24210-240, Nitero
i, Brazil
c tria, 156, 24210-240, Nitero
Department of Post-Graduation in Production Engineering, Federal Fluminense University, Rua Passo da Pa i, Brazil
d
Tecgraf Institute of Technical-Scientific Software Development of PUC-Rio, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In the current context, it is observed the need of organizations and institutions not only to satisfy diverse
Received 31 October 2017 stakeholder expectations as well as meeting the growing need for sustainability innovations. Taking that
Received in revised form into account, co-creation can play a key role in stakeholders engagement and sustainable practices could
8 March 2018
provide a participatory and integrative environment. However, it is barely discussed by academics and
Accepted 19 April 2018
practitioners how value co-creation can be a relevant mechanism for sustainable development (SD),
Available online 24 April 2018
what are the key factors for co-creation aimed at SD and how to align co-creation with sustainability. To
answer these questions, this study aims to propose a conceptual model of co-creation for sustainability,
Keywords:
Sustainable development
involving techniques and methodologies aimed at stakeholder engagement and contribution to SD. We
Co-creation used mixed methods approach, based on the use of a bibliometric model, followed by a Survey with
Social responsibility application of a structured questionnaire for participants from virtual communities of co-creation pro-
Stakeholder engagement cesses or sustainability. Based on content analysis and statistical analyzes, a complex interconnection was
Conceptual model observed, demonstrating the configuration of an open system, which could be better understood from
Triple bottom line the construction of a holistic model of co-creation for sustainability. The model can contribute to the
meeting of the disciplines of co-creation and the triple bottom line vision of sustainability, integrating
key factors and different methodologies that generally are studied in an exclusive and non-
complementary way, becoming innovative for the academic, business and social environment. Lastly,
it can be concluded that the model can be used integrally or in parts, in organizations of any nature,
formal or otherwise, or even from the integration of some individuals of the society who seek solutions
for sustainable development.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction not only to improve their economic performance, but also to act
with social responsibility (SR) to meet diverse stakeholder expec-
The concept of sustainable development (SD) - which was born tations (Sarmah et al., 2015) and to address environmental and
at United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stock- social impacts. This three-dimensional view of sustainability,
holm Conference) in 1972 e is being widely discussed by academics known as the triple bottom line (TBL), was proposed by Elkington
and practitioners due to increased concern for the planet's sus- (1998) based on the proposal of the Brundtland Commission
tainability over the last decades (Caiado et al., 2017). In the current report, in a document entitled Our Common Future (WECD, 1987), in
context, it is observed the need of organizations and institutions which sustainability would be achieved through a balance between
economic return, social equity and environmental preservation
(Harris et al., 2001).
* Corresponding author. Doctoral Program in Sustainable Management Systems, Although sustainable development is a global cause and society
Federal Fluminense University, Rua Passo da Patria, 156, 24210-240. Nitero
i, Brazil. is increasingly sensitive about it (Lozano et al., 2013), there are
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Kruger), [email protected] many complex challenges as the need to align diverse stakeholder
(R.G.G. Caiado), [email protected] (S.L.B. França), [email protected]
(O.L.G. Quelhas).
expectations as well as the growing need for sustainability

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.180
0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C. Kruger et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 191 (2018) 400e416 401

innovations, implement SR strategies, define and assess sustain- for continuous co-creation with a focus on sustainability (Arnold,
ability performance (Dias et al., 2014). Furthermore, SD requires 2017). There is also a need for a model enabling organizations
collaboration in the form of integrative thinking and action (Keeys and institutions to manage their value co-creation processes for the
and Huemann, 2017; Roome, 2013). creation of sustainable goods and services.
In 2000, Prahalad and Ramaswamy brought to the academy a To address these research gaps, this article intends to follow a
term and business practice for competitive advantage: co-creation. strategic perspective of co-creation of value, sharing with sustain-
In 2004, the authors launched the best-selling “The Future of ability a broader role that addresses society as a whole (Aquilani
Competition” in which, focused on consumer power, indicate that et al., 2017) and brings about a lasting expansion of wealth-
business-consumer interaction and co-creation experiences be- welfare-wellbeing (Ramaswamy and Ozcan, 2014). This explor-
tween them reveal great opportunities for innovation and value atory work uses a combination of qualitative and quantitative
creation. What Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004b) propose evolves methods to propose a conceptual model of co-creation for sus-
from a business objective of persuading their public and even goes tainability, involving relevant factors and methodologies for the
beyond the objective of establishing ties with their buyers because, success of the co-creative activity, engagement of stakeholders and
with co-creation, consumers become part of the extended network to sustainable development. Then, an empirical study was applied
of skills, creating value for the business so that the company and to evaluate the correlation (through statistics) and conceptual re-
itself are benefited. Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010a) broaden the lations (through content analysis) between the factors of co-
understanding of co-creation with consumers for co-operation creation towards sustainability. Thus, we investigate the
with stakeholders as a way of assuring companies the correct ex- following research questions:
ercise of SR, given that in a co-creative ecosystem it would be
possible all interested parties could have an opinion and benefit
What are the key factors for co-creation towards sustainable
from the results. development?
In the SR context, the co-creation phenomenon can play a key
How can co-creation be a relevant mechanism for sustainable
role in stakeholders engagement if this business practice involves development?
the other affected stakeholders, besides considering the consumers
What are the benefits generated for value creation and sus-
and the company expectations. In this way, co-creation is an iter- tainable development by integrating these two approaches?
ative process that can be used as a strategy for achieving SD - a
How to apply co-creation aligned with the concept of sustain-
holistic management approach that integrates the dimensions of ability in private or public organizations, third sector and non-
TBL and considers multiple stakeholders (Keeys and Huemann, formal organizations?
2017).
Based on the aforementioned scenario, co-creation could thus By answering these questions, we make several contributions.
enable the development of new sustainability innovations (Zwass, First, we contribute to find out the key factors for value co-creation
2010; Payne et al., 2008; Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004b), towards sustainable development and the main methodologies
considering that this approach is supported by an innovative, involved in this. Second, this research provides a novel holistic
transparent, adaptive and participatory environment. Moreover, as model that aims to promote the TBL vision of sustainability through
Arnold (2017), co-creation “changes the perspective of co-creation, by analyzing the outcomes from a mixed-method
organization-based production processes to (value) ‘chain-based’ approach. Finally, it improves our understanding of sustainability,
production processes” and is based on the vertical chain- linking this construct to value co-creation.
production within inter-organizational relationships. From a theoretical point of view, the paper contributes to liter-
Currently, it is noticed in the literature that different co-creation ature, since this model will serve as a reference to guide academics
methodologies have been used as enablers for sustainability. For and future research towards the transition to sustainable devel-
example, according to Geissdoerfer et al. (2016), the Design opment. The findings of this study have several important impli-
Thinking includes formerly underserved stakeholders in the value cations for the theory of value creation. First, this is one of the first
proposition, and thus helps companies to improve. their perfor- studies that empirically tests virtual communities - made up of
mance while becoming more sustainable. Likewise, Jurietti et al. public experts on the issues of co-creation and sustainability -
(2017) states that Living Lab can increase stakeholders interaction regarding their perception of the main themes, co-creative meth-
in SR processes and dialogues. Considering that many methodolo- odologies and relevant factors. In addition, this model is innovative,
gies have differences in relation to the focus, the phases to obtain as it seeks to present a holistic methodology of co-creation that
results, and their potential influence over the interested parties, the integrates different methodologies that are usually studied in a
alignment of concepts of diverse methodologies in a complemen- substitute rather than complementary form. Finally, the model is
tary way could help to create a collaborative approach among all interdisciplinary and seeks to meet the needs of multiple stake-
stakeholders, with fewer constraints and more resources and holders and the TBL sustainability in an integrated way.
flexibility. So that effective short-term intervention for rapid From a managerial standpoint, this model can help managers,
change can be addressed, as well as the evolving needs and prior- leaders, and decision makers in organizations integrate different
ities of those involved through a continuous process of exchange of management approaches, sharing key and common characteristics,
knowledge and long-term and sustainable programs that will to create a unique model that converges the strengths of different
enable new learning and innovations in favor of socio- co-creation methodologies and seeks to align the perspectives of
environmental issues. In this sense, the integration of co-creation different stakeholders, by equitably sharing the value created
methodologies can be a viable way to achieve SR and even orga- together through collaboration and innovation for the transition to
nizational sustainability, thus contributing to SD. sustainable development.
The integration of value co-creation with SR or even the three
dimensions of sustainability is an area that requires further 2. Background
research, since there are limited literary and empirical studies
about this (Aquilani et al., 2017; Keeys and Huemann, 2017; Lacoste, 2.1. SD and SR insights
2016; Sarmah et al., 2015). In addition, it is barely discussed how
organizations can institutionalize the processes or be responsible Historically, the World Commission on Environment and
402 C. Kruger et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 191 (2018) 400e416

Development's (Brundtland Report), in a document entitled Our attributed to Prahalad and Ramaswamy since the process has roots
Common Future, defined SD as the development that must be in the twentieth century. They cite Mary Parker Follett (1868e1933)
planned in order to “meet the needs of the present without as a reference. Follet recognized the holistic nature of the com-
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own munity and advanced the idea of “reciprocal relations” and advo-
needs” (WECD, 1987: 37). cated the principle of what it called “integration”, or sharing of non-
Most recently, at the Rioþ20 Conference, in its final document coercive power (“power with” instead of “power over”), as
The Future We Want, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) observed by Metcalf and Urwick (2004). In the study, Ind and
have been approved and negotiated through a series of measurable Coates (2013) propose that “co-creation should be recognized by
targets that require a large amount of global multi-level monitoring bringing together psychotherapy, management science, innovation
effort (Giupponi and Gain, 2016). It is expected that the new SDGs and open innovation, design, literary theory and the creativity
and its targets define a global agenda that adheres to economic practice”. The authors conclude that when these new opportunities
growth, social inclusion, and to environmental protection (Stafford- are combined, the concept of co-creation departs from a vision of
Smith et al., 2016). enterprise value creation (domain) for a collaborative view in
According to Hubbard (2006) the three pillars of TBL sustain- which individuals collaborate with each other to meet their so-
ability show that organizations must evaluate their performance cialization and meaning, putting the organizations in a position of
against a wider group of stakeholders with a more holistic view of equality, not of dominion.
sustainability. The idea of stakeholders management to strategic Pombinho (2015) brings two dimensions of value co-creation:
management, suggests that managers should formulate and structural (as each part generates value to the network) and tem-
implement processes that satisfy all and only those groups that poral (mutual adaptation to increase the value created for the ac-
have a stake in the business, and it is essential to manage and tors involved). The author cites the continuous improvement of
integrate the relationships and interests of these stakeholders in a service contract from customer feedback. (Pombinho, 2015). Vargas
way that guarantees long-term success (Freeman, 1984). This evaluated how sustainable practices in the retail supply chain are
approach emphasizes the active management of the business developed in front of seven manufacturing companies in Brazil and
environment, relationships, and the promotion of common concluded that sustainable practices are not implemented in the
interests. organizations evaluated “without economic gains, pressure from
Besides that, as Barrena Martínez et al. (2016), there is no legal norms or restriction on access of raw materials” (Vargas, 2016,
consensus on the definition of SR, nor tools or guidelines on how to p.100). Vargas identified that stakeholder engagement in the chain,
manage its effects. On the other hand, they reveal the importance of through win-win negotiations and cost sharing, is a way to get
socially responsible behavior on the part of companies as a strategy more sustainable products at more affordable prices, demon-
to legitimize and survive these and indicate the construction of strating that, in practice, the applied concept is still the traditional
shared value as a basis for this purpose. As Mace ^do and Ca^ndido one.
(2011), SR process voluntarily integrate social and environmental According to Vargo and Lusch (2004), the value co-creation
concerns into organization operations and can improve partner- takes place from the perspective of the dominant logic of service,
ships and the commitment to work, being an interaction point in in which the client is mainly an operant resource, an active
the search for promising and effective actions to improve both the participant in relational exchanges and coproduction. However,
company and its relationship with society. coproduction can be identified not only in the corporate vision.
The relationship between SD and SR can be broken down into Bovaird (2007) identified that policy making and service delivery in
three important points: (i) focusing on a wide variety of stake- the public domain are no longer viewed as one-way processes,
holders to satisfy their demands and address the triple bottom line indicating a coproduction approach in which users and commu-
of sustainable development; (ii) integrating the considerations of nities are part of service planning and delivery. Thus, based on the
stakeholders into business processes, and (iii) observing a volun- authors' use of the terms co-creation, coproduction and value co-
tary basis (Steurer et al., 2005). creation almost as synonyms and always focused on their greater
Thus, SD represents the development focused on a state of objective - which is the shared value - for the purposes of this study,
sustainability for society as a whole and for the planet and SR, in when presenting the term co-creation, it is briefly understood as
turn, it is about the behavior of organizations and refers to the the joint verification of problems and solutions for creating shared
responsibilities they have to meet expectations today expressed in value.
society. Therefore, if sustainability is a state to achieve, SD is the De Morais and Santos (2015) state that coproduction and co-
means and SR is the contribution of organizations to this creation are independent variables and for both cases, combined
environment. or separately, there may be co-created value. What determines the
co-created value is the integration, and the level of integration is
2.2. Value co-creation: concepts and methodologies determined by the degree of depth in the process adjustments for
the co-creation, the integration of resources, the availability of the
Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004a) made a counterpoint to the actors and the richness of channels and clarity of communication
traditional concept of co-creation, that the company creates value among customers, suppliers and other stakeholders.
and that the relationship with consumers is a mere exchange of Table 1 summarizes some of the main methodologies for co-
values, stating that, in fact, co-creation supplants the exchange creation, considering any and all techniques that aim to apply a
process, since involves personalized relationships that are relevant collaborative work from conception to results.
and even sensitive to individuals, which brings benefits to con- Furthermore, the co-creation makes CSR to take a significant
sumers and, of course, to businesses and value is co-created, that is, step forward because it generates benefits such as allowing all
created by both the company and the consumer. It can be concluded stakeholders to have an opinion and benefit from the results,
in this way that in order to have value creation, it is not enough for increasing the social legitimacy of companies and simultaneously
the solutions to be co-created, but their benefit (value) must be expanding and transforming the value of the business, bringing
shared. together the various stakeholders in what could be called “social
Ind and Coates (2013) in the article “The meanings of co-crea- ecosystems” (Ramaswamy and Gouillart, 2010a,b, p. 112).
tion” have identified that the concept of co-creation can not be fully
 C. Kruger et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 191 (2018) 400e416 403

Table 1
Co-creation methodologies.

Metodologies Description Focus/Diferential Author(s)

Design It uses divergent and convergent thinking and Use of techniques (sometimes experiential) to know Brown et al. (2008)
Thinking (DT) consists of a process based on the user experience, the users' perspective and use of prototypes in the
formatted in three stages: inspiration (circumstance ideation phase (brings gains in agility and creativity
of the problem and/or opportunity that motivates for the development of solutions).
the search for solutions, change), ideation
(brainstorming, generation, development and
testing of ideas that can lead to solutions) and
implementation (business model and verification of
results for the new project).
Appreciative The process begins with the choice of an affirmative Methodology of organizational change focused on Cooperrider
Inquiry (AI) topic and is conducted in four stages: Discovery quality, on the positive, not on the problem to be et al. (2008)
(investigation of what is best), Dream (sharing, solved (confers a solution based on something that
checking of common themes and development of is already in the nature of the organization and can
shared dream), Planning (construction of the plan facilitate implementation).
for the dream to become reality) and Future (public
declaration of the actions intended by all involved).
Dragon It is part of the priorities and values of the individual The methodology uses deep listening tools in order DRAGON DREAMING
Dreaming (DD) and is conducted in four stages: dreaming to have a more transparent dialogue to establish BRASIL (2014)
(stimulating the intention of the relationship), great empathy (which allows the project scope to
planning (threshold of possibility in context), emerge from the group itself).
performing (acting with commitment) and
celebrating (response with expected satisfaction).
U Theory (UT) A framework of leadership and change based on Although it is useful as a technique for co-creation, Scharmer and
consciousness in a process that can be it is much more than a punctual methodology with Kaufer (2014)
demonstrated graphically as the letter “U” because beginning, middle and end because it presents a
it includes: descent (listening tools), bottom of the series of tools that act on the behavioral change of
“U” (moment of reflection) and ascent (prototype, individuals and society.
feedback, adjustments and evolution).
Living Lab (LL) An open, user-centric ecosystem of research and It is a platform for co-creation, not a co-creative rilhac et al. (2012);
Ve
innovation, integrated with society and real-life methodology in itself, therefore, it uses several Schaffers et al. (2011a);
contexts, using a variety of methods of co-creation, methodologies of approach of experimentation, € st e Holst (2012);
Ståhlbro
with multi-stakeholder participation and generally providing more flexibility and greater conditions for ENOLL (1999)
provided by a scientific or academic institution. prototyping in real situations.
Open Space This technique introduces a step-by-step process to Commonly used to facilitate the exchange of Owen (2003)
Technology (OST) generate the collaborative process, free and that information and building solutions for complex and
provokes the sense of responsibility, that disposes potentially conflicting issues in large groups.
the people in circles, in order to provoke the
dialogue, without a clearly defined agenda (the
group agenda, collaboratively).
Nonviolent Language and communication skills, based on It presents more as a behavior, a value translated in Rosemberg (2006)
Communica-tion awareness of what we are perceiving, feeling and the form of communication that stimulates
(NVC) desiring, that allows us to reformulate the way in inclusive, collaborative and productive dialogue,
which we listen and express ourselves, with leaving generalizations and judgments out of the
honesty and clarity, generating empathy. conversation. It is complementary to other co-
creative techniques.
Networks Tools that facilitate interaction and, make it possible In general it is used in support of a process, since the Franco (2008)
to convert, as a result of their dynamics, purpose must be assumed by the members in order
competition in cooperation. for the network to transform, in fact, competition in
cooperation.
Listening It is a practice of listening deeply. It is presented in Like the NVC, it presents itself more as a behavior, a Scharmer and
four levels: Level 1 or Downloading (basic, ruled by value translated in the way of listening in an open Kaufer (2014)
habitual judgment, that only serves to reconfirm old way and without judgments. It is complementary to
opinions); Level 2 or Factual (occurs when the other co-creative techniques.
individual opens the mind to receive different
information), Level 3 or Empathic (occurs when the
individual establishes an emotional connection,
which we see from the eyes of another person) and
Level 4 or Generative when, connected to the
medium, it enters into a generative process and
liberates collective creativity).
 (WC)
World Cafe Participatory dialogue in groups, distributed in a It allows the group to have access to a form of Brown (2010)
receptive and hospitable environment (like coffee collaborative intelligence, since it stimulates the
tables) that talk about relevant questions around a participation of all (from smaller groups), allowing
purpose. richness in the variety of points of view and their
connections, patterns and insights (table rotation
and conclusion in the form of plenary).
Circle Process (CP) Focused on a single circular group, it is a process It combines empathy-generating and participatory Pranis and
that, from the use of a “stick of the word”, passed techniques, facilitating collective awareness and Boyes-Watson
from person to person consecutively around the consensus. (2011)
circle, is configured the dialogue, in which the
person can speak without being interrupted.
404 C. Kruger et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 191 (2018) 400e416

2.3. Co-creation for sustainability and the most cited ones per production cycle, obtaining a total of
142 documents, which were analyzed. As inclusion/exclusion
Sustainability co-creation means combining resources, knowl- criteria, only those articles that had content of co-creation or co-
edge and (cap-)abilities across multiple stakeholders, which means creative practice focused on SD were considered as purpose. From
that co-creation is related to sustainable learning, relationship the reading of the titles of the documents, those that were further
management and the support of sustainable tools (such as life cycle from the research objective were excluded, resulting in 62 docu-
assessment - LCA) in order to achieve improvements in the value ments, from which all the abstracts were read and 31 main docu-
chain, products and services in the three dimensions of sustain- ments were selected for full reading.
ability (Arnold, 2017). On a complementary basis, it can be seen that Then, critical and in-depth review and analysis on the selected
through the adoption of SR strategies and initiatives, organizations papers was performed through qualitative content analysis. The
can keep community members as stakeholders for co-creation of content analysis in relation to the process was performed with the
value, generating profitable business results, while motivating editing, coding and tabulation of case studies in Microsoft Excel.
partners to pursue integrity (Sarmah et al., 2015). Thus, the more Such a content analysis was done to systematically identify char-
stakeholders are engaged, the greater the influence on the devel- acteristics among the articles in order to reveal important elements
opment of sustainable innovative processes, which shows that just of such process, as indicated by Gray (2012). Thus, there was a
as co-creation is a powerful way of advancing sustainability categorization of the content of the selected articles, observing
transformations, the adoption of sustainable practices fosters dia- similarity in the processes studied and identifying 20 key factors for
logue among stakeholders, provides a systemic view of societal the development of a co-creative process with a goal related to SD,
problems and acts as a holistic, participatory and integrative which are detailed in section 2.3.
strategy that leverages the co-creative environment. Considering
the literature related to this theme, we observed 20 relevant factors 3.2. Survey design
for the implementation of a co-creative process towards sustain-
ability (Table 2). It should be emphasized that the authors marked The exploratory survey method was considered more appro-
in the table approach the related factor, partially or totally. priate to understand the perception of the virtual publics of co-
Table 2 shows that three factors were unanimous in the litera- creation and sustainability (Forza, 2012), regarding the applica-
ture review and therefore require greater importance in the co- tion of co-creation to define problems and solutions for sustainable
creation process: in terms of “selection” of participants, “partici- development. Firstly, a pilot questionnaire was applied with four
pation” and “propagation” of the information, being considered professionals with high experience and knowledge in innovation,
critical from this perspective. co-creation and sustainability, in order to test content validity and
readability of the issues. Professionals were chosen because of their
3. Research methodology professional nature (experience time greater than ten years in co-
creation and greater than five years in sustainability). The result
This study adopted the exploratory method in order to clarify was very positive, demonstrating the need for only two settings: in
the perception of market with regard to co-creative processes for relation to the scale, which now includes a central category
sustainability and find out what's in the literature on value co- (neutral) (Likert, 1932) and changing the order of the factors,
creation and sustainability. It was also decided to conduct a “lucidity” followed by “selection ”, for didactic and logical purposes.
descriptive research using the cross-sectional survey, quantitative Thus, the pilot questionnaire provided a better refinement of the
variables, using a structured questionnaire, in which we analyzed questions, ensuring that there was clarity and objectivity to answer
the perceptions of experts and better understanding of the data. In the questions.
this way, the mixed methods approach was adopted, since it pro- The web questionnaire was structured as follows: (1) identifi-
vides more comprehensive understandings (McKendrick, 2009), as cation of the respondent's country; (2) self-declaration if they
well as multiple ways and with a broader range to detect new participated in a co-creative process (definition of the study); (3)
practices and new learning opportunities (Iaquinto, 2016). Briefly, self-report if they participated in a co-creative process for SD; (4)
the research steps and the methods used in data collection for the evaluation as to the scope of the objective of the process (totally,
proposition of the model are indicated in Fig. 1. partially, not reached); (5) spontaneous indication of the key fac-
tors for the result obtained; (6) indication of the methodologies
3.1. Identifying preliminary concepts used; (7) perception regarding the contribution of the co-creation
to SD; (8) evaluation of the relevance of factors identified in the
An extensive literature review was conducted with a view to literature; (9) spontaneous indication of unquoted factor of the
identifying and describing some concepts and methodologies of co- previous question; (10) observation regarding the search and (11)
creation for stakeholder engagement and contribution to SD, indication of e-mail to send the result. The question (8) was
materialized in section 2, which served as a basis to support the answered using a Likert 5-point scale (1 ¼ “irrelevant”, 2 ¼ “little
survey. The literature was searched in line with the biliometric relevant”, 3 ¼ “neutral”, 4 ¼ “relevant” and 5 ¼ “very relevant”)
model of Costa (2010), called the webibliomining, using the Scopus allowing answers with varying degrees of classification to indicate
database as Santos and Mexas (2016). Much attention was paid to the significance of the factors (Blok et al., 2014). Moreover, the open
selecting the right keywords to retrieve papers. The search was questions (5) and (9) aims to identify and validate the key factors as
performed on January 4, 2017 using the following search string: well as help to understand the causal relationship between factors
{(“co-creation” OR “collaborative methodology”) AND (“engage- involved in the sustainable co-creative process.
ment”)} OR {(“co-creation” OR “collaborative methodology”) ) AND
(“sustainable development” OR “sustainability”)} OR {(“co-creation” 3.3. Data collection and sample
OR “collaborative methodology”) AND (“social responsibility” OR
“stakeholders” OR “accountability”)}. After excluding duplicities, a Considering that for the application of the research it was
total of 745 documents were obtained. In this research, we selected important to have people who had some experience in a co-
the first documents on the subject, the documents of the main creative and/or in co-creation process for sustainable develop-
authors, the most cited documents throughout the research period ment, the web survey was sent in August 2017 to the most relevant
Table 2
Factors to implementing a co-creative process for sustainability.

Factor Description Knight Schaffers Mauser Trencher Reed Ramaswamy Ramaswamy Batterham Steelman Evans Sitas Voytenko
et al. et al. et al. et al. et al. and Chopra and Gouillart et al. et al. et al. et al. et al.
(2012b) (2011b) (2013) (2013) (2014) (2014) (2010b) (2014) (2015) (2015) (2016) (2016)

Selection Choice of participants made in a non-random C C C C C C C C C C C C

way, but from the materiality, influence and
diversity.
Knowledge Inclusion of participants who are reference in C C C C C C C C
the theme and/or complete assessment of the
problem, its impacts, related behavioral and
environmental conditions and any known
determinants.
Lucidity Purpose and process clearly understood among C C C C C C C C C C C
those involved.
Relevance Recognition of the relevance of the theme by C C C C C C C C C C C
participants for sustainable development.
Interest Identification of the interests of those involved C C C C C C
in the process.

C. Kruger et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 191 (2018) 400e416

Legitimacy Interests of participants aligned with the C C C
purpose of the activity.
Scenario Knowledge of participants' needs and situation C C C C C C C
and/or mapping of interactions between them.
Resources Survey of resources needed for the activity C C C C C C C
(financial, time, human, among others).
Risk Risk analysis of involvement, ethical C C C
implications, transdisciplinary friction and
political processes.
Capacity Similar capacity between the participants for C C C C C C
the dialogue (for example, there are no concept
or linguistic barriers).
Trust Establish an environment of trust, empathy and C C C C C C C C
goodwill among the participants, which may
include initial involvement, mobilization and
awareness activities.
Facilitation Use of facilitators who are trained for the co- C C C C C C C C C
creative process, motivators and with their
defined roles and responsibilities.
Participation Interactive and dialogical activity, offering tools C C C C C C C C C C C C
or platforms (face-to-face or virtual).
Balance Fair interaction process, with balanced C C C C C
participation among the participants.
Engagement Method with level of involvement adequate to C C C C
the participants' expectation.
Flexibility Methodology that allows adaptation when the C C C
needs and priorities of the participants evolve.
Experimenta- Prototyping or environment for C C C C C C C C C C
tion experimentation of co-creative products.
Result Execution of a plan of action to achieve the C C C C C C C C C C
objectives and to bring results to society.
Propagation Communication of results, maintenance of the C C C C C C C C C C C C
dialogue and tools to expand the spread of
information to other levels.
Follow up Constant evaluation of the action plan, C C C C C C
monitoring and study of future activities.

405
406 C. Kruger et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 191 (2018) 400e416

Fig. 1. Mixed methods approach to propose the Conceptual Model.

and representative professional groups existing on LinkedIn® and In the questionnaire a free field was placed below each closed
Facebook® platforms using the keywords “cocreation”, “design question that assessed the level of relevance of the factor. In the
thinking”, “U theory”, “appreciative inquiry”, “dragon dreaming”, content analysis of these responses, one point of contact was
“world cafe”, “living lab”, “nonviolen communication”, “circle assigned each time when the respondent referred to another item
process ”, “ sustainability “and” sustainable development”. The when evaluating the relevance of one of the items. We identified
message with the web questionnaire was sent in English and Por- 0 to 5 contact points. It should be noted that respondents were not
tuguese, according to the language of the group. The selected asked to identify correlations. This indication was spontaneous and,
communities were: Design Thinking, Copenhagen Co-Creation, therefore, has no statistical relevance, but indicates, qualitatively,
Appreciative Inquiry 1st, Corporate Social Responsibility CSR and interpretations of the relations between the key success factors for
Sustainable Development (Sustainability), Sustainability Professionals the co-creative process for sustainability, allowing, together with
on LinkedIn® and Theory U in Practice, Dragon Dreaming Brazil and the statistical analysis of correlations, to construct the model,
Service Design, Design thinking, Service Innovation on Facebook®. approaching or distancing the factors at each stage. As the last
After an eight-week survey period, a total of 165 experts agreed attempt to extract from the respondents the key factors for suc-
to participate. Of this total, 60 responses were excluded for cessful co-creative activity, an open question was posed after the
incomplete data, totaling 105 valid answers, with complete an- evaluation of the 20 factors, so that they could indicate one or more
swers, which represents a return of more than 63.6%. The sample is factors that were not covered in the previous question. Again no
considered non-probabilistic (sampling for convenience), since the new key factor was identified.
researcher does not know the probability that an element of the The closed questions were analyzed using descriptive and
population must belong to the sample (Sekaran and Bougie, 2010) inferential statistics using the R software (R Development Core
and that the publics were selected from according to the platforms, Team, 2013) while the open questions were analyzed through
criteria of accessibility and availability (Megliorini, 2004, p.42). content analysis, following the methodology of Gray (2012) using a
About the nationality distribution, although the vast majority of spreadsheet in the Microsoft Excel application for categorizing the
respondents are from Brazil, it is possible to verify that respondents parsed data manually. The descriptive statistics used included fre-
from 24 different countries around the world answered the web quencies/percentages to describe sample characteristics analyzed
survey. The other five countries with the largest number of re- and the calculation of Cronbach's alpha, to measure the internal
spondents were: (i) United States (USA), (ii) Netherlands, (iii) validity. Cronbach's alpha statistic (Cronbach, 1989) presented by
United Kingdom, (iv) India and (v) Colombia. Lee J. Cronbach in 1951 is one of the main ways of estimating the
internal consistency of each construct in a questionnaire (Forza,
2012), and should reach the minimum level of 0.70 and can
3.4. Data analysis admit 0.60 in exploratory research (Hair et al., 2010). Inferential
statistics were also used as the Shapiro-Wilk normality test (S-W)
To make better use of the collected data, the logical sequence for and the correlation analysis between items of the construct. Many
analysis was adapted in line with the research objectives and €
authors (Leotti et al., 2005; Oztuna et al., 2006; Cirillo and Ferreira,
consistent with the current theory studied. Firstly, the webi- 2003) consider S-W to be the best test for adherence to normality.
bliomining model was used in order to identify documents already Shapiro and Wilk (1965) developed the test to show that it is effi-
published on co-creation techniques for stakeholder engagement cient for different distributions and sample sizes. As the data did
and contribution to sustainable development. We then proceeded not present a normal distribution, the Spearman coefficient r was
to the content analysis stage of the selected articles. This allowed used, which is a bivariate correlation procedure that does not
the analysis of the repetition of important characteristics and a require the relationship between the variables to be linear, to
phrasal construction of each key factor. As a result, it was possible measure the strength of the association between the ordinal vari-
to identify 20 key factors for the success of co-creative activity for ables and uses the order of observations, instead of the observed
this purpose. value, only (Pestana and Velosa, 2006).
We then proceeded to verify these factors by means of an online Furthermore, for the treatment of qualitative data, again the
exploratory survey, in order to test the results obtained in the content analysis was used through a coding system to interpret the
bibliographic research with the perception of the public (virtual data. Descriptive responses were grouped into categories and most
communities). The questionnaire was structured in order to first of them addressed a key factor. We categorized the data into
identify the members of the communities that have already nominal (respondents' comments) and grouped manually all the
participated in the sustainability processes so that they could placements relative to each category based on the twenty key
spontaneously point out key factors for the success of the activity. factors for the analysis. Another analysis was done specifically on
For this, open questions were asked to the respondents, so that it is the relevance of each factor. Besides that, each respondent could
possible to identify key factors complementary to the already freely comment on this factor, spontaneous indicating the possi-
identified from the content analysis of the secondary data, articles. bility of interrelationship between the factors.
The questionnaire was also constructed in order to obtain the re- The questionnaire also allowed the respondents to indicate the
spondents' perception of the relevance of each of the 20 key factors co-creative methodologies used. As a result, it was observed that DT
previously identified.
 C. Kruger et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 191 (2018) 400e416 407

is the most used and the Open Space, a methodology which was not to the survey’ second part, the Cronbach's alpha was used. For a
previously identified, was spontaneously indicated to compose the sample of 105 respondents and a total of 20 items, the alpha of the
questionnaire. From the survey in the literature of each one of the entire set was 0.9152, which shows high reliability (Hair et al.,
methodologies used by the respondents, it was possible to 2010).
distribute them in the model, respecting the phases of the process, For each of the factors, the value of the Cronbach alpha was also
with the intention of being a practical application orientation, thus calculated, in case the factor was removed from the set of items.
being able to contemplate the key factors related to each one of Table 3 shows that Cronbach's Alphas, after item removal, do not
them. These methodologies are references for the delivery of the suffer from large oscillations, ranging from 0.9037 to 0.9224, which
factors and, given that new techniques are created over time, the is acceptable and highlights the high internal reliability of the
continuous enrichment of the model with the addition of new tools questionnaire.
is indicated, in order to allow, more and more, flexibility to the
applicators, adjusting to their reality and practical ability. 4.2. Inferential statistics

4. Results and discussion By normality test it was noticed that there was no statistical
significance between the S-W values of the variables of the test
4.1. Descriptive statistics (Table 3). Therefore, by considering the greater efficiency of S-W
test, it was possible to verify that the data are not normally
In the analysis of the first part of the questionnaire, it was distributed.
noticed that among the 105 respondents, 84 already participated in Then, considering the non-normality of the factors, the coeffi-
some co-creative process, 59 of them doing so focused on sus- cient of correlation between the different factors of the sustainable
tainable development. The 59 respondents were invited to choose a co-creation of the questionnaire was calculated (Table 4). We used
case of co-creative process to contribute to the SD and state the Spearman's correlation coefficient, which is the most appro-
whether, in their perception, the specific objective of the co- priate for non-parametric data, because the coefficient measures
creative process had been reached. As a result, 26% stated that the intensity of the relationship between variables, using only the
the specific objective of the co-creative process was fully achieved, order of observations instead of the observed value (Frugoli et al.,
59%, partially achieved, 12%, was not reached, and 3% did not know 2015).
how to respond. From these answers, each respondent was asked Through the application of the Spearman test, correlations be-
spontaneously to inform the relevance of these key factors for the tween factors are verified. The correlation between “follow up” and
result obtained. The content analysis from such questioning is in “propagation” and “result” can perhaps be explained by taking into
session 4.3. account the sequence of the process, that is, it is necessary to draw
From the list of methodologies identified in the literature re- up a plan (“result”) so that “follow up” and dissemination to other
view, the 59 respondents should also identify which co-creative instances (“propagation”). At the same time, it is natural to have a
methodologies are most commonly used for sustainability. It was correlation between “legitimacy” and “interest”, since the defini-
observed that DT (26 cases), AI (17 cases) and the use of virtual tion of “legitimacy” includes the alignment of the “interest” of the
communities or networks (17 cases) were the most cited tech- participants with the purpose of the activity.
niques. In addition, all of the 105 respondents stated that co- Positive and moderate correlation between “balance” and
creative processes can contribute to sustainable development. “scenario” factors (r ¼ 0.3837). was observed by Ramaswamy and
Then, we sought to verify what is the degree of relevance of the Gouillart (2010b), since it is fundamental to understand and map
factors for the success of co-creative processes aimed at sustainable the current interactions between those involved and that they are
development. The result can be seen in Fig. 2. able to interact directly with each other, and that capacity allows
From the analysis of Fig. 2, it is observed that the factors are the “balance” of dialogue.
considered, in general, as relevant or very relevant. The factors Besides that, it was identified a correlation between the “risk”
considered key under this point of view are “lucidity” and “trust”, factor and the “resources” (r ¼ 0.4130) and “participation”
which had more than 70% of responses in the “very relevant” de- (r ¼ 0.3605) factors. These correlations could be explained consid-
gree, as well as “selection”, “interest”, “flexibility”, “result”, “prop- ering that what each participant “donates” to the co-creative pro-
agation” and “follow up”, which had a percentage greater than 90% cess is a resource. In this perspective, as identified by Reed et al.
when adding a “relevant” or “very relevant” response. On the other (2014), conflicting stakeholders need to be identified at the
hand, the factor “capacity” was the one with the highest percentage beginning of the process, given that conflicts impact on the per-
of “irrelevant” and “little relevant” (above 30%). formance of each participant (“participation”), which is a relevant
“Lucidity” was identified as the most relevant for all re- resource.
spondents (highly relevant ¼ 80% and relevant ¼ 17.14%). Estab- It was also identified a correlation between the “result” factor
lishing a “trusting” environment was the second most relevant and the “lucidity” factor (r ¼ 0.3524), which can also be explained
aspect to the success of the co-creative process, 73.33% considered by the definition of the items themselves. Since lucidity consists in
this point very relevant and 19.05% relevant. the purpose and the process being clearly understood among those
The execution of a plan of action to achieve the objectives and to involved, it is natural to have a correlation with the results, since it
bring “results” to society was the third item identified by the re- consists in the execution of a plan of action to reach the objectives
spondents as more relevant (highly relevant ¼ 59.05% and rele- and to bring results to the society. In this way, it would be incon-
vant ¼ 36.19%), followed by the identification of the “Interests” of sistent to develop a plan of action for reaching an unenlightened
those involved in the participation of the process (highly rele- purpose.
vant ¼ 52.38% and relevant ¼ 40.95%). Ramaswamy and Gouillart (2010b) recommend workshops to
As each question has made room for comments, in session 4.3 facilitate sharing and devise ways of improving them, as well as
there is a qualitative analysis on this point that needs to be building platforms for new interactions, in order to maintain dia-
considered beyond the quantitative numbers expressed in the logue and the generation of new ideas (“participation”). In a com-
current session. plementary way, the level of “engagement” correlates with
In order to ascertain the internal reliability of the issues related “balance”, as observed by Reed et al. (2014) and Steelman et al.
408 C. Kruger et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 191 (2018) 400e416

Follow up
Propagation
Result
Experimentation
Flexibilily
Engagement
Balance
Participation irrelevant
Facilitation
Trust little relevant
Capacity neutral
Risk relevant
Resources
very relevant
Scenario
Legitimacy
Interest
Relevance
Knowledge
Selection
Lucidity
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Fig. 2. Degree of relevance of the factors for the success of co-creative processes for sustainable Development (n ¼ 105).

Table 3 knowledge holders help the process “trust” environment.

Reliability and normality analysis. Employing a professional facilitator (“facilitation”) for workshops is
Items Cronbach's alpha S-W test an important point, especially in cases where there is conflict or
(if item removed) controversy (Reed et al., 2014), a facilitator who needs to be skilled
Statistic p-value
enough to respond to evolving needs and priorities of those
Lucidity 0.9151 0.4329 <2.2E-16
involved (“flexibility”).
Selection 0.9150 0.7007 2.51E-10
Knowledge 0.9162 0.7603 8.41E-09
Relevance 0.9184 0.7449 3.23E-09
Interest 0.9174 0.6938 1.73E-10 4.3. Content analysis
Legitimacy 0.9177 0.7316 1.45E-12
Scenario 0.9185 0.7413 2.59E-12
Resources 0.9146 0.7273 1.13E-12
In content analysis, the factors “lucidity” and “selection” were
Risk 0.9139 0.7792 2.92E-08 highlighted, considered unanimous as to their importance as seen
Capacity 0,9224 0.8164 4.20E-10 in theory. The comments show that there is no way to co-create
Trust 0.9144 0.5544 2.53E-16 without participation, dialogue, interaction and even place partic-
Facilitation 0.9037 0.7303 1.35E-12
ipation as a condition for sustainable project development.
Participation 0.9037 0.7195 7.19E-13
Balance 0.9037 0.7383 2.16E-12 Complementarily, they suggest that to be successful in the co-
Engagement 0.9037 0.7662 1.23E-11 creative process for sustainability it is necessary to have goodwill,
Flexibility 0.9037 0.7149 5.55E-13 from the connection and the relationship between the participants
Experimentation 0.9037 0.7495 4.29E-12 to the engagement and that the level of involvement can increase
Result 0.9037 0.6353 8.98E-15
from the development of the process and can be leveraged with the
Propagation 0.9037 0.7041 3.03E-13
Follow up 0.9037 0.6858 1.13E-13 facilitator's work.
Total alpha ¼ 0.915199 The most evident correlation occurs between the knowledge
and the similar capacity among the participants for the dialogue.
When assessing the capacity factor, respondents cite the impor-
(2015): one must understand the context in which such workshops tance of including participants to allow a full assessment of the
or platforms are generated and one must consider the under- problem and any determinants of knowledge. At the same time,
standing of the traditions and culture involved, given that the they associate the factors “knowledge” and “selection”, especially
process needs to consider the ability to engage culturally and regarding the need to include diverse participants, considering that
politically the participants in order to allow effective trans- this multidisciplinarity generates knowledge. It is concluded,
disciplinary interaction. therefore, that “capacity” can not overlap with “selection”,
In addition, knowing the participants' scenario, process and impacting on the diversity of actors, considering this multi-
expectations, it is understood what will make it continue to disciplinarity could be impaired if priority was given to similar
“participate”. This construction needs to be carried out over the capacity for dialogue, but rather that “Selection” is prioritized for
long term on the basis of two-way dialogue (“balance”), in a secure the sake of “knowledge”.
environment to generate new knowledge together, and effective From the point of view of the content analysis made from
 C. Kruger et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 191 (2018) 400e416 409

survey's open responses, five factors were spontaneously quoted as

F20
relevant by the respondents in ten or more citations: “trust” (18

1
citations), “selection” (12 citations), “knowledge” (11 citations),

0.4559
“lucidity” (10 citations) and “resources” (10 citations).
F19

1
5. Conceptual model of co-creation for sustainability

0.1748
0.4226
F18

1
To construct a conceptual model for the sustainability co-
creation, it was observed that it would be necessary to include in

0.2106
0.2305
0.1457
the same framework the relevant co-creation' factors and meth-
F17

1
odologies in a project timeline. From the content analysis per-

0.1665
0.2603
0.2967
0.3086
formed, the comments regarding project management and process
F16

management were considered. Batterham et al. (2014) recom-

1
mends that organizations co-create and refine interventions using

0.3404
0.1019
0.2635
0.3234
0.2788
the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycles and Mauser et al. (2013)
F15

proposes a co-creation process in three key stages: design, pro-

1

duction and dissemination. In the model proposed in this research,

0.4023
0.2648
0.3017
0.1581
0.3408
0.3758
a similar method to the PDCA was used, and an additional stage was
F14

inserted, understood as fundamental for the co-creative process

1

from the content analysis: the resignification. Given that the co-
0.3508
0.3414
0.3037
0.2195
0.2006
0.3305
0.3175

creative process is part of a problem or opportunity observed by

F13

one or more individuals, as it involves more audiences, such a

problem or opportunity needs to be analyzed from the perspective
0.3350
0.1278
0.2672
0.1509
0.1564
0.2656
0.2531
0.2968

of all those involved. To this end, there are numerous co-creative

F12

methodologies that insert that moment in your process. In this

0.3427
0.3688
0.2115
0.2473
0.3664
0.0431
0.0835
0.2394
0.2262

way, the proposed model was divided into: preparation, resignifi-

F11

cation, solution, test and dissemination.

1

The factors were also grouped in the items of the General Sys-
0.2377
0.1086
0.0914
0.1752
0.2110
0.1705
0.1123
0.0363
0.1667
0.1741

tems Theory. Von Bertalanffy (1975) defined systems as a set of

F10

interrelated elements with a common goal. In this way, the pro-

1

posed model highlights the relevant factors related to the common

0.2325
0.2543
0.2983
0.3605
0.2144
0.1523
0.1424
0.1264
0.3108
0.1756
0.3006

objective (purpose) and groups the other factors from the role of
F9

each to the system (input, processing and output). As identified by

1

Von Bertalanffy (1975), interaction generates feedbacks that create

0.4130
0.3722
0.2431
0.2106
0.3232
0.1767
0.1711
0.2705
0.1621
0.2547
0.2551
0.3142

new properties that may be beneficial or harmful. The co-creative

F8

process is an open system, that is, a system that interacts with

the environment, which performs constant exchanges, self-
0.2820
0.3361
0.2146
0.2556
0.0906
0.2556
0.3837
0.3185
0.3988
0.3476
0.2707
0.2347
0.1842

regulated, capable of growth, development and adaptation. Being

F7

therefore a highly complex system, having its environment in

0.2665
0.2090
0.2088
0.1528
0.3168
0.1215
0.3402
0.2485
0.2512
0.2320
0.0794
0.0470
0.3463
0.2455

permanent interrelation, it would be easier to analyze it by dividing

it into smaller subsystems. In this way, the proposed model also
F6

presents co-creative techniques indicative for each phase of the

0.0055

process. Each technique is, in fact, a subsystem that, recombined as

0.4401
0.2217

0.0006
0.0799
0.2664
0.0988
0.3074
0.2384
0.3422
0.2188
0.0457
0.2030
0.2558
0.2467

a whole, allows for a broad, flexible yet targeted vision for the
F5

success of co-creative activity for sustainability. Von Bertalanffy

(1975) also indicates that systems to be sustainable must bring
0.0679
0.2367
0.2920
0.2298
0.2490
0.2730
0.0346
0.1774
0.0459
0.3792
0.2705
0.2634
0.0853

0.2475
0.2275
0.1404

clarity to their objective, be governed by feedback and be able to

F4

adapt, which are considered in the proposed model.

1

The SDGs are considered as starting point of the model and are
0.2340
0,1863
0,1905
0,1312
0,1958
0,3025
0,1762
0,1455
0,2834
0,1682
0,2579
0,1084
0,0317
0,1291
0,1744
0,1421
0,2185

represented schematically by the three dimensions of the TBL, since

F3

the co-creative process must start from an intention and a purpose.

On the basis of the model is the indication of the stage for co-
0.0040
0.2238
0.0655
0.0124
0.2022
0.0074
0.2276
0.2121
0.0640
0.1382
0.2519
0.0940
0.0450
0.0508
0.0029
0.0094

0.1800
0.0361
Spearman's correlation between the factors.

creation of value (co-creation and coproduction), based on an

F2

adaptation of the theoretical model of co-creation of value of De

1

Morais and Santos (2015). Finally, the arrows indicate a process of

0.1709
0.1096
0.1805
0.1777
0.1030
0.1952
0.1853
0.1608
0.0983
0.1812
0.1066
0.1325
0.1923
0.1999
0.0739
0.1390
0.3524
0.2118
0.1279

continuity, feedback or beginning of a new cycle. The beginning of a

F1

new cycle indicates that, with the existence of results of the pro-
1

cess, these results impact the environment in which the stake-

Experimentation

holders are inserted and impact a new and relevant sustainable

Participation

Engagement

Propagation
Knowledge

Facilitation

development goal that generates a new purpose and, therefore, a

Legitimacy
Relevance

Resources

Follow up
Flexibility
Selection

Scenario

Capacity
Lucidity

Interest

Balance

new cycle. By inserting the TBL, the phases of the process, the
Factors

Result
Trust
Risk

system items, the key factors and the methodologies of co-creation,

we have, finally, the proposed model of Co-creation towards Sus-
Table 4

F10
F11
F12
F13
F14
F15
F16
F17
F18
F19
F20

tainability (Fig. 3). The caption of the model is shown in Fig. 4.

F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
Id

By analyzing the proposed model it is possible to identify which

410 C. Kruger et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 191 (2018) 400e416

observed that people's interest, needs and values impact on the

motivation for the process, as well as the unknown individual in-
terest can impair the understanding of the behavior of the
participants.
In addition, at this stage it is important to assess the “capacity”
for stakeholder dialogue with each other. De Vente et al. (2016)
state that although the participation of heterogeneous groups is
important, in some cases the process needs to be done in parts,
such as the participation of the public power at a different time,
since such a figure could intimidate the participation of other au-
diences. CPs identify this issue very clearly. Power permeates hu-
man interactions in personal, community, and public life, and these
dynamics need to be examined (Pranis and Boyes-Watson, 2011). In
the model, the preparation phase is the equivalent of knowing and
building relationships.
At this phase it is necessary to assess whether it is preferable to
Fig. 3. Model of value co-creation towards sustainability (Krüger Model).
do the process in smaller groups at the outset or whether there is
still a process of building capacity or generating a climate of trust
among the public. Capacity building consists of developing the
necessary skills and other aspects so that “referrals” and/or process
facilitators can deal with the differences between stakeholders and
avoid exclusion or non-engagement (ACCOUNTABILITY, 2011, p.
32). Therefore, the key factor “balance” is so relevant. As the whole
process of the model starts from problem vision or opportunity of a
“referential” towards a purpose, the critical factor “lucidity” is
fundamental in all phases from the outset.
Theory U presents several techniques of immersion, in the
Listening process, such as: Dialogue Interview, Interview with
Stakeholders and Sensing Journeys. To this set of tools, Theory U
calls Co-Sensing. In DT we have the Preliminary Immersion as
phase that brings techniques such as: Re-framing, Exploratory
Research and Desk Research. DD uses tools such as “deep listening”,
or Pinakarri, which is intended to promote a true and transparent
dialogue. This listening also facilitates “charismatic communica-
tion,” or NVC. In AI this phase is known as “Discovery”, when
Fig. 4. Caption of the proposed model. identification of the stakeholders (those with acquired right or have
a high impact on the organization), the creation of the captivating
appreciative question and the guide of interviews, collection and
key factors and co-creative methodologies are essential in each organizing the data, conducting the interviews and extracting
phase of the process. Thus the model can be used to guide private meaning from the research data. This phase also consists in pre-
organizations, public, third sector and non-formal organizations in dicting “resources” for the process, another relevant factor. The
the application of co-creation aligned with the concept of sus- premise inherent in any project, the previous analysis of resources
tainability. The five phases of the model are discussed in detail avoids abandonment in the middle of the process, especially in the
below: co-creative process that places, as verified in the content analysis of
the Survey, the time available, or motivation for participation of the
5.1. Preparation involved, as a primary resource.

The Preparation consists of the initial phase, in which, from a 5.2. Resignification
“referential” (a person, a group, an institution), it is observed a
problem or opportunity for SD. In the DT process, the Preparation From Preparation, new actors are invited. This call must be made
phase is equivalent to the inspiration phase (in particular the with lucidity of purpose. It is up to the “referential” to give the
phases of understanding and observation), that is, circumstance of information that most directly impacts each of the guests, espe-
the problem and/or opportunity that motivates the search for so- cially regarding the dedication in terms of time that will be
lutions and change (Brown et al., 2008). At this stage of the process, required. Certain methodologies, such as OST, do not have a clear
the first key factor that stands out is the “selection”. From that agenda, so it would be pointless or even detrimental to try to
moment an initiative is generated by the search of other relevant explain step by step the program (Owen, 2003), which should occur
actors. In the content analysis it was observed that it is important to at the outset of the process. Surely, it is much more relevant that the
involve connoisseurs in the theme and impacted by the theme in participants know the intention and identify the relevance of the
question and that the formation of a multidisciplinary group is theme. In this way, the key factor “relevance” is extremely impor-
fundamental to bring multiple visions to the dialogue. tant for the Resignification phase, that is, it is fundamental to use
OST indicates voluntary self-selection (Owen, 2003), but rele- facilitators to generate the desired climate, as well as to bring
vant actors may not volunteer because they were not sufficiently lucidity to purpose and process. At this moment the process of
motivated to do so. In this way, it is natural for the key factor “in- dialogue and multidisciplinary exchange begins. For this, the
terest” to appear at the same time of “selection”, since one directly environment of trust is fundamental for participation and balance
impacts the other. In the content analysis of the survey, it was in the conversation to occur. It is in this phase that a free analysis of
 C. Kruger et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 191 (2018) 400e416 411

preconceptions is necessary, when the problem is analyzed deeply, DD uses the same terminology (dream) for this phase. The DD
in order to verify whether or not its validity, its amplitude and its has a technique that, after empathy, triggers open dialogues
correlations. It should be noted that the lucidity of the procedure is involving questions, which reinforces the interest that each one has
especially important at the time of its implementation. Remem- in the process, its relevance to the SD, and help avoid actors who
bering that process lucidity does not mean control, since many of have unlawful intentions in the process (DRAGON DREAMING
the methodologies have a step-by-step exactly to generate the BRASIL, 2014). The STO has a similar process. The WC technique
collaborative process, free and that provokes a sense of account- can also assist in the process of Resignification. Simpler than OST,
ability (such as OST and DD). WC allows quick and easy access to collaborative intelligence,
It is worth noting, therefore, the “trust” factor is also funda- creating new connections (Brown, 2010).
mental at this stage. In the content analysis of the survey, several
comments cite the importance of goodwill, connection, and rela- 5.3. Solution
tionship between participants for engagement and empathy, which
is indispensable for the co-creative process. To establish a climate of The Resignification and Solution phase is closely linked. Most of
trust the NVC is an important technique. It can be used as a tool for the factors of the Resignification phase perpetuate in the Solution
all phases of the co-creative process, as it assists generative, phase, such as: knowledge, relevance, legitimacy, trust, facilitation,
judgment-free conversation. However, it is in the stages of balance, participation, flexibility, engagement. This is because the
Resignification and Solution (phases of greater exchange) that it dynamics are very similar, although the creative dynamic may be
becomes even more relevant. U Theory also helps in the process of different. The end product of the Resignification phase is the very
empathy, considered the third level, the fourth being the “listening original purpose of the “referential” now analyzed and defined by
generative”. consensus by all in the form of a collective purpose. In the solution
In Resignification phase preliminary information is presented, phase the product is a plan. In this way, another factor emerges:
although, in complete freedom, in order to be, in fact, a reference to “result”. Decisions must take into account the concerns, expecta-
be reviewed. Survey content analysis indicated the importance of tions and perceptions of all, and all outputs need to be considered
developing common interest. Depending on the interests of those in the plan (ACCOUNTABILITY, 2011).
involved and their knowledge, a new vision is built, collective, more At CPs, this stage corresponds to the stage of developing action
relevant to the group. Thus, a new direction is made. Therefore, plans, even though it is an action plan focused on the relationship
another factor is relevant: “legitimacy”. between actors as final product (Pranis and Boyes-Watson, 2011).
It is also possible that at this stage there is a need to involve new Thus, CPs can be used more as a way to build strong links between
actors, not perceived by the “referential”. Therefore, the model has those involved. These links can determine the value intensity
a feedback arrow from Resignification for Preparation. For this applied by the process part (in the co-creation phase and in the co-
reason also that the factor extends to the next phase (Solution), as production phase). In both AI and DD, the Solution phase is called
well as the factor “participation”. Tools or platforms for stimulating ‘planning’. The DD suggests realizing the action plan in the form of a
interactive and dialogic activity must be shaped around “experi- Karabirrdt, a ‘spider web’ diagram, a collaborative planning tool
ences that people have lived through” (Ramaswamy and Chopra, that resembles a board game that connects a set of individual tasks
2014) It is therefore imperative to understand the context in in a system complex of tasks and activities. Besides being able to
which such workshops or platforms are generated and should observe the progress of each individual task, it is possible to
understanding of the traditions and culture involved (Reed et al., perceive the impact of the parts of something much bigger
2014), considering that the process needs to consider the capacity (DRAGON DREAMING BRASIL, 2014). The Solution phase must meet
of cultural and political engagement of the participants in order to the purpose identified in Resignification. If this does not happen,
allow effective transdisciplinary interaction (Steelman et al., 2015). the group should reassess the solution found and reconstruct or
Another relevant factor emerges: “balance”. even evaluate if there are new elements to go back to previous
Since voluntary self-selection is fundamental (Owen, 2003), phases (feedback), since it may be necessary to include new actors
trying to impose a certain level of unwanted involvement by the in the process, then return to the Preparation phase or perhaps
participants tends to impair their participation and may even lose need only resignify the issue. In U-theory, the solution may emerge
their important contribution. For this reason, the proposed model from a process they call Prototyping. The process of Prototyping
presents, in a complex systemic model, several subsystems that includes three steps (Co-Sensing, Co-Inspiring and Co-Creating),
have already produced results (co-creative methodologies), in the being a possible tool (methodology) for the search of a collective
same environment, to be evaluated by the “referential” in order to solution from an intention. In DT there is the same understanding:
become flexible and sufficiently adaptable. Based on this under- prototyping as a creative process to reach a solution. This phase in
standing, another factor emerges: “flexibility”, which contributes to the DT corresponds to that of Ideation and can include tools like
the participation of all relevant publics, considering that without brainstorm, paper prototype and interfaces, storyboards, functional
participation there is no co-creation, as observed in the literature. mockups, stopmotion videos and staging (SCHOOL DESIGN
In the content analysis of the survey it is observed that the level THINKING, 2017).
of engagement can increase from the development of the process
and can be enhanced with the work of the facilitator. CPs help in 5.4. Test
establishing dialogue in a very simple way. To do so, the members
are invited to speak and listen with their hearts. The use of guiding The Test phase consists of the phase in which, on a smaller scale,
questions and the sharing of knowledge and feelings foster the solution is tested, indicating the need to pay attention to the
empathy (Pranis and Boyes-Watson, 2011). “experimentation” factor. This is when the co-productive process
The use of guiding questions is common in other techniques. AI begins. It should be noted that the co-creative process is an open
does this from the phase it calls “Discovery”, but it is also used in system and, according to De Morais and Santos (2015), co-
the “Dream” phase, which in the model would be the equivalent of production and co-creation are independent variables and for
Resignification. In this phase of AI, the aim is to identify common both cases, combined or separately, there may be co-created. Thus,
themes and create a shared dream (Cooperrider et al., 2008), that is, what determines the co-created value is the degree of integration
the collective purpose of those involved. and depth among the actors.
412 C. Kruger et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 191 (2018) 400e416

In the content analysis of the survey there were those who involving relevant factors and methodologies for the success of the
understood that “experimentation” is outside the scope of the co- co-creative activity for the engagement of stakeholders and
creative process. Apparently, in analyzing co-creation in a more contribution to sustainable development. This model was devel-
simplistic sense (without considering coproduction), there is such oped after an exploratory qualitative-quantitative research,
confusion. The proposed model, therefore, clarifies this in its base through the confrontation between different perspectives, of the
and indicates that, it is not necessary to develop all its steps or revised theory, of the experts' perception through the empirical
subsystems to be co-creation, but presents the complete system so study and the direct observation of the authors.
that the “referential” knows and applies what is necessary, allowing From the theoretical point of view, the research contributes to
total flexibility. the literature on SD and to approaches of value co-creation, orga-
It is possible that new actors present themselves in the Test nizational sustainability - through the holistic and systemic view of
phase, since the solution created may require suppliers of a certain Systems Theory - and CSR, based on Theory of Stakeholders,
resource for their implementation, for example. For this reason, the adopting a different perspective from previous studies, comparing
“participation”, “flexibility” and “engagement” assumptions co-creative methodologies and focusing on the role of organiza-
continue to exist at this stage. Therefore, it is necessary to include tions. The findings of this study have several important implica-
follow-up, especially with the inclusion of new actors. Adjustments tions for the theory of co-creation of value. First, this is one of the
may be required as the prototype comes to life, and may even first studies that empirically tests virtual communities - made up of
indicate feedback in some cases. The co-creative methodologies public experts on the issues of co-creation and sustainability - as to
indicate phase to test their solutions. The DT calls “implementa- their perception of the main themes, co-creative methodologies
tion”, that is, business model and results verification for new and relevant factors. In addition, the model is interdisciplinary and
project (Brown et al., 2008). In the DD, the Test phase corresponds seeks to meet the needs of multiple stakeholders and the sustain-
to the “Perform” phase. In the same way that the model indicates ability tripod, or TBL, in an integrated way. The novelty of the
experimentation on a smaller scale for testing, the DD indicates Krüger Model is also observed by composing, in the same method,
acting locally, although the Dream can start from a global question several categories of information that are interrelated, making it
(DRAGON DREAMING BRASIL, 2014). The U Theory also brings the complete, with a holistic methodology of co-creation, that in-
prototyping phase and suggests forming a core team for each tegrates different concepts that are usually studied as substitutes
prototype. It also indicates, if necessary, bringing in new people to and not complementary. These categories are: relevant factors,
complement existing skills. Networks can help throughout the co- groups of themes related to SD, relationship with stakeholders and
creation process: from social network monitoring to insight into a the integration of co-creative methodologies.
particular topic, to testing for acceptance of a particular solution. From a practical point of view, this model can help organizations
Like the networks, LL is not a co-creative methodology in itself and of any nature, formal or otherwise, delimited or not (it can start
can use other methodologies of approach of experimentation from the integration of some individuals of the society), to seek
(Schaffers et al., 2011a,b), so it can be a relevant structure, especially solutions for sustainable development as it presents itself as a
in the phase of Test, considering that they have the “realism” (to complete driver for activity. Examples of full applicability would be
carry out the activities of innovation in a realistic, natural and real the development of a social project in a specific community or the
way) as one of its key points and the prototyping as important implementation of a Living Lab. Managers, leaders and decision
phase, realized from the appreciation of opportunities, the devel- makers of organizations can use the model in integrating different
opment of the prototype proper and evaluation of its usability management approaches, sharing key and common characteristics,
(Stahlbro € st and Holst, 2012; Robles, 2015). In this way, the model to create an own model that converges the strengths of different
does not place the LL or the Networks in a specific phase, but methodologies of co-creation and seeks to align the perspectives of
involving the entire methodological ecosystem. different stakeholders by equitably sharing the value created
together through collaboration and innovation for the transition to
5.5. Dissemination SD. In practical terms, companies will be able to use the model to
develop projects based on the prioritization raised by their mate-
Co-creating communication materials with those involved in- riality matrix (themes that are really important to the company's
creases the likelihood that other people will facilitate learning and business and value creation) or prioritization based on sensitive
can extend the reach beyond the project duration (Reed et al., 2014) issues identified in the process of collecting its sustainability report.
and the use of networking technology can extend the scope of work In fact, the model can even be used for the company to constitute its
to other parties stakeholders (Evans et al., 2015). A collaborative matrix of materiality. In analyzing the use of co-creation as a
methodology can be an effective short-term intervention, and such mechanism for stakeholder engagement and contributing to sus-
changes need to be consolidated for sustainable and long-term tainable development, it was possible to conclude the high stake-
programs (Knight, 2012a). Because of this, the Dissemination holder engagement when they are involved in identifying problems
phase of information presents itself as fundamental in co-creative and building solutions collectively. It was possible to verify, there-
processes that have a SD-oriented purpose. In this way, it is fore, that the level of engagement increases as the decision is
important to have as phase factor, the “propagation”. shared.
Finally, the publication of the knowledge acquired in accessible This model, in the form of a guide, allowed not only the
language, usable for different audiences, leads to new questions consolidation of all aspects relevant to this process for that purpose,
initiating a new transdisciplinary work cycle (Mauser et al., 2013). but also the distribution of the possible practices already known
For this reason, the proposed model brings the indication of a new and consecrated, such as DT, AI and CPs. Thus, the model does not
cycle, from the dissemination, into the SDGs, being a supply for a present itself as a new method to be followed, but a guide that
new process. gathers most of the recommendations already indicated in the
literature or in the practices of the organizations, in order to facil-
6. Conclusions itate the dissemination of the technique, the exchange of experi-
ences and the methodologies for a theme as complex and necessary
Based on a mixed methods approach, the present work resulted as sustainability. The model does not necessarily have to be applied
in a proposal of a conceptual model of co-creation for sustainability, in its entirety, and can be easily applied in a nonlinear process, but
 C. Kruger et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 191 (2018) 400e416 413

in an open system. Managers, for example, can use the model to development. Answer the questions below about this specific case:
identify a collective consciousness of a particular group and, in
developing a plan of action, move to a less democratic and more 4. In your perception, the specific objective of such a co-creative
one-way mechanism. To implement the Krüger Model of Sustain- process …
ability within a company, it is recommended that managers
develop activities that stimulate dialogue in a balanced manner, ( ) has been fully achieved
using techniques and facilitators so that the power conferred by the ( ) was partially achieved
organizational hierarchy does not negatively impact participation. ( ) has not been achieved
In this way, the proposed Model of Co-creation for Sustainability ( ) I don't know how to answer
presents in a visually practical way the relevant factors, which, in
addition to being identified in the literature, were validated in the 5a You replied that the purpose of the co-creative process was
Survey. Therefore, it seeks to fill the research gap that addresses co- fully achieved. In a nutshell, in your perception, what were
creation for sustainability. The Stakeholders Theory, which un- the critical success factors of the process?
derlies the SR, seems to be also the basis of co-creative processes. In 5b You replied that the purpose of the co-creative process was
this way, it is possible to conclude that the present study aims to partially achieved. In a nutshell, in your perception, what was
contribute to the meeting of these two subjects, becoming inno- lacking in the process for the goal to have been fully
vative for such convergence. achieved?
As in all studies, this research also faced some limitations that 5c You replied that the purpose of the co-creative process has
set the stage for further research. The first limitation is related to not been achieved. In a nutshell, in your perception, why did
the use of a single database for bibliometrics (Scopus); the second, not the process bring results?
due to a single survey and the non-probabilistic nature of the 6. In the event you have used one or more methodology, tool or
sample. Although no geographic region has been established for the platform in the co-creative process you have participated,
Survey, the use of the Internet and social networks as the gateway please indicate below (multiple choice):
for the response collectors, it is possible to determine the accessi-
bility limitation and the algorithm for the operation of the timeline. ( ) Design Thinking
such social networks. These collectors, conducted in English and ( ) Appreciative Inquiry
Portuguese, also conferred a greater number of respondents of ( ) Dragon Dreaming
Brazilian origin, considering the author 's nationality, a more active ( ) World Cafe
and well - known presence in Brazilian communities. As a conse- ( ) Theory U tools
quence, it is not possible to generalize the results to different ( ) Living Lab
economies or social or environmental contexts. ( ) Nonviolent Communication
As a suggestion for further research is recommended to apply ( ) Virtual communities or networks
the proposed model in multiple scenarios or case studies, consid- ( ) Circle Process
ering different institutions and organizations, and to conduct a ( ) Other (please cite or comment about the process)
systematic literature review, considering many databases as well as
to apply other web surveys with bigger samples as a way of 7. In your opinion, can co-creative processes contribute to sus-
expanding the study. Finally, it is also important to intensify studies tainable development?
in co-production process and to incorporate other techniques as a
way of enriching methods of co-creation of value. ( ) Yes
( ) No
Appendix A. Questionnaire ( ) I have no opinion about it

1. What country do you live in? 8. In your opinion, what is the relevance of each of the items below
2. Considering that co-creation is the joint verification of problems for the success of co-creative processes aimed at sustainable
and solutions to generate shared value, answer: Have you ever development?
participated in any co-creative process?
SELECTION: Choice of participants made in a non-random way,
( ) Yes but from the materiality, influence and diversity.
( ) No
( ) I don't know how to answer ( ) Irrelevant ( ) Little Relevant ( ) Neutral or not sure ( ) Relevant
or ( ) Very Relevant.
3. Understanding that Sustainable Development is the develop-
ment that meet the needs of the present, without compromising If you wish, please comment:
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs and KNOWLEDGE: Inclusion of participants who are reference in the
refers to the interdependence of social, economic and environ- theme and/or complete assessment of the problem, its impacts,
mental objectives, answer: Have you participated in one or more related behavioral and environmental conditions and any known
co-creative processes to contribute in any way to sustainable determinants.
development?
( ) Irrelevant ( ) Little Relevant ( ) Neutral or not sure ( ) Relevant
( ) Yes or ( ) Very Relevant\
( ) No
( ) I don't know how to answer If you wish, please comment:
LUCIDITY: Purpose and process clearly understood among those
Choose one case of co-creative process that you have partici- involved.
pated that had as its objective a theme related to sustainable
414 C. Kruger et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 191 (2018) 400e416

( ) Irrelevant ( ) Little Relevant ( ) Neutral or not sure ( ) Relevant ( ) Irrelevant ( ) Little Relevant ( ) Neutral or not sure ( ) Relevant
or ( ) Very Relevant. or ( ) Very Relevant.

If you wish, please comment: If you wish, please comment:

RELEVANCE: Recognition of the relevance of the theme by PARTICIPATION: Interactive and dialogical activity, offering tools
participants for sustainable development. or platforms (face-to-face or virtual).

( ) Irrelevant ( ) Little Relevant ( ) Neutral or not sure ( ) Relevant ( ) Irrelevant ( ) Little Relevant ( ) Neutral or not sure ( ) Relevant
or ( ) Very Relevant. or ( ) Very Relevant.

If you wish, please comment: If you wish, please comment:

INTEREST: Identification of the interests of those involved in the BALANCE: Fair interaction process, with balanced participation
process. among the participants.

( ) Irrelevant ( ) Little Relevant ( ) Neutral or not sure ( ) Relevant ( ) Irrelevant ( ) Little Relevant ( ) Neutral or not sure ( ) Relevant
or ( ) Very Relevant. or ( ) Very Relevant.

If you wish, please comment: If you wish, please comment:

LEGITIMACY: Interests of participants aligned with the purpose ENGAGEMENT: Method with level of involvement adequate to
of the activity. the participants' expectation.

( ) Irrelevant ( ) Little Relevant ( ) Neutral or not sure ( ) Relevant ( ) Irrelevant ( ) Little Relevant ( ) Neutral or not sure ( ) Relevant
or ( ) Very Relevant. or ( ) Very Relevant.

If you wish, please comment: If you wish, please comment:

SCENARIO: Knowledge of participants' needs and situation and/ FLEXIBILITY: Methodology that allows adaptation when the
or mapping of interactions between them. needs and priorities of the participants evolve.

( ) Irrelevant ( ) Little Relevant ( ) Neutral or not sure ( ) Relevant ( ) Irrelevant ( ) Little Relevant ( ) Neutral or not sure ( ) Relevant
or ( ) Very Relevant. or ( ) Very Relevant.

If you wish, please comment: If you wish, please comment:

RESOURCES: Survey of resources needed for the activity EXPERIMENTATION: Prototyping or environment for experi-
(financial, time, human, among others). mentation of co-creative products.

( ) Irrelevant ( ) Little Relevant ( ) Neutral or not sure ( ) Relevant ( ) Irrelevant ( ) Little Relevant ( ) Neutral or not sure ( ) Relevant
or ( ) Very Relevant. or ( ) Very Relevant.

If you wish, please comment: If you wish, please comment:

RISK: Risk analysis of involvement, ethical implications, trans- RESULTS: Execution of a plan of action to achieve the objectives
disciplinary friction and political processes. and to bring results to society.

( ) Irrelevant ( ) Little Relevant ( ) Neutral or not sure ( ) Relevant ( ) Irrelevant ( ) Little Relevant ( ) Neutral or not sure ( ) Relevant
or ( ) Very Relevant. or ( ) Very Relevant.

If you wish, please comment: If you wish, please comment:

CAPACITY: Similar capacity between the participants for the PROPAGATION: Communication of results, maintenance of the
dialogue (for example, there are no concept or linguistic barriers). dialogue and tools to expand the spread of information to other
levels.
( ) Irrelevant ( ) Little Relevant ( ) Neutral or not sure ( ) Relevant
or ( ) Very Relevant. ( ) Irrelevant ( ) Little Relevant ( ) Neutral or not sure ( ) Relevant
or ( ) Very Relevant.
If you wish, please comment:
TRUST: Establish an environment of trust, empathy and good- If you wish, please comment:
will among the participants, which may include initial involve- FOLLOW-UP: Constant evaluation of the action plan, monitoring
ment, mobilization and awareness activities. and study of future activities.

( ) Irrelevant ( ) Little Relevant ( ) Neutral or not sure ( ) Relevant ( ) Irrelevant ( ) Little Relevant ( ) Neutral or not sure ( ) Relevant
or ( ) Very Relevant. or ( ) Very Relevant.

If you wish, please comment: If you wish, please comment:

FACILITATION: Use of facilitators who are trained for the co- Have you missed any critical success factors for co-creative
creative process, motivators and with their defined roles and processes geared to sustainable development? Contribute to your
responsibilities. point of view below:
If you have any comments about this survey, feel free to fill in the
 C. Kruger et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 191 (2018) 400e416 415

field below. Surely, this will enrich the work and the content Harris, J., Wise, T., Gallagher, K., Goodwin, N., 2001. A Survey of Sustainable Devel-
Opment: Social and Economic Dimensions. Island Press, Washington (Org.).
available to all.
Hair, J.F., William, C.B., Barry, J.B., Anderson, R.E., 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis: a
Global Perspective, seventh ed. Pearson Education, Cranbury, NJ.
Hubbard, G., 2006. Measuring organisational performance: beyond the triple bot-
References tom line. Bus. Strat. Environ. 18 (3), 177e191.
Iaquinto, B.L., 2016. Strengths and weaknesses of using mixed methods to detect the
ACCOUNTABILITY, 2011. AA1000SES Stakeholder Engagement Standard. Disponível sustainable practices of backpackers: a reflexive account. J. Clean. Prod. 111,
em: https://www.respact.at/dl/OtOKJKJMnMlJqx4LJK/AA1000SES_2011_ 479e486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.013.
Stakeholder_Engagement.pdf. Ind, N., Coates, N., 2013. The meanings of co-creation. Eur. Bus. Rev. 25 (1), 86e95.
Aquilani, B., Silvestri, C., Ioppolo, G., Ruggieri, A., 2017. The challenging transition to Bradford.
bio-economies : towards a new framework integrating corporate sustainability Jurietti, E., Mandelli, A., Fuduri c, M., 2017. How do virtual corporate social re-
and value co-creation. J. Clean. Prod. 1e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/ sponsibility dialogs generate value? A case study of the Unilever Sustainable
j.jclepro.2017.03.153. Living Lab. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 24 (5), 357e367. https://
Arnold, M., 2017. Fostering sustainability by linking co-creation and relationship doi.org/10.1002/csr.1407.
management concepts. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 179e188. https://doi.org/10.1016/ Keeys, L.A., Huemann, M., 2017. Project benefits co-creation: shaping sustainable
j.jclepro.2015.03.059. development benefits. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35, 1196e1212. https://doi.org/
Batterham, R.W., et al., 2014. The OPtimising HEalth LIterAcy (Ophelia) process: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.008.
study protocol for using health literacy profiling and community engagement to Knight, A.W., et al., 2012a. The Australian primary care collaboratives program:
create and implement health reform. BMC Publ. Health 14 (1), 694. improving diabetes care. BMJ Qual. Saf. 21 (11), 956e963. London.
Barrena Martínez, J., Lo pez Ferna ndez, M., Romero Ferna ndez, P.M., 2016. Corporate Knight, A.W., et al., 2012b. Improving primary care in Australia through the
social responsibility: evolution through institutional and stakeholder perspec- Australian primary care collaboratives program: a quality improvement report.
tives. Eur. J. Manag. Bus. Econ. 25 (1), 8e14. Barcelona. BMJ Qual. Saf. 21 (11), 948e955. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000165.
Blok, V., Wesselink, R., Studynka, O., Kemp, R., 2014. Encouraging sustainability in Lacoste, S., 2016. Industrial Marketing Management Sustainable value co-creation
the workplace: a survey on the pro-environmental behaviour of university in business networks. Ind. Market. Manag. 52, 151e162. https://doi.org/
employees. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 55e67. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.05.018.
j.jclepro.2014.07.063. Leotti, V.B., Birck, A.R., Riboldi, J., 2005. Comparaça ~o dos Testes de Adere ^ncia a
Bovaird, T., 2007. Beyond engagement and participation: user and community Normalidade Kolmogorov-smirnov, Anderson-Darling, CramereVon Mises e
coproduction of public services. Publ. Adm. Rev. 67 (5), 846e860. Shapiro-Wilk por Simulaça ~o. 11º Simpo sio de Estatística Aplicada a 
Brown, T., et al., 2008. Design thinking. Harv. Bus. Rev. 86 (6), 84. Experimentaça ~o Agrono^mica e a 50a Reunia ~o Anual da Regia ~o Brasileira da
Brown, J., 2010. The World Cafe : Shaping Our Futures through Conversations that Sociedade Interna- cional de Biometria (RBRAS). Anais, Londrina, PR, Brasil.
Matter (Large Print 16pt). Read HowYouWant. Com. Likert, R., 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch. Psychol. 140,
Caiado, R.G.G., Dias, R., de, F., Mattos, L.V., Quelhas, O.L.G., Leal Filho, W., 2017. To- 1e55.
wards sustainable development through the perspective of eco- efficiency - a Lozano, R., Lukman, R., Lozano, F.J., Huisingh, D., Lambrechts, W., 2013. Declarations
systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 165, 890e904. https://doi.org/ for sustainability in higher education becoming better leaders, through
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.166. addressing the university system. J. Clean. Prod. 48, 10e19.
Cirillo, M.A., Ferreira, D.F., 2003. Extensa ~o do Teste para Normalidade Univariado Mace ^do, N.M.M.N., Ca ^ndido, G.A., 2011. Identificaça ~o Das Percepço ~ es de responsa-
Baseado no Coeficiente de Correlaça ~o Quantil- Quantil para o Caso Multi- bilidade social empresarial: um estudo Qualitativo a Partir da aplicaça ~o do
variado. Rev. Mat. Estat. Revista de Matema tica e Estatística 21 (3), 67e84. Sa ~o modelo conceitual tridimensional de performance social. Rev. Gest~ ao Soc. e
Paulo. Ambiental 5. https://doi.org/10.5773/rgsa.v5i1.280.
Cooperrider, David, L., et al., 2008. Manual da Investigaç~ ao Apreciativa: Para Líderes Mauser, W., et al., 2013. Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation of
da Mudança. Rio de Janeiro: Qualitymark, p. 523. knowledge for sustainability. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 5 (3), 420e431.
Costa, H.G., 2010. Model for webibliomining: proposal and application. Rev. FAE McKendrick, J.H., 2009. Mixed and multiple methods. In: Kitchin, R., Thrift, N. (Eds.),
115e126. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography. Elsevier, Oxford, UK,
Cronbach, L.J., 1989. Construct validation after thirty years. In: R. L. LINN, R.L. (Ed.), pp. 128e133.
Intelligence: Measurement, Theory and Public Policy. University of Illinois Press, Megliorini, E., 2004. Amostragem. Sa ~o Paulo: Atlas.
Chicago, pp. 147e171, 147-171. Metcalf, H.C., Urwick, L., 2004. Dynamic Administration: the Collected Papers of
De Morais, F.R., Santos, J.B., 2015. Refinando os conceitos de cocriaça ~o e coproduça~o: Mary Parker Follett. Taylor & Francis, London.
resultados de uma crítica da literatura. Rev. Econ. Gesta ~o 15 (40), 224e250. Owen, H., 2003. Coffee break produtivo: usando o sucesso sem esforço da Tecno-
https://doi.org/10.5752/P.1984-6606.2015v15n40p224. logia do Espaço Aberto para organizar e facilitar reunio ~ es. Novo Paradigma.
De Vente, J., et al., 2016. How does the context and design of participatory decision €
Oztuna, D., Elhan, A.H., Tüccar, E., 2006. Investigation of four different normality
making processes affect their outcomes? Evidence from sustainable land tests in terms of type 1 error rate and power under different distributions.
management in global drylands. Ecol. Soc. 21 (2). Wolfville, Nova Scotia. J. Med. Cincinnati 36 (3), 171e176.
Dias, J.H.O., Quelhas, O.L.G., França, S.L.B., Meirin ~ o, M.J., Aleddi, C., 2014. Ana
lise de Payne, A.F., Storbacka, K., Frow, P., 2008. Managing the co-creation of value. J. Acad.
modelos e pra ticas de gesta~o da responsabilidade social: O caso de organizaça ~o Market. Sci. 36 (1), 83e96.
de grande porte no Brasil. Sistemas Gest~ ao 9, 72e86. Pestana, D.D., Velosa, S.F., 2006. Introduça ~o a
 probabilidade e a estatística. Volume I.
DRAGON DREAMING BRASIL, 2014. Guia Pra tico Dragon Dreaming: Uma Introduça ~o 2a. ediça ~o. Lisboa: Ediça
~o da Fundaç~ ao Calouste Gulbenkian., vol. 1.
Sobre Como Tornar Seus Sonhos Em Realidade Atrave s Do Amor Em Aça ~o. Pombinho, J.P.M., 2015. Value-oriented Enterprise Transformation: Design and
Disponível em: http://www.esaf.fazenda.gov.br/acesso-a-informacao/centros- Engineering of Value Networks. 2015. 223 F. Thesis (PhD Degree in Information
regionais/minas-gerais/guia-pratico-dragon-dreaming-v02.pdf. Acessado em Systems and Computer Engineering)e Instituto Superior Te cnico. Universidade
18/04/2016. de Lisboa, Lisboa.
Elkington, J., 1998. Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V., 2004a. Future of Competition: Co-creating Unique
Business. New Society Publishers, USA. Value with Customers. HBS Press, Boston.
EUROPEAN NETWORK OF LIVING LABS (ENOLL), 1999. What Are Living Labs. Dis- Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V., 2004b. Co-creation experiences: the next practice in
ponível em: http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/node/1429. Acesso em: 15 abr. 2017. value creation. J. Interact. Market. 18 (3), 5e14. https://doi.org/10.1002/
Evans, J., et al., 2015. Self-determination and archival autonomy: advocating dir.20015.
activism. Arch. Sci. 15 (4), 337e368. Pranis, K., Boyes-Watson, C., 2011. No coraç~ ao da esperança: guia de pra ticas cir-
Forza, C., 2012. Survey research in operations management: a process-based culares. Trad. Fa tima De Bastiani. Tribunal de Justiça do Estado do Rio Grande do
perspective. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 22 (2), 152e194. Bradford. Sul, Porto Alegre.
Franco, A., 2008. Tudo que e  sustentavel tem o padra ~o de rede: sustentabilidade R Development Core Team, 2013. R: a Language and Environment for Statistical
empresarial e responsabilidade social corporativa no se culo 21. Escola de Redes, Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. www.r-project.org.
S~ao Paulo, p. 193. Ramaswamy, V., Gouillart, F., 2010a. A empresa cocriativa: por que envolver
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. Pitman, Bos- stakeholders no processo de criaça ~o de valor gera mais benefícios para todos.
ton, MA. Elsevier, Rio de Janeiro, p. 267.
Frugoli, P.A., Almeida, C.M.V.B., Agostinho, F., Giannetti, B.F., Huisingh, D., 2015. Can Ramaswamy, V., Gouillart, F., 2010b. Building the co-creative enterprise. Harv. Bus.
measures of well-being and progress help societies to achieve sustainable Rev. 88 (10), 100e109.
development? J. Clean. Prod. 90, 370e380. Ramaswamy, V., Chopra, N., 2014. Building a culture of co-creation at Mahindra.
Geissdoerfer, M., Bocken, N.M.P., Hultink, E.J., 2016. Design thinking to enhance the Strat. Leader. 42 (2), 12e18.
sustainable business modelling process. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 1218e1232. https:// Ramaswamy, V., Ozcan, K., 2014. The Co-creation Paradigm. Stanford University
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.020. Press, Stanford, CA.
Giupponi, C., Gain, A.K., 2016. Integrated spatial assessment of the water, energy Reed, M.S., et al., 2014. Five principles for the practice of knowledge exchange in
and food dimensions of the Sustainable Development Goals. Reg. Environ. environmental management. J. Environ. Manag. 146, 337e345.
Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-0998-z. Robles, A.G., et al., 2015. Introducing Enoll and its Living Lab Community. Available
Gray, D.E., 2012. Pesquisa no mundo real: me todos de pesquisa. Penso Editora, Porto at. http://www.openlivinglabs.eu/node/1429.
Alegre. Rosemberg, M.B., 2006. Comunicaça ~o na~o-violenta: tecnicas para aprimorar
416 C. Kruger et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 191 (2018) 400e416

relacionamentos pessoais e profissionais, p. 285. Sa 

~o Paulo: Agora. Sitas, N., et al., 2016. Fostering collaboration for knowledge and action in disaster
Roome, N.J., 2013. Management for sustainable development as a system's problem. management in South Africa. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 19, 94e102.
Presented at systemic sustainability management: complexity, resilience and Stahlbro€st, A., Holst, M., 2012. The Living Lab Methodology Handbook. Lulea Uni-
systems thinking. In: Proceedings of the Autumn Meeting of the Section Sus- versity of Technology, Lulea, Sweden. Available at. https://issuu.com/cdt-ltu/
tainability Management of the German Academic Association for Business docs/livinglabsmethodologybook_web.
Research (VHB) (Vienna, Austria). Steelman, Toddi, et al., 2015. Practicing the science of sustainability: the challenges
Sarmah, B., Islam, J.U., Rahman, Z., 2015. Sustainability, social responsibility and of transdisciplinarity in a developing world context. Sustain. Sci. 10 (4),
value Co-creation: a case study based approach. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 189, 581e599.
314e319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.227. Steurer, R., Langer, M.E., Konrad, A., Martinuzzi, A., 2005. Corporations, stakeholders
Santos, R.A., Mexas, M.P., Meiri no, M.J., 2016. Sustainability and Hotel Business: and sustainable development I: a theoretical exploration of business society
criteria for holistic, integrated and participative development. SV J. Clean. Prod. relations. J. Bus. Ethics 61 (3), 263e281.
142, 217e224. Trencher, G., et al., 2013. Beyond the third mission: exploring the emerging uni-
Schaffers, H., et al., 2011a. Integrating living labs with future internet experimental versity function of co-creation for sustainability. Sci. Publ. Pol. 41 (2), 151e179,
platforms for co-creating services within smart cities. In: Concurrent Enter- 2013.
prising (ICE), 2011 17th International Conference on. IEEE, pp. 1e11. Vargas, A., 2016. Produç~ ao e consumo  a luz do desenvolvimento de pra ticas sus-
Schaffers, H., et al., 2011b. Smart cities and the future internet: towards cooperation tentaveis na cadeia de fornecimento varejista. 2016. 117 f. Dissertaç~ ao (Mes-
frameworks for open innovation. Future Internet 431e446, 2011. trado em Engenharia de Produça ~o e Sistemas)e Universidade do Vale do Rio
Scharmer, O., Kaufer, K., 2014. Liderar a Partir Do Futuro Que Emerge: a Evoluça ~o Do dos Sinos. S~ ao Leopoldo).
Sistema Econo ^mico Ego-ce ^ntrico Para O Eco-ce ^ntrico. Elsevier Brasil. Vargo, S.L., Lusch, R.F., 2004. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing.
SCHOOL DESIGN THINKING, 2016. Ebook Design Thinking. Available at. https:// J. Market. 68 (1), 1e17.
rdstation-static.s3.amazonaws.com/cms%2Ffiles%2F10183%2F1457986946IDT_ rilhac, I., Pallot, M., Aragall, F., 2012. IDeALL: exploring the way to integrate
Ve
minitoolkit_2016.pdf. design for all within living labs. In: Engineering, Technology and Innovation
Stafford-Smith, M., Griggs, D., Gaffney, O., Ullah, F., Reyers, B., Kanie, N., Stigson, B., (ICE), 2012 18th International ICE Conference on. IEEE, pp. 1e8.
Shrivastava, P., Leach, M., O'Connell, D., 2016. Integration: the key to imple- Von Bertalanffy, L., 1975. Perspectives on General System Theory Scientific-
menting the sustainable development goals. Sustain. Sci. 1e9. https://doi.org/ philosophical Studies.
10.1007/s11625-016-0383-3. Voytenko, Y., et al., 2016. Urban living labs for sustainability and low carbon cities in
Sekaran, U., Bougie, R., 2010. Research Methods for Business: a Skill Building Europe: towards a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 123, 45e54.
Approach. Wiley, London. WECD, 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, New-York.
Shapiro, S.S., Wilk, M.B., 1965. An Analysis of Variance Test for Normality (Complete Zwass, V., 2010. Co-creation: towards a taxonomy and an integrated research
Samples). Biometrika Trust, London v. 52, n. 3-4, p. 591e-609., 3/4 (Dec., 1965). perspective. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 15 (1), 11e48.
Disponível em: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2333709.