Loïc Sauvée
email: loic.sauvee@lasalle-beauvais.fr

Mantiaba Coulibaly

The many paths of value creation in brand alliances: Resource combining and governance mechanisms

Keywords: alliance, brand, governance structures and mechanisms, resource combining

The main objective of the paper is to show how resources, both inside and outside the firm, are combined together in the context of brand alliances. Indeed strategic assets in alliances are mobilized by actors in complex forms of organization in order to reach certain strategic objectives. Brand alliances are not different from that point of view. Internal and external governance mechanisms, such as contracts, informal devices and joint committees are commonly found on the field of brand alliances. So the research question of the paper is to understand, in specific processes of the value creation, the way resources are combined together. We show that when considering the type of value creation processes developed by brand alliances, several combinations of resources aligned with governance mechanisms are possible. The paper proposes two case studies of brand alliances featuring this situation and extents the results to a stylized conceptualization of value creation processes linked with interorganizational design in brand alliance settings.

1-Introduction

Brand alliances, defined as "a combination of two or more existing brands into a joint product or marketed together" [START_REF] Keller | Strategic Brand Management[END_REF], are a strategic trend particularly significant for small and medium enterprises. Indeed the difficult conditions of differentiation strategies, such as the high levels of entry barriers for advertisement and of research and development budget, put these small and medium firms in the search for new strategic marketing opportunities: the brand alliance is one of them.

Most of the researches that have been focused so far on brand alliances have mainly pointed out the importance of phenomenon such as attributes complementarities, spill over effects, consumer behaviors, market conditions and so on. In consequence, these researches have tried to understand the conditions of success in considering the value creation that will stem from the brand alliance as given. The question of value creation, which underlies any strategic decisions to bring together two brands, has been frequently neglected. As in any differentiation strategy, partners who decides to join their efforts in a marketing strategy will have to cope with the question of value creation, i.e. the specific resources of any kind that the companies involved in the alliance will have to create, sustain and, more important, to combine in the long run in their new offerings.

The main objective of the paper is to show how resources, both inside and outside the firm, are combined together in the context of brand alliances. Indeed strategic assets in alliances are mobilized by actors in complex forms of organization in order to reach certain strategic objectives. Brand alliances are not different from that point of view. Internal and external governance mechanisms, such as contracts, informal devices and joint committees are commonly found on the field of brand alliances. So the research question of the paper is to understand, in specific processes of the value creation within the context of brand alliances, the way resources are combining together.

Brand alliances are not outside markets conditions, but are on the contrary highly related to market conditions (for instance a fierce competition), to managerial and scientific interest (specific needs for differentiation, importance of knowledge transfer from research to private companies), to legal aspects. This is why the contingency dimensions of the phenomenon are of particular interest. We will focus our study of food markets, and more specifically on health and fair trade food markets. Indeed these markets have been characterized by significant trends such as a price competition lowering the importance of brands, and at the same time by increasing legal constraints (mainly due to several severe food crises). Last but not least, societal aspects such as nutrition problems (the rise of obesity) and international trade (poverty in developing countries) issues have also tremendously impacted the image of brands.

The paper is organized as follows. In a first part, we define the analytical grid necessary to study brand alliances from the perspective of resources and resource combining. In this part, we put forward the question of value creation in general and also related to the question of its origins. We show that this origin can be related to the consumer side as well as the producer side. In focusing on the producer side, we propose to develop, in the line of reasoning with researchers of the IMP tradition, the idea of a matching between resources and governance mechanisms. We then propose a complete analytical grid of value analysis in brand alliances based upon a limited numbers of components: behaviors and objectives, resources and governance, and value-based outputs of the brand alliance.

In a second part we apply this framework to two case studies in the food market, and more especially the fair trade market for bananas, and the nutritional market for dairy products, through a qualitative methodology in the spirit of Yin and Eisenhardt. These two cases combine a private brand with a private certification brand for the first case, and with a collective brand for the second case. We follow an abductive approach in using direct interviews, secondary data as well as indirect sources. We apply our analytical grid to these two cases with the objective to show the interplay between the specific combinations of resources, governance mechanisms and value positioning strategies. Managerial implications and concluding comments are drawn from the case studies, illustrating the interests of a contingent approach, of analytical views of differentiation strategies based upon the basic concepts of the IMP research tradition, where the proper design of a few relevant organizational components is at the core of the firm's success.

2-An analytical grid of value creation in brand alliances

In a global view, brand alliances represent a specific type of strategic alliance. So we will consider firstly that its value is explained as a value for the strategic alliance (or for the interorganizational relationship broadly speaking). We thus identified several types of value that are created and we will focus on the value created from the partners' side, mainly through interaction processes (2-1). Nevertheless it is necessary to go deeper in this question of interaction. How is this value created and through which logic? We propose an approach of this question with the help of the concept of combination. Partners in the alliance seek to combine their strategic resources in specific institutional matrix (governance structures and mechanisms) (2-2). Then we propose a complete grid linking the three components of our analysis: objectives and behaviors of partners, resource combination and governance mechanisms, types of value created (2-3).

What is the origin of value in brand alliances? -Origin of value in inter organizational relationships

Previous researches on strategic alliances links value to financial and strategic aspects of the organizations. Ritter and Gemünden (2003: 694), referring to [START_REF] Walter | Value-creation in buyer-seller relationships: theoretical considerations and empirical results from a supplier's perspective[END_REF], present two steps to create value: direct functions and indirect functions. According to these authors, direct functions such as profit and volume permit to create value for supplier within a given relationship. Indirect functions such as innovation, market access, and scout functions allow value creation for the supplier either in the future in the relationship or in other (connected) relationships. These authors explain value creation in a dyadic relationship between the two companies. Hinterhuber (2002: 616) note the importance of coordination and integration of activities to create value in an alliance. Firms are perceived by this author as a bundle of relatively static and transferable resources (Hinterhuber, 2002: 618). He defends that value is created by improving the quality of products or services or by reducing costs potentially at each step of the extended value chain (Hinterhuber, 2002: 617). So organizations that will reduce their costs and will make benefits in an alliance can create value for consumer for example through an improved quality of the product delivered. He demonstrates that at the beginning of the relationship, an organization (Monsanto in his article) combines these strategic, cultural and technical criteria to select the potential partners. For this author, "strategic criteria ensure that the long-term vision of Monsanto of global sustainability is being translated into a set of competence and opportunity-based indicators. Financial criteria ensure that the relationship with partner companies allows specific payback criteria to be met (…). Free Cash Flow, and Economic Value Added-projections were frequently adopted. Cultural criteria ensure that core values, operating mechanisms, and decision processes are compatible between the companies" (Hinterhuber, 2002: 623) So we clearly identify that value creation process in brand alliance, as well as any type of strategic alliance, can be sketched as an interactive perspective between two sides: the value for consumers and the value for organizations.

-The types of value created in brand alliances: consumer value, financial value and competitive value

We refer to previous works on value creation in alliances [START_REF] Doz | L'avantage des alliances, Logiques de création de valeur[END_REF] to identify the different types of value in a brand alliance. Doz and Hamel (2000: 44) argue that a firm can create value through an intensification of its competitiveness, through a co specialization of its resources, and through an appropriation of the acquired know-how.

Similarly, in brand alliances, firms which associate their brands could be potentially competitive or complementary. For [START_REF] Abratt | Managing co-branding strategies: global brands into local markets[END_REF] a brand alliance will allow an organization which has an unknown (or less known) brand to acquire a reputation and credibility when it combines its brand with another organization having a known brand. So, in brand alliances, an organization can have a competitive advantage linked to a property and image of brands. It will acquire a brand image and known-how from the well-known organization. We can represent this advantage by the "competitive value" (a value for the organizations).

On the other hand, organizations in brand alliances combine their specific resources and their skills such as product, service, information, knowledge related to the brand [START_REF] Kapferer | The new strategic brand management: creating and sustaining brand equity long term 4th ed[END_REF]. Using these resources and skills, organizations can increase their sales to the consumers and at the same time can reduce their production costs in working together. In this context, they generate a "financial value" (a value for the organizations) and a value for consumers, in delivering them a differentiated product with a better quality. This innovation and added value for the consumers will represent the "consumer value" (the value for consumers).

Thus we consider that, in brand alliances, three types of value are created: consumer value, financial value and competitive value. The two last values represent the value created for the organizations which combine their brands and for their partners. We symbolize these three types or 'families' of value in Figure 1. We have identified different types of value created in brand alliances. Now we will explain how the organizations involved in the brand alliance will proceed to create and maximize these values.

-Interaction between actors

According to Schurr, Hedaa and Geersbro (2008: 878) interpersonal interactions generate the resource ties and activity structuring associated with networks. Referring to the IMP group researches (Håkansson and Snehota, 1995), these authors note that each actor represents a node that connects

Brand alliances

Consumer value -Quality of product -Innovation -Added value -Differentiation

Value for organizations

Competitive value -Reputation -Brand image -Market access -Credibility

Financial value -Profits -Reduction of costs -Reduction of risks with other nodes in structures comprised of resource ties, activity links, and actor bonds between companies. In add, they show that the interpersonal trust and commitment reduces uncertainty in relationships. They demonstrate also that shared norms, cooperative adaptation in a relationship are necessary to sustain the relationships (Schurr, Hedaa and Geersbro, 2008: 879).

Schurr, Hedaa and Geersbro ( 2008) confirm Medlin's (2004: 185) conclusions in considering interaction processes as a essential analytical concept at the heart of the relationship and network perspective of business markets, as developed mainly by the IMP group (Ford, 1990[START_REF] Håkansson | How should companies interact in business networks?[END_REF]Gemünden, Ritter, & Walter, 1997;Håkansson, 1982;Håkansson and Snehota, 1995;[START_REF] Sheena | Interactions, Relationships and Networks in a Changing World[END_REF].

Previews works concerning interaction between actors show us the importance of resources and governance mechanisms in a relationship. So we retain these two dimensions to explain value creation in brand alliances. This idea of interaction as a dimension of resource combining is well summarized by Gadde and Håkansson (2008:34): "The benefits from a relationship are in this way strongly dependent on how the two organizations manage to combine their resources. A relationship can function in two ways in relation to other resources on the two sides of the dyad (…). A business relationship is a flexible and multidimensional resource involving design and redesign of resources and combinations of resources."

The creation of value in brand alliances: resources and governance mechanisms

-Resources in brand alliances: definition and types of resources [START_REF] Williamson | A comparison of alternative approaches to economic organization[END_REF] defines resources as a set of assets including production capacities, sales possibilities, relational assets [START_REF] Purchase | The Role of the Firm's Resources in Relationship Development Stages: Case[END_REF]. Nevertheless [START_REF] Gadde | Business Relationships and Resource Combining[END_REF] consider that there is no "common understanding concerning resource classification" (Gadde and Håkansson, 2008:35). While some authors make a distinction between tangible and tangible assets, others distinguished between physical capital, human capital and organizational resources. Finally the authors adopt a classification of resources in two main types: physical resources and organizational resources.

In her study concerning the growing commercial activities in the Uppsala region (focus on the restructuring a pharmaceutical company), Waluszewski (2004: 134) illustrates a manner to relate, confront and remodel resources in a relation. She distinguishes four types of resources: two types of resources are mainly social; organizational units, developed in co-operation processes and organizational relationships, developed in networking processes; and two mainly physical; products, developed in buying-selling processes and production facilities developed in producing-using processes.

In their work, [START_REF] Gadde | Business Relationships and Resource Combining[END_REF] give a view of the links between business relationships and resource. For them "the processes of building inter-organizational relationships can be regarded as a flow of resources between organizations". They consider that "the value of a resource is determined through its interplay with other resources. The underlying processes of companies' efforts in this respect are identified as 'systemic combining' of resources across firms' boundaries.

Besides, Håkansson and Snehota (1989: 193) explain the central role of the "invisible" or "intangible" assets in organizational effectiveness. They argue that these assets which are knowledge and abilities, fame and reputation are created in external relationships. In another research, Håkansson and Snehota (2006: 273) argue that it is the flow of resources that defines the boundaries of the firm. They demonstrate that resources are both managed across boundaries and through moving and developing interfaces that at the same time constitute legal boundaries.

How is it possible to relate these general considerations on resources and resource combining with brand alliances? So we note that in a brand alliance, similarly, organizations at stake exchange physical (material) and non physical resources (non material, intangible assets) to create value in a relationship.

In brand alliances the resources are mainly represented by brands: notoriety, reputation, knowledge, technology, cash flow, raw material, clinical studies, and schedule conditions [START_REF] Abratt | Managing co-branding strategies: global brands into local markets[END_REF][START_REF] Kapferer | The new strategic brand management: creating and sustaining brand equity long term 4th ed[END_REF]. We have in these resources material and non material capital. Indeed, the particularity of brand alliances resides in the existence of two types of actors in the relationship. We have owners of brands and their partners. So we distinguish, among resources in brand alliances, resources embedded which represent resources of brand's owners (inside) and resources outside the brand's owners. Resources embedded are specific to each owner of a brand, they represent notoriety and reputation; we can called them the core resources of the alliance. Resources outside the property of brand's owners represent knowledge, technology, cash flow, raw material, clinical studies and schedule conditions. We will consider these resources as secondary resources, embedded in the network of suppliers and customers of each of the brand owners.

-Governance mechanisms developed by partners: formal and informal mechanisms [START_REF] Williamson | A comparison of alternative approaches to economic organization[END_REF] shows that, in a relationship, existing contracts between partners are necessary to manage and control the relationship. But the control is assumed to be also necessary in order to adapt and relate effectively hazards to the environment [START_REF] Pfeffer | The External control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective[END_REF]Salancik, 1978: 32, in Håkansson andSnehota, 1989: 192). So [START_REF] Håkansson | No business is an island: The network concept of business strategy[END_REF] argue that an organization's boundaries should be set with the limits to its activity control.

Other authors explain the importance of institutional norms, means to solve conflicts [START_REF] Mohr | Characteristics of Partnership Success: Partnership Attributes, Communication Behavior and Conflict Resolution Techniques[END_REF] and cooperation between partners [START_REF] Zajac | From transaction cost to transaction value analysis: implications for study of interorganizational strategies[END_REF][START_REF] Das | Instabilities of strategic alliances: an internal tensions perspective[END_REF] in an alliance. Theses mechanisms can be integrated in formal mechanisms.

Certain authors have produced results about informal norms focused on trust and informal agreements [START_REF] Barney | Trustworthiness as a source of competitive advantage[END_REF][START_REF] Das | Between trust and control: developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances[END_REF][START_REF] Hummels | Trust in scientific publishing[END_REF] which are developed between actors in an alliance. They represent the informal mechanisms.

In brand alliances, [START_REF] Ghosh | Governance Value Analysis and Marketing Strategy[END_REF][START_REF] Ghosh | Strategic fit in industrial alliances: an empirical test of governance value analysis[END_REF], [START_REF] Dahlstrom | Business-to-business Antecedents to Retail Co-Branding[END_REF] note that governance mechanisms are developed by partners. They argue that the types of governance mechanisms mobilized may range from simple contracts, to formal joint committee for strategic decisions, or even to informal mechanisms such as trust. These structures may be a direct relationship between the two companies. But the alliance may involve also several firms or even non-business organizations.

The question of the links between governance mechanisms and the use of resources is to be found in the configuration of resources that are mobilized by partners. The idea of resource constellation defined as a set of resources is necessary to explore this idea.

Understanding the diversity of value creation processes in brand alliances

In a brand alliance, organizations combine their different resources in line with the objectives assigned by them to the alliance. So their individual objectives may converge with the common objectives, but some discrepancies between individual and collective objectives are likely, especially in the long run.

According to [START_REF] Pfeffer | The External control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective[END_REF], [START_REF] Williamson | A comparison of alternative approaches to economic organization[END_REF] and [START_REF] Doz | The evolution of cooperation in strategic alliances: initial conditions or learning processes?[END_REF], a combination of different resources in an alliance can create dependencies between organizations and will induce possible opportunistic behaviors. Moreover, for Håkansson and Snehota (1989: 189), to accumulate resources in a best way, it is necessary for organizations to match the characteristics of the environment with their capabilities. These authors add: "To manage the behavior of the organization will require a shift in focus away from the way the organization allocates and structures its internal resources and towards the way it relates its own activities and resources to those of the other parties that constitute its context" (Håkansson and Snehota, 1989: 198). Consequently the vision of alliances as a constellation of resources brings a perspective on governance mechanisms and structures set up by the partners.

In the vein of Ghosh andJohn (1999, 2005) works, other studies present governance mechanisms as solution to solve problems which appear in an alliance [START_REF] Ulrich | Perspectives in organizations: Resource dependence, efficiency, and population[END_REF]. Das andTeng (1998, 2000) have also built on this idea of contingency between strategic alliances and forms of organizing exchanges and relationships.

From these previous works on strategic alliances and governance we propose an analytical grid in the form of a three-step chart. Each step symbolizes, in a heuristic manner, the consecutive decisions that will be taken by firms, even if in real life situations these decisions are overlapping.

Firstly, in a competitive context where brand alliances are developed, we think that organizations must adapt their individual's objectives and behaviors in a common way, without underestimating possible divergences on objectives. Then secondly the partners in the brand alliance combine adequate resources and governance mechanisms to create the different types of value: consumer value, competitive value and financial value. Referring to previous researches on strategic alliances adapted to the literature concerning brand alliances, we identify key elements which permit to conceptualize this process (Figure 2).

We note that to maximize value creation in brand alliances, it is necessary to consider a specific and given combination of resources. Organizations must consider behavioral consequences when they combine their resources. So the diversity of the value creation is linked to global aims and behaviors of partners to reach optimization.

Application

The analytical grid presented in figure 2 is then applied to two case studies. We first present our methodology (3-1) then the grid is successively applied to a brand alliance on the fair trade market (3-2) and on the health food market (3-3).

Research methodology

Following [START_REF] Yin | Case Study Research[END_REF] in the definition of the research protocol, the selection of the two case studies is done with the objective of an 'analytic generalization'. As suggest by Yin (2003:32-33), an analytic generalization is relevant when "a previously developed theory is used as a template with which to compare the empirical results of the study (…). Thus "the use of theory, in doing case studies, is not only an immense aid in defining the appropriate research design and data collection but also becomes the main vehicle for generalizing the results of the case study".

The data collection has privileged the interviews, which is according to [START_REF] Eisenhardt | Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges[END_REF] a very rich source of information well adapted when the phenomena is either complex or occasional.

We conducted twenty seven semi-directive face to face interviews (fifteen in the fair trade market and twelve in the nutritional health market) with executive managers, sales directors of the organizations which joined their brand and with their partners. We completed these data sending questionnaires (six) to the persons interviewed and we collected secondary data in the different companies concerned by the alliance (annual reports, press information, websites etc.). We completed our analysis using software "QSR Nvivo 8.0".

Case studies 1: alliance between a certification brand and private brand of banana -Presentation of organizations

The first case study on a fair trade market relies on an alliance between a private certification brand "Fair Trade" owned by a fair trade association Max Havelaar and a private brand of banana "Oké" belonging to a private company "AgroFair". The owners of the brands are AgroFair which is an importer of bananas and Max Havelaar which is a fair trade association. The two organizations facilitate a production and distribution of fair trade bananas in developing countries and promotion and marketing of these bananas in developed countries. They work with direct partners like producers, ripening stores, distributors, certification organization (FLO cert: Fairtrade Labeling Organization), consumers and indirect partners such as voluntary workers, government. On the fair trade market we explain how objectives and behaviors of organizations in brand alliances permit to mobilize resources and governance mechanisms and finally to create value. Indeed, alliances are a reaction to changes in the environment and depend on resources [START_REF] Spekman | Alliance Governance and Marketing Alliances, 4 th International Conference on "Business Market Management[END_REF].

In our case study, owners of "Fairtrade" brand and banana brand "Oké" would like to reach the fair trade market and to satisfy consumers who are demanding for product attributes respecting environmental rules and fair trade issues. So organizations will adapt their behaviors, sometimes exchanging information about bananas. They negotiate decision to combine their key resources: brand, communication strategy, financial resources and schedule conditions, etc. Organizations also set up core mechanisms such as contracts between owners of the brands and their partners, social and environmental norms. In addition they mobilize secondary mechanisms concerning cooperation and negotiation to execute the core mechanisms.

Consequently, the alliance permit to create value and enhance competitive advantage by leveraging and building economics of scale and scope, gaining access to markets and technology, improving product development, increasing the general level of knowledge [START_REF] Spekman | Alliance Governance and Marketing Alliances, 4 th International Conference on "Business Market Management[END_REF]. In this case study the value created concerns on the one hand consumer value, for example when organizations deliver bananas which respect conditions of the fair trade concept: environmental norms, equal relation between all the partners applying decisions or sharing benefits. In addition the relationships permit to create value for the parties [START_REF] Snehota | Searching for relationship value in business markets: Are we missing something?[END_REF]. In this alliance we explain value created for organizations by the competitive value and the financial value. Competitive value represents for example brand image of the "Fairtrade" brand which permit to the owners of the banana brand to reach the market conditions for this type of products and to acquire reputation in this market. Financial value concerns the cost savings and the increase of the benefits which permit to invest in social projects in developing countries. We summarize the analysis in figure 3. -Increase of benefits and investment in socials projects in developing countries.

Case study 2: alliance between a private license brand and a milk brand -Presentation of organizations

The second case study on the nutritional health market concerns an alliance between a private license brand "Oméga 3 naturels" belonging to the nutritional health association "Bleu-Blanc-Coeur" and milk brand "Agrilait" owned by the private company Coralis. The owners of the brands are Agrilait and Bleu-Blanc-Coeur" association which promote the marketing of a nutritional milk "Agrilait-Oméga 3 naturels. The two organizations exchange with direct partners which are flax producers, feed manufacturers, independent farmers, breeders, food processing companies (dairy companies), distributors and consumers. They work also with indirect partners such as research centers, regional and European institutions. As in the first case study, we show that on the nutritional health market, objectives and behaviors of organizations are linked to resources and governance mechanisms used and consequently permitted to create value in brand alliances. Firstly to answer to consumer demand and access to a nutritional health market, owners of "Omega 3 naturels" brand and of the milk brand "Agrilait" combine their individual objectives concerning reduction of costs and differentiation of milk. So organizations must adapt their behaviors to assemble resources such as brands, schedule conditions, clinical studies which create credibility for the final product, communication strategy and financial resources.

To apply in a best way these resources owners of brands and their partners use core mechanisms (contracts, socials and environmental norms, etc.) completed by secondary mechanisms (exchange of information). These actions in brand alliances allow the creation of value for consumers and for organizations (competitive value and financial value). Consumer value is expressed by milk containing Oméga 3 good for health and which respects environmental norms.

As a competitive value we have for example brand image of "Oméga 3 naturels". When a dairy company combines its brand with "Oméga 3 naturels" brand, it gives to its company a good reputation and notoriety on the nutritional market. Financial value is expressed by the increase of brands owners benefit. We recapitulate this analysis in figure 4

4-Managerial implications and concluding comments

The two types of brand alliances show us that the individual objectives of the organizations converge on common objectives, combined with elements of opportunistic behavior. Indeed, in a fair trade market the common objective is to ensure quality between organizations which exchange in a fair trade market to sell bananas labeling "Fair trade", to help producers of bananas and to protect the environment. In a nutritional health market, the common objective is to improve health using a nutritional health component "Oméga 3" in milk. But at the same time the brands' owners may try to avoid the main constraints such as controls and rules.

We show that to realize the objectives, organizations mobilize their resources and set up governance mechanisms to create and sustain value in the alliance. Value is created not only for the organizations (competitive value and financial value) but also for the consumers (consumer value). Nevertheless certain organizations can privilege their strategic objectives and try not to scatter information in the relationship when they use resources. Sometimes, an organization can take a strategic decision or/and have a bargaining power because of its control on specific resources. Moreover, organizations must support negotiation costs of contracts, constraints to respect social and environment rules when they mobilize governance mechanisms.

So we note that to maximize value creation process in brand alliances it is necessary to combine resources in the best way in considering objectives of all the partners to manage their behaviors and to mobilize in consequence the appropriate governance mechanisms.

In this research, we obtain two key results. For the first time, we show that value creation in brand alliances is defined by interactions between resources in organizations, and this resource combining is largely done across firm and/or organization boundaries. The rationale to analyze this process of combining different resources is to be found in the strategic positioning of brands. According to an overall efficiency principle in a competitive context, the best combination of resources, for the partners involved in the alliance, requires the proper use of governance mechanisms to create and sustain value for both consumers and organizations.

A second result of the research is to show that organizations which combine differently their resources could reach a certain level of optimality in their process of value creation. We also see that the diversity of value creation processes depends, among other factors, on the possibilities to exploit different in house and/or external strategic resources controlled by a large array of governance mechanisms. In first analysis, it seems that the degree of exclusivity of the brand alliance and the degree of complexity of inter organizational coordination are two key dimensions to understand this diversity.

Finally, we conclude that the combination of resources is not permanent. Considering the evolution of external conditions (competitive pressure, consumers' behaviors) and internal factors (partner's objectives), the partners in the brand alliances will have to re-optimize continuously the combination of resources and to adapt governance mechanisms.

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: the three types of value in brand alliances

Figure 2 :

 2 Figure 2: An analytical grid of the origin of value, resources and governance in brand alliances

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure 3: Representation of the case study 1

Fairtrade

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure 4: The origin of value, resources and governance in case study 1

  Financial value -Decrease of production costs.

Figure 5 :

 5 Figure 5: Representation of the case study 2

  .

	Figure 6: The origin of value, resources and governance in case study 2
	Objectives and behaviors	Resources mobilized	Value in the brand alliance
	Individual objectives of the	Resources of brand's
	brand's owners	Owners		Consumer value
	-Access to a nutritional	-A nutritional brand "Omega	-Quality of milk "Agrilait
	health market	3 naturels"		Oméga 3 naturels": the
	-Cost reduction			product	contains	a
	-"Oméga 3 naturels" brand	Other resources		nutritional	component
	notoriety	-Schedule conditions	"Omega 3"which is better
	-Differentiation of the milk	-Clinical studies		for health and allows the
		-Communication strategy	reduction of obesity.
	Common objectives of the	-Financial resources
	brand alliance			Value for organizations
	-Positioning on a nutritional
	health market	Governance mechanisms	Competitive value
	-Answer to a demand:			-Brand image of the
	Agrilait brand (owner: the company Coralis) health milk which respect of environmental norms Behaviors -Opportunism in a relationship when organizations must exchange strategic information -Bargaining power	Oméga 3 naturels (owner: the association Bleu-Blanc-Coeur Core mechanisms -Contracts between Bleu-Blanc-Coeur and Coralis -Bleu-Blanc-Coeur with organizations of control verifies the respect of the social and environmental norms by Coralis and all the	A milk brick with "Agrilait + Oméga 3 naturels" brands nutritional health brand. -Scientific team. -Qualification and education of all the members around the nutritional concept. -Communication around the brand "omega 3 naturels".
		partners in alliance
		-Coralis has his proper norms
		of quality which specifies the
		respect of production of the
		milk
		-Existence of bodies
		(administration,	marketing,
		control, etc.) to manage the
		relation between partners
		Secondary mechanisms
		-Interaction between all the
		partners, exchange of
		information
		-Exchange of knowledge
		concerning specification of


Latifa Daadaoui
email: latifa.daadaoui@lasalle-beauvais.fr

Loïc Sauvée

Keywords: governance, innovation, knowledge, inter-organizational relationships, cluster 1 Official site of competitiveness clusters, 2007

. In studying the French IAR competitiveness cluster, we propose an analytical framework of knowledge governance in a context of radical innovations, where the questions of knowledge creation and sharing are crucial. Then we develop several propositions contextualized in this French cluster.

Introduction

Innovate or die is the challenge facing firms but also nations in this new area of Knowledge Based Economy (KBE). [START_REF] Drucker | Innovation and Entrepreneurship[END_REF] stressed that innovation is the mean allowing the value creation for the entrepreneur but the image of the isolated inventor in Schumpeterian tradition which inseminates the economy of an idea that is communicated by the sky is now fundamentally schematic and outdated. The process of innovation is not the same in Montpellier, Geneva or San Francisco, the appearance in France of the 'competitiveness clusters' attests that. This model of a multiplicity of actors working together in the process of innovation highlights the relationship and interaction between users, providers and institutions and entities that are part of the innovation system. Inventors and innovators are in community, in a coalition based on shared trust and embedded in a dense network of interactions [START_REF] Laursen | Open for Innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovative performance among UK manufacturing firms[END_REF]. [START_REF] Drucker | Au-delà du capitalisme: la métamorphose de cette fin de siècle[END_REF] points out that innovation is not different from the creation and application of new knowledge to make them productive. Then we believe in the same vein of 'Innovation Based on Knowledge' [START_REF] Nonaka | La connaissance créatrice : la dynamique de l'entreprise apprenante[END_REF][START_REF] Johannessen | Aspects of innovation theory based on Knowledge[END_REF][START_REF] Leonard-Barton | Wellsprings of Knowledge[END_REF][START_REF] Amidon | Innovation et management des connaissances, Edition d'Organisation Antonelli C[END_REF] that innovation and knowledge are the two faces of the same coin.

The success of innovation depends on the governance mode [START_REF] Teece | Firm organization, industrial structure and technological innovation[END_REF] for the mainstream of the governance literature. The [START_REF] Williamson | Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural alternatives[END_REF]Williamson ( , 1994[START_REF] Williamson | The mechanisms of governance[END_REF] transactional framework does not consider knowledge: its nature, its dimensions and its process. So the need to develop a new scale of governance choice based on knowledge (as a base for innovation) is crucial to go in this new era of knowledge-based economy. This issue is even more critical when it is about launching new activities like those of valorisation of agro resources. Bio fuel, agro-materials, bio molecules, bio-energy are the four activities that researchers, industrials, agricultural cooperatives and institutions wishing to emerge and for which the 'pôle de compétitivité' Agro-Industries and Resources (IAR) was created. Our aim in this communication is: [START_REF]Regional direction for Industry[END_REF] to link these three concepts: governance, innovation and knowledge, which have been widely studied, but there were little (or no) attempts made in the direction of connecting the three, by [START_REF]Regional consular for industry, commerce and agriculture[END_REF] exploring this question in the particular context of the IAR French competitiveness cluster. First, we will highlight the link between innovation and knowledge, then defining governance and the shortcomings of the literature. Secondly we will introduce the concept of "knowledge governance" [START_REF] Foss | The Emerging Knowledge Governance Approach: Challenges and characteristics[END_REF] which means choosing governance structures (e.g. markets, hybrids, hierarchies) and coordination mechanisms (e.g., contracts, directives, reward schemes, incentives, trust, management styles, organizational culture, etc.), for the purpose of influencing processes of creating, transferring and sharing knowledge. Finally, the application to the case of emerging biobased activities is proposed.

The knowledge-based economy: knowledge and innovation 1.Knowledge and innovation: definition and dimensions

The innovation is the creation and implementation of new knowledge to make them productive (Penrose 1956[START_REF] Drucker | Au-delà du capitalisme: la métamorphose de cette fin de siècle[END_REF]. So, to identify the innovation we need to understand knowledge. Winter (1987) was the first to propose a typology of knowledge [START_REF] Foss | The Emerging Knowledge Governance Approach: Challenges and characteristics[END_REF][START_REF] Foss | The Emerging Knowledge Governance Approach: Challenges and characteristics[END_REF] depending on whether this knowledge is tacit / explicit, non articulated/ articulated, observable / non-observable, complex / simple, element of a system / independent. Thus depending on its dimensions, knowledge is easily transferable or is difficult to transfer, its property rights are difficult to define or not and so on. In this cartographic perspective, [START_REF] Henderson | Architectural innovation: the configuration of existing product technologies and failure of established firms[END_REF], [START_REF] Hall | Managing Knowledge associated with innovation[END_REF] offer interesting typologies of innovation. The former distinguish incremental, modular, architectural and radical innovations, depending whether knowledge is unchanged or changed and concepts are reinforced or reversed. [START_REF] Hall | Managing Knowledge associated with innovation[END_REF] were more interested in the degree of incremental and radical innovations to distinguish minor and major degrees depending on the knowledge quantity and substitutability. More global and dynamic, we find in the literature of innovation the difference between exploration and exploitation. [START_REF] Holland | Adaptation in natural and artificial systems[END_REF] was the first to make this distinction, then used by [START_REF] March | Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning[END_REF]. The exploitation concerns the extension and refinement of knowledge and technologies [START_REF] March | Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning[END_REF]) without changing the nature of activities with a limited uncertainty of the environment. Exploration is characterized by the break with what is being done to focus on the discovery of new technologies [START_REF] March | Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning[END_REF]). The exploration is not the efficiency of operations but is a process which concerns the uncertain search for new business opportunities based on new technologies. Knowledge creation is more important than diffusion for the exploration innovation.

Innovation as a process of transformation of knowledge

In the vein of the ' Knowledge Based Innovation' we support the idea that the innovation process is the process by which knowledge is transformed, combined and implemented. [START_REF] Nonaka | The Knowledge-creating Company[END_REF]Nonaka ( , 1994)), [START_REF] Nonaka | La connaissance créatrice : la dynamique de l'entreprise apprenante[END_REF] are still the main contributions to the understanding of mechanisms of knowledge transformation. The model of the creation and capitalization of knowledge is based on the distinction between tacit and explicit knowledge. Tacit knowledge is rooted in the action, the routines in a specific context (which can increase personal productivity at the individual level and the competitive advantage at the enterprise level). The explicit knowledge is knowledge codified, transmitted in a formal and systematic language. In organization, the creation and accumulation of knowledge occurs at three levels: at the individual level, group level, organization level. It uses four modes of conversion: (1) Socialization, tacit knowledge to tacit knowledge (2) Exteriorisation of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge (3) Combination of explicit knowledge (4) Internalization of explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge to a higher level.

Nonaka proposes the spiral of knowledge creation that explains the transition from tacit knowledge to explicit one and vice versa and between different levels. Our purpose here is to explore this dynamic of creating knowledge for innovation in an interorganisational context from the governance perspective. Particularly, the objective is to understand the emergence of monitoring devices and governance mechanisms when question of knowledge creation and sharing are at stakes.

Governance and knowledge 2.1. Governance: the need for a new paradigm

The concept of governance has been extensively studied by theorists of organizations [START_REF] Westphal | Who shall govern? CEO/board power, demographic similarity, and new director selection[END_REF]. Governance means the way of organizing transactions (Williamson, 1994) and by extension the relationships. Its purpose is to achieve the correct order by public or private use of coordination mechanisms. The governance structure is the design of an institutional matrix in which the integrity of the transaction or set of transactions is decided [START_REF] Williamson | The mechanisms of governance[END_REF][START_REF] Williamson | The New Institutional Economics: Taking Stock, Looking Ahead[END_REF][START_REF] Williamson | The Economics of Governance[END_REF] or an institutional model that governs trade in controlling opportunism [START_REF] Dyer | Effective interfirm collaboration: how firms minimize transaction costs and maximize transaction value[END_REF]. Williamson proposed a complete matrix of choice of governance but not very suitable for this special transaction of 'knowledge'. With his two books' Markets and Hierarchies' and ' The Economic Institutions of Capitalism' , Williamson built the theory of transaction costs where the analysis unit is the transaction. The choice of the appropriate structure is based on three criteria linked to the characteristics of transactions: the uncertainty that accompanies these transactions, the frequency and specificity of assets involved. Williamson argues that when the specific asset is idiosyncratic, integration can reduce transaction costs. It must be said that it is opportunism that worries Williamson. We will build the definition of governance in a functional approach based on dichotomist functions: disciplinary and cognitive, relational and contractual mechanisms (cf. figure 2). As several authors [START_REF] Conner | A Resource-Based Theory. of the Firm: Knowledge vs[END_REF]Prahalad 1996, Kogut and[START_REF] Kogut | What firms do ? Coordination, identity and learning[END_REF] we support the idea that the contextualization of governance by situations where knowledge is created raises the need for an extended theory. The innovation and dimensions of knowledge may explain the choice modes of coordination. More specifically, two directions need to be explored: the question of governance levels, and the complementarity of governance mechanisms at different levels. Considering the first point, as Gomez highlights ( 2009), the actual theory of governance is inadequate to the study of new productive forms of action (for instance: clusters) in context of high uncertainty and complexity as those present in the phases of innovation for the emergence of new activities. This mismatch stems from the fact that: -It is difficult to establish property rights on economic rent for the collaborative networks because the dominant theory on corporate governance in the capitalist system is based on a clear allocation of these rights.

-The stakeholders in a cluster have divergent interests on nature and time horizon and consensus can not be found in looking for a single collective benefit, as suggested by the theory of corporate governance. Renewal or looking for a new paradigm is especially urgent as there is a multiplication of these forms throughout the world both in the developed countries and in developing countries. On the second point, the work by [START_REF] Poppo | Do formal contracts and relational governance function as substitutes or complements?[END_REF] shows an interesting complementarity between formal contract and relational governance (i. e. the "social processes that promotes norms of flexibility, solidarity and information exchange" (Poppo and Zenger (2002:710). For them, the reason of this complementarity is to be found in the fact that customized contracts narrow the domain around which parties can be opportunistic. "Customized contracts specify contingencies, adaptive processes and controls likely to mitigate opportunistic behaviour and thereby support relational governance" (Poppo and Zenger, 2002:721). Nevertheless several questions remain unsolved; for instance the question of mutuality between parties, of problem of conflicts, problems of measurement of costs and of benefits of the exchange. These questions are particularly of interest in the situation of knowledge exchanges. As suggested by Antonelli (2005) the economics of knowledge has shifted from public goods then towards proprietary goods and finally towards localized technological knowledge. For Antonelli "at each point of time the topology of agents in the space of knowledge, hence their relative distance and structure of their relations and interactions, are key features of the system" (Antonelli, 2005:14).

In a general statement, the core question is, finally, whether or not this phenomenon of complementarity between governance mechanisms is to be observed in the context of knowledge creation and clusters. On these points the so called knowledge governance approach (hereafter KGA) brings interesting insights. We will develop this approach and its interests in the following point.

The Knowledge Governance Approach (KGA):

According to [START_REF] Foss | The Emerging Knowledge Governance Approach: Challenges and characteristics[END_REF][START_REF] Foss | The Emerging Knowledge Governance Approach: Challenges and characteristics[END_REF], Grandori is the pioneer to have used the concept of 'Knowledge Governance', which he defines as: "Knowledge governance therefore means deploying governance mechanisms so as to maximize the net benefits from processes of transferring, sharing and creating knowledge. This is similar to the transaction cost minimizing logic of transaction cost economics." He adds : "The approach may be briefly defined as a sustained attempt to uncover how knowledge transactions -which differ in their characteristics-and governance mechanisms -which differs with respect to how they handle transactional problems-, are matched, using economic efficiency as the explanatory principle." The KGA starts from the hypothesis that knowledge processes (i.e., the creation, retention, and sharing of knowledge; Argote, 1999) can be influenced and directed through the deployment of governance mechanisms, in particular the formal aspects of organization that can be manipulated by management, such as organization structure, job design, reward systems, information systems, standard operating procedures, accounting systems, and other coordination mechanisms (cf. [START_REF] Grandori | Neither Hierarchy nor identity: Knowledge-governance mechanisms and the theory of the firm[END_REF]. The KGA asserts that such governance mechanisms should be seen as critical antecedents of knowledge processes. More specifically, Foss identifies the causes of the research gaps, mainly the missing micro analytic foundations (at the level of individuals) and the neglected role of organizational antecedents, as well as of the formal organization. On the contrary, Foss suggests that the governance approach, i.e. the specific combination of governance structures (market, hybrid, hierarchy) inside organizational forms will influence the knowledge process (sharing, integration and creation). Similarly he suggests that this is necessary to identify knowledgebased hazards, and "how does the deployment of governance mechanisms remedy such hazards" (Foss, 2007:42). An interesting development of the KGA literature is also the question of unit(s) of analysis. For Foss, the most applicable unit is the "knowledge transaction", that is to say "the transfer of an identifiable 'piece' of knowledge from one actor to another one" (Foss, 2007:44). Nevertheless, the innovation does not appear in the KGA. [START_REF] Teece | Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy[END_REF] proposes an interesting framework combining knowledge (in-house, outside or to be created), innovation (autonomous or systemic) and mode of governance (S = flexible structure, V = Virtual, M =

Functions :

-disciplinary -cognitive

Mechanisms :

-relational -contractual Governance Figure 2: Governance components Multiproduct integrated, A = alliance). Teece attests that the reality is better represented by the existence of mixed modes [START_REF] Richardson | The organization of Industry[END_REF] where firms adopt simultaneously or alternatively the two modes of governance. For Teece, innovation is not monolithic, and it is imperative to understand the kind of innovation that is used (see figure 3). In the continuation of this work, [START_REF] Gopalakrishnan | A re-examination of product and Process Innovation using Knowledge-Based View[END_REF] propose to combine innovation and knowledge, based of the three knowledge dimensions: tacit conditions, autonomy and complexity.

'Les pôles de compétitivité' : A french version of clusters 3.1. Methodology

The literature had extensive discussions on the issue of governance, but left in the shadow of the descriptive and explanatory framework, concrete structures and governance mechanisms [START_REF] Ehlinger | Quelle gouvernance pour les réseaux territorialisés d' organisations[END_REF]). The aim of understanding and exploration suggests a qualitative exploratory approach involving a case study. Indeed the novelty of the research on governance in special context, where it is about an emergent activity [START_REF] Möller | Managing strategic nets. A capability perspective[END_REF] aiming to develop new technologies and non-food applications for agricultural products that provide interesting analysis, that is a breakthrough innovation with great complexity and uncertainty. The application of this method is favourable in terms of feasibility and the research design, which can be explained by the following quote from Yin (1994:6) "In general, the case studies are preferred when the issues of" how "or" why "questions are asked, and when we focus on a contemporary phenomenon in the context of life." According to [START_REF] Glaser | The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research[END_REF], the objective of the research case study is to "discover" a theory by comparing the different cases. The chosen field of investigation is the 'pôle de compétitivité', this French version of cluster launched to enhance competitiveness and innovativeness of French industries. The data was collected by interviews with different actors: academics, industries, policymakers.

Industries Agroressources IAR cluster: growing in green

Our empirical focus is on the emerging biobased industry where innovation has many facets. On the one hand, the origin of products for which it will give birth, 100% derived from renewable agricultural, functionality to the extent that they will produce no nuisance to the natural environment (biodegradability..), the technology that will be used to produce these products, which is still unknown in large part. But more important is the framework which has been created in 2005 for governing innovation by launching the French model of clusters This new net (different actors detaining resources and capabilities and designing new activities) proposes to break with the existent technology and to bring a radical change that will lead to the creation of a new value system, with ideas still fuzzy, exogenous uncertainty related to the project concerning the process, and the output, as well as a high endogenous uncertainty associated to the difficulty of assessing performance. The net is also characterized by a significant level of complexity relating to the subject of the relationship (biobased activities), the diversity of partners which belong to different organizational environment (Plewa et al, 2004), a complexity that induces a specificity of human, physical (Heide, 1994) and relational (network, other relations) assets. Thus the governance of relationships will be different, needing a special framework. We are here in a systemic innovation situation: for instance to go further in bio fuel activity we need the results of bio fuels of 1 st generation to pass to the second one. This innovation needs more tacit, complex and systemic knowledge. [START_REF] Möller | Rise of strategic net -New modes of value creation[END_REF] suggest that these nets with weak ties require: self-coordination, informal leadership, and cannot be managed by one actor alone. The ambiguity suggests an environmental scanning, bringing new ideas of products, markets or business concepts and the uncertainty suggests the important of sense making role.

In the definition of the IAR cluster [START_REF] Jacquet | Les pôles de compétitivité[END_REF], each actor has a specific role, clearly defined and identified: the private sector is responsible for the cluster and the government represented by the 'public collective bodies' accompanying the device and participating in coordinating committees and funding. It is important to know the role of each one in terms of governance functions and mechanisms. The IAR is an associative configuration based on the membership to a solidarity community between pairs (no subordination link) on developing a community hub. It allows maintaining equilibrium between research and industry, and also the 'representativity' of the two regions (Picardie and Champagne-Ardenne). Its main challenge is to identify, accompany and help regional R&D projects in the field of agro resources (www.iar-pole.com). The local bodies (regional council, DRIRE, CCI, CRA) help forming and maintaining the economic actors without participating directly in the cluster governance (Figure 4) via the 'Institutional partners committee'. The institutional frame plays a crucial role in governing the links between actors [START_REF] Brousseau | La gouvernance des processus de coopération[END_REF]. The association is organized around a steering committee that selects the projects with a view of their labelling by the pole based on an independent audit by a scientific committee. The labelling allows projects to be oriented, to be submitted to the committee for funding, and to the possibility of different funding related to its content (figure 5). To execute the plan of actions defined by the association, several working groups, the 'COS or Comités d'Orientation Stratégique' (Strategic Orientation Committees) have been established. They are spaces to meet, to think, to animate the network, to break boundaries and particularly project ideas incubation. We distinguish then three different network levels in terms of coordination: project level, cluster level and institutional environment. Each dimension refers to different governance levels [START_REF] Brousseau | La gouvernance des processus de coopération[END_REF].

Research propositions about governance of knowledge creation of biobased activities

In systemic innovation, relationship governance influences the quality of the relationship in terms of trust, commitment, conflicts, willingness to invest on assets and the expectation of continuity. This will affect the knowledge creation and share between research areas and business firms (cf. figure 4). In this context, the uncertainty makes difficult the establishment of contracts, so market governance seems risky. Also the diversity of partners which belong to different organizational environments makes hierarchy not appropriate or not realist to implement. The hybrid mode of governance seems to be the most appropriate and the most efficient for systemic innovation of Biobased sectors. The more the partners are various, different and the more the environment is uncertain, the more we need a specific governance structure far from market and hierarchy.

Proposition 1: Hybrid mode of governance is appropriate for knowledge creation in systemic innovation

The lack of subordination link and the reciprocal interdependence of the various partners [START_REF] Thompson | Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory[END_REF] need the development of a specific function of governance in order to foster cooperation and to try to align the mental patterns of the various partners. In the case of innovation network in the emergent biobased activities, it is needed to create an interactive space where different actors could exchange and help the fuzzy ideas to become project-ideas and then projects. This function could not be accomplished by the project governance because it is needed upstream in the value system. The intermediate level of the network is then competent. In describing the relations between industry and research in the biobased industry we found that there are different levels: (1) the institutional environment constituting by national public institutions but especially regional institutions (2) the 'meta-governance' or 'relationgovernance' materialized by the 'pôle de compétitivité' association where the different partners meet to maximize the benefits of the cooperation between the different actors and (3) the 'project-governance' governing the relation-project assumed by a pilot (generally a firm). There is a complementarity between the 'cluster-governance' assumed by the 'pôle de compétitivité' and the project level. We suggest that the cluster governance has mainly a cognitive function while the project governance guarantees the double function. The effectiveness of the relation depends on the capacity to create the complementarity between the different governance levels.

Conclusion: Managerial and theoretical implications

We suggest that analysing and understanding innovation go through an investigation of what is knowledge: its nature, dimensions and its processes. We attempt to articulate the three components of strategy until now separately discussed in the literature: innovation, knowledge and governance. For that the traditional corpus of governance (principally a contractual approach) is no more sufficient to understand the innovation in the sense that knowledge (the real content of its nature and dimensions) is excluded from the analysis. In using the KGA approach as well as Teece, Penrose, Drucker, Schumpeter and others, we attempt to shed a new light on the point of junction between innovation, knowledge and governance.

We think that the management of radical innovation induces a need for a specific governance of knowledge, which means understanding the complex characteristics and transformation processes of knowledge implicated in a given innovation pattern. This new conception leads to some implications in understanding the governance modes of knowledge for innovation, and especially the idea of governance functions and levels that are complementary within 'global innovation systems'.

A complementary research focused on the dynamics aspects is in progress: its objective is to identify the key components of the knowledge-based innovation process and its implications on the design of governance mechanisms. A better understanding of factors that influence the knowledge creation for innovation could be a great help for managers and policy makers. The future of innovation is linked to the control of the process of knowledge transformation, creation and exchange.

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: Knowledge mode of conversion,[START_REF] Nonaka | The Knowledge-creating Company[END_REF]

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure 3: Innovation, knowledge and governance, Teece 1996

Figure 4 :

 4 Figure 4: Actors and flows in IAR cluster

Proposition 2 :

 2 Figure 5: Governance levels in IAR Cluster

The XXth ISPIM : "The Future of Innovation" Vienna 21-24 June 2009

The design of knowledge governance for innovation: The case of biobased activities in the Industry and Agro Resources French competitiveness cluster