Partnership Structure and Partner Outcomes: A Comparative Study of Large Community Sustainability Cross-Sector Partnerships in Montreal, Barcelona and Gwangju

Abstract

The aim of this research was to understand the structural features of large cross-sector social partnerships (CSSPs) and their resulting partner outcomes. This study analyzed and compared the partnership structures of three large CSSPs, each from a different continent: Barcelona + Sustainable in Barcelona, Spain; Gwangju Council for Sustainable Development in Gwangju, South Korea; and Sustainable Montreal in Montreal, Canada. Based on a survey of the partners in each of the three partnerships, the partner outcomes were also determined and compared. Building on these findings and using abductive analysis, the relationships between the partnerships’ structural features and partner outcomes are considered. An updated set of seven structural features for studying large cross-sector partnerships is offered. The empirical findings show some differences between the partnership designs and between the partner outcomes of the three partnerships. The experiences of the civil society, private sector and public sector partners in each of the cases were relatively similar, showing that in large partnerships, the sector was less relevant than in small partnerships.

1. Introduction

As the problems that society is facing today are too complex to be tackled by only one institution, the literature states that organizations from civil society and the public and private sectors must collaborate to solve social, environmental and economic challenges [1,2,3,4]. To address these issues, more than 10,000 local governments around the world have implemented sustainable community plans in their cities since 1992, any of which are collaborative in nature [5]. When organizations from different sectors bring their diverse skills together, they can create new capabilities that help with solving unsustainable challenges [1,6,7]. This form of collaboration, when formed into an entity, is called a cross-sector social partnership (CSSP) [8].

The number of CSSPs has been increasing at both global and local levels due to the benefits that they bring, not only to sustainability in general but also to their partners, including resources and skills [1,7]. Research showed that structural features within the partnership, such as the means of communication, partner engagement strategies, decision-making structures, monitoring and reporting, help partner organizations achieve their own goals [9] since they have the capacity to transform strategic goals into positive outcomes [9]. The structural arrangements of partnerships vary [10], thus impacting outcomes [11].

In this study, the outcomes of partner organizations are understood through an extended version of the resource-based view (RBV). The RBV includes human, physical, organizational and financial capitals [12]. Human capital refers to the knowledge developed by the people working in an organization; physical capital is related to the technology and location of a firm; organizational capital refers to the procedures and culture of a firm, such as the means of reporting; and financial capital is the earning, debts and equity of an organization [13]. The extended RBV includes the natural-resource-based view approach proposed by Hart [14] and socio-ecosystem resources [1]; this is called community capital in this study.

Despite past contributions, there is still a gap in the research of the relationship between the structural features of a large CSSP and the outcomes that partner organizations can obtain by participating in CSSPs. In addition, little attention has been given to the structuring of partnerships [10]. Large CSSPs have been selected for this study, not only because they are understudied but also because the literature suggests that they are more powerful than small partnerships due to their diversity and size, which helps partnerships to address the variety of challenges identified as key in the cities’ sustainability plans [9]. To fill in this gap, this study explored the relationship between the structural features of three large CSSPs that all aim to contribute to the achievement of sustainability goals for their cities: Barcelona + Sustainable in Barcelona, Spain; Gwangju Council for Sustainable Development in Gwangju, South Korea; and Sustainable Montreal in Montreal, Canada, and the outcomes their partner organizations have achieved during the implementation of community sustainability plans. This research aimed to analyze the partnerships’ structures and determine which structural features are present for each CSSP, analyze the value that partner organizations from different sectors and partnerships give to their achieved outcomes, and analyze the relationship between the structural features of the CSSPs and the partner outcomes.

The relevance of this topic is that the design of partnerships affects their ability to achieve their desired sustainability outcomes [11]; therefore, knowing more about structuring partnerships will enable better design of governance structures, thus ensuring desired partner outcomes can be achieved.

2. Cross-Sector Social Partnerships (CSSPs)

Cross-sector social partnerships are typically a voluntary form of collaboration, although some are mandatory [15], where organizations from the civil society, the public sector and/or private sector partner with the purpose of solving social problems of mutual concern [8]. Many of the complex issues that different societies are facing, such as the creation of sustainable communities, need strong CSSPs to solve them [1]. Small CSSPs have two or three partners from two or three sectors, and large CSSPs or multi-stakeholder partnerships have multiple partners from the three sectors [9]. Large CSSPs tend to be more inclusive since the participation of many partners is required, while the partners of small CSSPs are selected for a specific fit [9].

2.1. Partnership Structures

The interest in partnership design has grown due to a variety of challenges related to resilience and environmental sensitivity, among others [10,16]. The design stage is important since the foundation and key elements for the success of a partnership, such as the relationship and roles between partners, how the partnership is structured in terms of formality, continuity, governance and coordination, as well as the allocation of resources, are sorted out in the design process [17].

As organizations are part of the external environment with which they interact and engage for resources and in which they have interests, they must structure themselves according to the contexts they face [18,19], and this is not different for partnerships [20]. Within the CSSP literature, structures are “a key driver of the way agendas are shaped and implemented”; they affect the things organizations do by determining key factors around influencing power and resources [21], p. 1166. Research showed that an effective method of encouraging successful cross-sector collaboration is through the implementation of structures [9] that allow for the achievement of collaborative goals [22]. Structures have the capacity to transform strategic goals into outcomes due to the interactions between different organizations, through decision making, through being involved in the process and actions, and by exchanging resources that are necessary in order to achieve desired outcomes [9]. As argued by contingency theorists, they must be designed according to the environments they face, i.e., formally when facing certainty and informally whenever dealing with complex issues, such as those presented by sustainability challenges [18]. Due to the lack of attention being given in the literature to structures for implementation in large CSSPs [9,10], this research considered the structural features adopted by different authors and then developed a framework to analyze the structural features of the partnerships.

Structural Features of Large Cross-Sector Social Partnerships

This study considers seven categories to organize the CSSPs’ structural features: communication systems, monitoring and reporting systems, partner engagement, coordination entity, renewal systems, decision-making systems and the composition of the partnership. Something that is not considered in this paper but is also an important structural feature of partnerships is resource allocation (budgets) [23].

Several authors considered communication systems as an important component of cross-sector partnerships. In particular, Koschmann et al. [24] stated that communication systems are a key factor within organizations and collaborations. For Clarke [22], as well as for Kuenkel and Aitken [25], new communication systems are established for the implementation phase of a partnership. A partnership for the improvement of health finance policies in Ghana and Kenya demonstrates the importance of structured ongoing communication systems to develop a strong relationship and mutual understanding between the public and private sectors [26]. Some scholars also indicated that communication with multiple stakeholders is critical for strengthening relationships at multiple scales [27].

Some of the factors that allow for successful partnerships are monitoring and reporting systems [26]. It was shown that when there is a lack of these structural features within a partnership, it lowers the ability to achieve long-term goals [28]. Rein and Stott [28] studied six cross-sector partnerships in Southern Africa that had a lack of monitoring and evaluation processes, which made it difficult to evaluate the benefit of the partnership for the partners. Monitoring and reporting can focus on the sustainability impact [23,29] and/or on the process and actions [30,31].

Partners’ engagement is helpful within collaboration systems to engage key partners and attract new organizations [32,33]. Adding new partners is also an important component of partners’ engagement [34]. In terms of resources, new partners enable the achievement of the partnership’s common goals, allowing for the continuity of the collaboration systems [17].

Coordination helps to organize the activities where partners participate in order to achieve the partnership’s goals. It can also organize the resources provided by each partner [35]. According to Kamiya [17], coordination can be done through hosted secretariats, separate secretariats or without secretariats. When a partnership has a hosted secretariat, one lead partner oversees the secretariat, which reflects a medium level of institutionalization. A separate secretariat means that the partnership creates its own coordination means [17]. Therefore, the secretariat is separated from the partner organizations, which have their own staff and space, although the cost of the partnership might be higher than having a hosted secretariat [17]. This modality can be considered a high level of institutionalization [17]. A low level of institutionalization is reflected through partnerships that do not have a secretariat that coordinates the partnerships’ activities. The way that this modality functions is that one or more partners play the role of a coordinator when it is needed [17]. It is quick and it does not need many resources, which might work better for a small, start-up partnership with a restricted budget [17].

Renewal systems are relevant for cross-sector partnerships due to their iterative and nonlinear path toward achieving goals [22]. They create opportunities for collaborative advantage [35], learning and building relationships [36] and allowing partners to adapt to new challenges [22]. Renewal systems also help to assess how resources are being managed; in order to reach transformational goals over time, adjustments are likely needed to the partnership goals and design [37,38].

Decision making is a collaborative arrangement set in place to govern strategy formulation and implementation [22]. The involvement of partners in decision making is often related to an improved capacity for the partnership, as it is able to adapt to changing circumstances [39]. In terms of the allocation of authority, the question lies in who makes the decisions and at which organizational level. Mintzberg [40] states that when power for decision making resides in one entity, then the structure is centralized. Contrarily, when power is shared among entities, then the structure is decentralized [40]. Kamiya [17] states that it is important in large partnerships to define which partners are going to be part of the decision-making process because not all the partners are involved in that way. This is different from the case of small partnerships, where most of the partners participate in the decision making of the partnership [17]. For complex arrangements, such as large CSSPs, decentralized decision making with a proper coordination and monitoring mechanism is an appropriate design [22].

The composition of the partnership is considered in this study as part of the structural features. That is, the longevity of the partnership, size and sector make-up of the partnership. The length of time of the partnerships is considered as the time that the partnerships have been operating, which is likely to have an effect, either positively or negatively, on their outcomes [1]. Partners can develop relationships and processes that are needed for the implementation phase; however, longstanding partnerships might face partner fatigue as one of their outcomes [9]. In terms of size, several authors stated that the structures that partnerships implement might be different depending on the size [17,22,41]. Lastly, studying the predominance of the sector in cross-sector partnerships is relevant, as the literature suggests that organizational partners have different levels of capacity and capabilities based on their sector, although not necessarily different types of outcomes [1,9]. Therefore, the structures within the CSSPs examined in this research may vary regarding their composition.

2.2. Partners Outcomes: Extended Resource-Based View for CSSPs

The framework that was used to understand partners’ outcomes in this research was an extended RBV approach. The RBV considers that resources that firms consider valuable are scarce [12]; therefore, partnerships become a strategic approach that allows organizations to have access to other organizations’ resources [42]. The RBV is based on a hierarchical classification of the partners’ resources, which means that partners value some resources more than others [14]. The value assigned by the partners to some resources over others depends on the returns that these resources bring to organizations [9].

One of the values of joining a partnership is the idea that partners can accomplish outcomes that they could not achieve alone [1]. Although some authors claim that partnerships do not prioritize strategies for the needs of the partners [43], recent research showed that partners positively value their results when joining a CSSP [9]. Several studies compiled long lists of partner outcomes from CSSPs [1,44] which were also used for this study.

There are some specific outcomes by sector, both positive and negative, that partner organizations could gain when they join a partnership [1]. However, previous empirical studies on large cross-sector social partnerships did not show differences between the resources achieved by the partners when considering the sector they came from, e.g., [9]. This study considered the question of sector-specific (e.g., public, private or civil society) partner outcomes in each of the three partnerships. The study only considered positive outcomes, as that is what the respondents to the survey used in this research reported.

2.3. Partnership Structure to Partner Outcome Relationship

Literature related to cross-sector social partnerships argues that this type of arrangement creates the necessary conditions for partners to have access to resources that are valuable for them [45] and contribute to sustainability challenges [46]. At the same time, partners contribute to the sustainability plan of the community by implementing the sustainability strategies that were outlined in the plan; tracking the progress of the goals; and identifying opportunities for improvement, which allows for progress [1].

The implementation of a sustainability plan relies not only on the structural features adopted but also on a deep understanding of the benefits that partners can have by joining the partnership, which helps keep them involved. Empirical research showed that partners can gain physical/financial, human and organizational capital when they join a partnership [15]. Despite the importance of the role of the partners in CSSPs, there has not been much research undertaken that relates to the relationship between the structural features of a large partnership and partners’ outcomes. The aim of this research was to contribute to that field by researching three large CSSPs for the sustainability of Barcelona, Gwangju and Montreal.

3. Material and Methods

The selection criteria for this multi-case study are listed below [47]. These criteria enabled the study of large CSSPs that have existed for at least 20 years and are intended to continue to exist into the future, impacting similar populations so that the size of the city did not influence the comparison.

• The CSSPs had at least one hundred partner organizations confirmed, who were from civil society, public and private sectors;
• The CSSPs had a community sustainability plan with a long time horizon and a history of implementing sustainable community plans for more than 10 years;
• The size of the community impacted by the partnership was from 1 to 2 million people;
• Partners were highly engaged in the partnership [8], contributing to at least some of the sustainability goals of the sustainability plan;
• The partnerships were from three different countries and continental contexts.

3.1. Selected Cases

The community sustainability plans of each partnership are introduced here. The partnership structures are presented in the results.

3.1.1. Barcelona + Sustainable (B + S)

The sustainable agenda in Barcelona has been a priority since 1995 when the City of Barcelona committed to the creation of Local Agenda 21 (LA21) [48]. Their latest public commitment and the plan considered in this research was their 2012–2022 sustainability plan with goals and objectives that focused on public spaces and mobility; environmental quality and health; efficiency, productivity and zero emissions; the rational use of resources; good governance and social responsibility; well-being; progress and development; education and citizen action; and resilience and planetary responsibility [49].

3.1.2. Gwangju Council for Sustainable Development (GCSD)

Local initiatives for sustainable development in South Korea were introduced in 1995, and Gwangju has been one of the cities working for sustainability since then [50]. The main goals of the Gwangju Council for Sustainable Development (GCSD) are encouraging local participation, as well as focusing not only on environmental issues but also integrating the scope of the initiative on economic, social and cultural matters [51]. The main topics of the 2017–2021 plan were clean water, air and energy; city forests; a city safe from chemicals; recycling of materials; green and social economy; urban farming; a welfare-sharing, diverse, healthy and beautiful community; a people-oriented traffic system; residential environments; and education for sustainability [52].

3.1.3. Sustainable Montreal (SM)

At the Montreal Summit held in June 2002, the City of Montreal committed to sustainable development. Montreal’s third Community Sustainable Development Plan 2016–2020 focused on four priorities: GHG emissions and dependence on fossil fuels; adding vegetation, increasing biodiversity and ensuring the continuity of resources; ensuring access to sustainable, human-scale and healthy neighborhoods; and making the transition toward a green, circular and responsible economy [53].

The study’s methods and results are presented in three parts. The first part presents the structural features of each partnership. The second part presents the partners’ outcomes, and the third part considers the relationship between the structures and outcomes.

3.2. Qualitative Study

3.2.1. Data Collection

The information about the partnerships’ structures was collected during the ICLEI World Congress held in Montreal in June 2018. The directors/coordinators of the partnerships were asked about the structure of their partnerships through semi-structured interviews that were recorded by video. The interviews were mainly focused on the structural design of the partnerships. Further questions were answered by the directors/coordinators either by email and/or phone call to complete the structural features framework of this study.

3.2.2. Data Analysis

The content was coded through qualitative content analysis [47] based on the deductive framework from the literature review, i.e., the partnership structural features. Next an inductive round of coding was completed on the interview transcripts to see what additional codes or sub-codes were needed to further categorize the data in a comparable way (

Table 1. Coding framework.

Structural Features	Codes	Sub-Codes
Communication systems	Format	E-newsletter, hard-copy newsletter, website, digital map, meetings, workshops, emails, social events, annual assembly, gala
Monitoring and reporting	Frequency Format	Partnerships’ goals, partners’ goals, both partnerships and partners’ goals
Partners’ engagement	Frequency Partners’ commitment Adding new partners
Renewal systems	Plan renewal process
Coordination	Secretariat	Number of FTE staff support
		Host
		Funding
Decision making	Committee Partners’ involvement in decisions/actions
Composition of the partnership	Longevity Size Predominance of the partners

).

3.3. Quantitative Study

Data about the partners’ outcomes were gathered through a cross-sectional online survey conducted between June 2015 and June 2017 that was offered in three languages—French, Spanish and Korean. Partner organizations were asked to value the outcomes according to a 5-point Likert scale from 1—very valuable to 5—not valuable. Outcomes were organized into five groups: organizational, human, physical, financial and community capitals following the extended version of the RBV.

3.3.1. Data Collection

Data collection happened in two stages. First, an online invitation was sent out by the secretariats of the partnerships to all their active partner organizations, asking them to respond to the online survey. The active partners are organizations that are currently participating and are committed to contributing to the sustainability goals of the CSSP. If the number of responses needed was not reached to make the results generalizable, a second recruitment effort was conducted by sending an email to active partners inviting them to complete the same survey through a personal meeting.

Table 2. Response rates by CSSP and sector.

		Number of Responses
CSSPs	Active Partners	Civil Society	Private	Public	Total	Response Rate
B + S	328	42	37	6	85	26%
GCSD	99	34	9	10	53	54%
SM	142	19	13	16	48	34%
Total	569	95	59	32	186	37%

shows the number of partners that completed the survey in each partnership.

3.3.2. Data Analysis

The response bias was calculated using wave analysis and no response biases were found among the partnerships, i.e., variances could be assumed to be equal with respect to the assessed variables (p > 0.05). The data analysis included the creation of indices based on RBV capitals, including community capital. The survey questions used to create the indices were as follows: “As a result of remaining a partner of the partnership, your organization has achieved …”. Partners had the option to rate the achieved outcomes on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 was “Very Valuable” and 5 was “No Value”.

Table 3. Survey’s internal consistency test on outcomes (adapted from [1]).

Index	Items	Cronbach’s α
Community capital	Contributing positively to all the sustainability goals of the vision	0.76
	Contributing positively to environmental challenges
	Contributing positively to social challenges
	Contributing positively to economic challenges
	Contributing positively to the sustainability of the community
Human capital	Gaining knowledge/learning	0.75
	Gaining expertise
	Sharing own experiences
	Improving competencies
Organizational capital	Improving the sustainability of your organization Innovation capacity Building new relationships Improving reputation Gaining legitimacy Becoming more influential Having access to new markets Marketing opportunities Networking Collaborating with others Engaging with the community Improving relationships with authorities Improving relationships with NGOs	0.95
Financial capital	Improving financial performance	0.97
	Reducing costs
	Funding opportunities
	Developing new products/services
	Making new businesses
	Attracting new investors
	Increasing financial resources
Physical capital	Increasing resources	0.93
	Improving processes

shows each of the capitals with their corresponding items. The indices were created by combining the items that measured each capital. To test the internal consistency of each index, Cronbach’s alpha (α) test was used, and it was found that all coefficients were greater than 0.70, confirming the internal consistency [54] (Table 3). Once the indexes were created, given that the data were not normally distributed, Kruskal–Wallis tests were used to compare the means of the indexes by CSSP, and then by the sectors of each CSSP. This study employed version 25 of SPSS Statistics software to conduct the statistical analysis.

3.4. Explanation Building Study

Data Analysis

Part 3 used an abductive analysis for explanation building. Explanation building is a technique used for explanatory case studies that allows for explaining a phenomenon through a set of casual sequences, enabling the exploration of the hows and/or the whys of that phenomenon [47]. Abductive analysis focuses on making a preliminary guess based on both the current theory being used and the data [55]. The explanation process of the relationship between the structural features and the partners’ outcomes started by inferring from the results of the relevant characteristic structural features of each CSSP and the significant results on the partners’ outcomes side. By doing so, it was possible to provide an explanation of why and how both levels were related and how the structural features had an impact on the outcomes that the partners gained by joining a CSSP.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Qualitative Study

4.1.1. Barcelona + Sustainable (B + S)

Barcelona is in Catalonia, Spain, with a population of approximately 1.6 million people. The CSSP of Barcelona, namely, B + S, has been working for the city’s sustainability for about 17 years, with 1305 partners in 2019. This large CSSP consists of partners from all three sectors; the majority are civil society organizations and private sector businesses, with minimal participation from public sector entities. It is important to mention that a large number of public schools are members of B + S with a specific role in sustainability education, and thus, they were not included in this study.

In such a large partnership, the communication system in place is a reflection of its complexity. It has both electronic and hard-copy newsletter formats that are delivered to the partners two times per month. It also has an ongoing website and a digital map. The digital map is a tool where not only partners but also the residents of Barcelona can find sustainability initiatives, pictures of places in the city, activities related to sustainability, etc. B + S also has regular meetings and social events with its partners, communicates through email daily if needed, and has an annual gala where the partnership reports progress on its goals. Workshops are led by B + S, and each sector runs its own workshops.

Regarding monitoring and reporting, B + S reports about activities on an annual basis, including its projects. The evaluation of the progress on the partnership’s goals is done every 10 years, which is the timeframe of every plan and plan renewal. They do not report or evaluate the partners’ goals and outcomes due to the number of organizations participating in this CSSP.

In terms of partners’ engagement, there are two categories: partners’ commitment and how new partners are being added to B + S. B + S’s partners commit to the CSSP through endeavors that they decide to follow during their participation, which are very flexible. The B + S coordinator mentioned that the commitments could range from reporting their actions to making their own action plan that aligns with the goals of B + S. As the CSSP has many partners already, there is no need for B + S to recruit new members. However, the mechanism to attract new partners is by providing information through activities, resources and working on the partnership’s goals so that other organizations can see what the CSSP is doing. Most of the people in the city know about B + S, and thus, the CSSP does not need to advertise for partners’ engagement. New partners can join at any time.

Regarding plan renewal, B + S’s latest sustainability plan went from 2012 to 2022 following a previous one from 2002 to 2012. However, the renewal of the plan began in 2020 since Barcelona declared a climate emergency on 1 January 2020, and the climate emergency committee stated the necessity of implementing a 2020–2025 and a 2026–2030 climate action plan in order to meet carbon neutrality by 2050. This climate action plan falls under the larger B + S and replaces the 2012–2022 plan.

The coordination of B + S is based on a technical secretariat that has 16 people; it is hosted in the municipality of Barcelona and is funded by the municipal government. Each sector, i.e., civil society organizations, public and private sectors, has its own dedicated coordinator hours. In terms of the decision-making mechanism, there is a committee composed of 50 members that are elected by the signatories of the commitment. Each sector elects its own representatives. The City Council is also part of the committee.

4.1.2. Gwangju Council for Sustainable Development (GCSD)

Gwangju is located in South Korea with a population of about 1.5 million people. The Gwangju Council for Sustainable Development (GCSD) has been working for Gwangju’s sustainability for 24 years, with 115 partners in 2019. From the three case studies, this CSSP had the least number of partners. From their active partners surveyed in 2017, the majority represented civil society organizations.

The communication system developed by GCSD is similar to B + S. Some differences can be found in the frequency of newsletters; its e-newsletter is delivered once a month and the hard-copy newsletter twice per year. It also has ongoing meetings and a website. Emails are sent and social events occur every two months. GCSD runs workshops once per year, and if needed, they can run more. There is an annual gala where they report the outcomes of the CSSP. Their monitoring and reporting mechanisms are based on the CSSP’s goals, which are reported every five years, along with annual projects that are reported and monitored every year.

GCSD creates sustainability agendas every five years, which are based on an evaluation of the past agenda and the local situation of Gwangju; therefore, they can promote actual social change. The partners’ engagements in place are closely connected with the plan renewal process. Two years before the implementation of a new plan, GCSD recruits new partners through the recommendation of existing council members. Once the partners decide to participate, they have to plan their actions linked with the GCSD’s agenda—which is supported by the local government—so that they can contribute to the CSSP’s sustainability goals. In terms of coordination, GCSD has a secretariat that is hosted in the Gwangju City Hall, and it is funded by the local government. Thirteen people work in the secretariat and make the coordination of the CSSP possible.

Regarding the decision-making processes, GCSD has a steering committee with nine people who represent the Gwangju region. Under the steering committee, there are six committees that oversee policy, education, business, ecological environment, economic society and community. Lastly, partner organizations are involved in decision making through their involvement in the 5-year agenda, which means that each year, partner organizations develop a project plan and participate in the decisions of that plan.

4.1.3. Sustainable Montreal (SM)

Montreal is located in Quebec, Canada, with a population of about 1.6 million people. Montreal’s sustainability initiatives have been led by SM for 25 years, with 230 partners in 2017. From the active partners that were surveyed, it is possible to see that there was a more even percentage for each sector in comparison with the other CSSPs: 40% of the partners were from civil society, 27% belonged to the private sector and 33% of the partners were from the public sector.

In Sustainable Montreal, the communication system in place is different from those of the other two CSSPs in terms of formats and frequency. Partners communicate through emails when needed, and on the Ville de Montreal website, there is a partner portal that partners can access. SM has an annual gala, where it reports the CSSP’s goals and the partners’ accomplishments. Compared with the other CSSPs, SM is the only one that reports about its partners’ commitments and accomplishments. Both outcomes, i.e., the CSSPs’ and the partners’, are reported every two years.

SM is on its third sustainability community plan, and in 2020, it was in the process of developing a new plan. Every time the city adopts a new sustainability community plan, there is a renewed commitment with the partner organizations. SM’s partners are in charge of carrying out and endeavoring to align with the CSSP’s sustainability plan. The partner engagement mechanism to add new partners is based on the adoption of a new plan; they reach out to the organizations they have targeted regarding the similarity of the organization’s actions to the CSSP’s goals. The recruitment is also conducted through networking events and by disseminating information.

Regarding the coordination of SM, six people work in the Bureau du Développement Durable. For the CSSP itself, there are four mobilization teams that are aligned with Montreal’s four sustainable development challenges, which are low-carbon Montreal, green city, neighborhoods that are great places to live in, and a prosperous and responsible city. The mobilization teams have one elected person, one administrator, and one citizen, plus the partners. Moreover, the secretariat is the coordinator for the mobilization teams. In terms of decision making, there is a coordination committee that includes people from the partner organizations, the central services and the mobilization teams. The participation of the partner organizations in the plan formulation decision-making processes is based on ideas they share regarding actions they want to happen for the plan.

4.2. Quantitative Study

Through a Kruskal–Wallis test, it was possible to show statistically whether the differences in how partners valued their achieved outcomes were significant among the three CSSPs. The results show that with a 95% confidence interval, there were significant differences in the value that partner organizations gave to community capital and physical capital (

Table 4. Kruskal–Wallis test for capitals by CSSP.

Variables	Categories	Mean	SD
Community capital	Barcelona + Sustainable	2.24	0.89
	Gwangju (GCSD)	2.33	0.59
	Sustainable Montreal	1.91	0.69
p < 0.05 *	Total	2.18	0.79
Human capital	Barcelona + Sustainable	2.17	0.95
	Gwangju (GCSD)	2.29	0.70
	Sustainable Montreal	2.17	0.94
NS	Total	2.20	0.89
Organizational capital	Barcelona + Sustainable	2.54	0.84
	Gwangju (GCSD)	2.32	0.67
	Sustainable Montreal	2.33	0.76
NS	Total	2.44	0.79
Financial capital	Barcelona + Sustainable	3.45	1.09
	Gwangju (GCSD)	3.53	0.78
	Sustainable Montreal	3.23	1.08
NS	Total	3.42	1.02
Physical capital	Barcelona + Sustainable	3.09	1.13
	Gwangju (GCSD)	3.62	0.84
	Sustainable Montreal	3.11	1.15
p < 0.05 *	Total	3.22	1.09

* Significant at 95% confidence interval; NS: not significant. 1—very valuable, 2—some value, 3—neutral, 4—little value, 5—no valuable.

). SM valued community capital more than B + S and GCSD, and GCSD valued physical capital less than B + S and SM.

Pairwise testing using Dunn’s test indicated that the value assigned by SM to community capital significantly differed from that assigned by GCSD (p < 0.01), and it marginally differed between SM and B + S (p = 0.08). For physical capital, the results indicate that the difference between the values assigned between GCSD and B + S (p < 0.01) and GCSD and SM (p = 0.03) were statistically significant.

When comparing the values that partner organizations representing different sectors of society give to their achieved outcomes by CSSP, it was possible to see differences in the results. The Kruskal–Wallis test for B + S (Table 4) showed that the most valuable outcome by its partners was human capital (M = 2.17, SD = 0.945), followed by community (M = 2.24, SD = 0.891), organizational (M = 2.55, SD = 0.839), physical (M = 3.09, SD = 1.133) and financial capitals (M = 3.45, SD = 1.095). When comparing the values of each capital by the sectors that were part of B + S, the differences in the means were not statistically significant. In other words, there were no differences between the value that each sector gave to each capital. Nevertheless, there were marginal differences in the value that partners gave to financial capital in B + S. With a 90% confidence interval, the public sector valued the outcomes of financial capital less than the private sector and the civil society organizations in B + S.

Similar to B + S, the Kruskal–Wallis test for the partners of GCSD showed that they valued human capital the most (M = 2.30, SD = 0.587), followed by organizational (M = 2.32, SD = 0.670), community (M = 2.33, SD = 0.587), financial (M = 3.53, SD = 0.776) and physical capitals (M = 3.62, SD = 0.839). The Kruskal–Wallis test showed that in SM the most valuable outcome was community capital (M = 1.91, SD = 0.694), followed by human (M = 2.17, SD = 0.943), organizational (M = 2.34, SD = 0.762), financial (M = 3.23, SD = 1.083) and physical capitals (M = 3.11, SD = 1.146). However, in both partnerships, there were no significant differences in the values that their partner organizations by sector gave to the outcomes they had achieved. Therefore, in these two CSSPs, partner organizations, regardless of the sector they represent, did not differently value the five types of outcomes being studied.

4.3. Explanation Building Study

4.3.1. Barcelona + Sustainable and Partners’ Outcomes

The statistical results for the partners of B + S indicate that public sector organizations gave less value to financial capital than private sector and civil society partners. These results were not the same for GCSD and SM; significant differences in the value that public sector organizations gave to financial capital were not found in these CSSPs. Therefore, what was different in B + S with respect to the other CSSPs that made its public sector partners value financial capital less than organizations from other sectors?

When delving into the structural features of all the CSSPs, it was possible to notice that the composition of B + S was different from the other CSSPs. Out of the total number of B + S partners, only 7% belonged to the public sector, while in GCSD and SM, the percentages from the public sector were 19% and 33%, respectively, showing a clear difference in the number of public sector partners in B + S in comparison with the other CSSPs. Details in the database of partners’ outcomes show that the public sector partners in B + S were universities, the board of libraries in Barcelona and a park. Most of these organizations receive public funding, among other types of resources. Moreover, the index of financial capital was measured through seven items: improving financial performance, reducing costs, funding opportunities, developing new products/services, making new business, attracting new investors and increasing financial resources. This suggests that these organizations did not see financial capital as a valuable outcome since their own financial system was strong enough to not necessarily value that outcome. Meanwhile, the private sector and civil society organizations did value this outcome more when participating in B + S. This could be explained by the place and institutional context of how these public institutions were funded compared with other country contexts.

Table 5. Relationship between B + S’s structural features and partners’ outcomes.

Structural Features		Partners’ Outcomes
Communication systems	E-newsletter, hardcopy newsletter, website, digital map, meetings, workshops, emails, social events and annual assembly/gala	There was a significant difference in the value that partner organizations gave to financial capital outcomes by sector. Result of Kruskal–Wallis test: the public sector gave less value to financial capital than the other sectors in B + S.
Monitoring and reporting	Progress on the partnership’s goals and partners evaluate their own actions
Partners’ engagement	Partners decide the actions they want to take Do not have advertisements to add new partners
Renewal systems	Every 10 years
Coordination	Hosted secretariat by the local government
Decision making	Committee with 50 members Partners participate through a council representative from each sector
Composition of the partnership	Longevity: 17 years; size: 328 active partners by 2017; predominance of the sector: 13 civil society, 156 private, and 159 public

details the partnership structure for B + S, along with the significantly different partner outcomes.

4.3.2. Gwangju Council for Sustainable Development and Partners’ Outcomes

Table 6. Relationship between GCSD’s structural features and partners’ outcomes.

Structural Features		Partners’ Outcomes
Communication systems	E-newsletter, hardcopy newsletter, website, meetings, workshops, emails, social events and annual assembly/gala	There was a significant difference in the value that partner organizations gave to physical capital outcomes by CSSPs. Result of Kruskal–Wallis test: the partners of GCSD gave less value to physical capital than the partners of the other CSSPs.
Monitoring and reporting	Progress on partnership’s goals Progress on partnership’s actions
Partners’ engagement	Selection of agendas every five years Recruit partners every cycle for the 5-year plan
Renewal systems	Every five years and the renewal process is based on an evaluation of the past agendas
Coordination	Hosted secretariat in the local government
Decision making	Steering committee, with six sub-committees Each partner is involved in the plan through their own actions and agendas
Composition of the partnership	Longevity: 24 years; size: 99 active partners by 2017; predominance of the sector: 47 civil society, 20 private, and 32 public

details the partnership structure for GCSD, along with the significantly different partner outcomes. The Kruskal–Wallis test for partners’ outcomes on physical capital showed that the partners of GCSD valued that type of outcome less than the partners of the other CSSPs. Similar processes as used in B + S were followed to understand what was different in GCSD that made its partners value physical capital less. Comparing GCSD’s structural features with the structural features of the other CSSPs, it was possible to notice that the partners’ engagement, in particular the commitment of the partners, was different from those used in B + S and SM. In B + S, partners had the leeway to choose any type of action that they wanted to adopt, from reporting actions to implementing a sustainability action plan. In SM, partners had to adopt at least 10 actions from the sustainability plan. But in GCSD, partners were not asked to implement actions in their organizations; in contrast, they collectively implemented actions to contribute to the sustainability of Gwangju. Therefore, the rest of the structural features seemed not to allow their partners to improve their resources and processes. Perhaps local culture influenced the design in Gwangju, which was only implemented through community actions and not internal organizational actions.

4.3.3. Sustainable Montreal and Partners’ Outcomes

Table 7. Relationship between SM’s structural features and partners’ outcomes.

Structural Features		Partners’ Outcomes
Communication systems	Website, emails, annual assembly/gala	There was a significant difference in the value that partner organizations gave to community capital outcomes by CSSPs. Result of Kruskal–Wallis test: the partners of SM gave more value to community capital than the partners of the other CSSPs.
Monitoring and reporting	Progress on partnership’s goals Progress on partners’ outcomes
Partners’ engagement	Commitment to adopt ten actions from the overall plan Recruitment through networking events and targeting
Renewal systems	Renew commitments for the plan and partners
Coordination	Hosted secretariat in the local government
Decision making	Steering committee Partners share ideas on the actions they want to see happen
Composition of the partnership	Longevity: 19 years; size: 142 active partners by 2017; predominance of the sector: 77 civil society, 45 private, 20 public

details the partnership structure for SM, along with the significantly different partner outcomes. The descriptive results for the partners’ outcomes, and in particular, for community capital, show that this type of outcome was the most valued by the partners of the three CSSPs. However, the Kruskal–Wallis test for community capital indicated that the partners of SM valued community capital more than the partner organizations participating in the other CSSPs. Community capital was measured using five items that focused on contributing to the sustainability goals of the vision, environmental challenges, social challenges and the sustainability of the community.

These results suggest that if all the partners value community capital the most, what was different in Sustainable Montreal that made it possible to find significant differences in them? While comparing the structural features of the CSSPs, it was possible to notice that the partners’ engagement in SM was stronger than in the other two CSSPs. The commitment of the partners was based on adopting 10 actions from Montreal’s sustainability plan, which ensured the partners were aligned with the local plan completely. As the partnership’s goals and the partners’ actions were aligned, monitoring and reporting the outcomes of the partners became easier, and therefore, partners could have accountability, not only from their organizations but also from the CSSP about their own goals. When it came to decision-making mechanisms, as the partners were implementing the actions of the sustainability plan, they had a say in the decision making regarding the types of actions they wanted to see happen in the sustainability plan.

This configuration did not happen in the other CSSPs, which suggests why, despite the fact that all the partners from every CSSP did value community capital, the partners of SM valued it more. The main differences occurred in terms of three key structural features that were stronger in comparison with the other CSSPs.

5. Conclusions

The aim of this research was to understand the structural features of large CSSPs and the partner outcomes during the implementation of sustainability community plans. The main contributions were related to the structural features of large sustainability partnerships and the relative similarity of partner outcomes from large CSSPs, regardless of sector.

This research offers a framework of seven structural features that were considered to be key within the CSSPs: communication systems, monitoring and reporting, partners’ engagement, renewal systems, coordination, decision-making processes and the composition of the partnership. Some of these structural features were offered before within the collaborative strategic management literature; however, they were not sufficiently studied and developed in the context of large CSSPs.

The results suggest that the most distinguishing structural features that differed between the three cases were (1) monitoring and reporting, in particular, whether these were focused on the partners’ activities; (2) partners’ engagement, in particular, whether partners are actively implementing the collaborative strategy; and (3) the composition of the partnership, in particular, the predominance of the sector. The other features of communication systems, decision-making systems, renewal systems and coordination were also important structural features for achieving the partnership’s goals and for having a better understanding of the partners’ outcomes, and they had considerable similarities between the three cases. However, the analysis presented here focused on differences between partnerships, and as these structural features were relatively similar, they did not appear to be linked to the differences in partner outcomes.

The empirical results on the partners’ outcomes show that there were almost no differences found in the value given by partner organizations to outcomes that could be relevant for them regarding the sector they represented. The extended RBV literature offers five types of outcomes: community, organizational, physical, financial and organizational capitals [1,12,14]. The literature states that the types of outcomes that partners can obtain from joining a partnership are related to the sector to which they belong [1,15,56]. However, except for the results found for Barcelona + Sustainable, where the public sector rated financial capital the lowest valued, partner organizations did not give more value to the types of outcomes based on the sector to which they belonged.

Through understanding these large CSSPs and their partners’ outcomes, we aimed to contribute to the success of partnerships and, in particular, to how partnerships can help their partners achieve their organizational goals. The studied partnerships have been operating for many years with a high number of partners from across sectors, and thus, their experience and the relationships they have developed are a good learning experience for other partnerships to consider. However, understanding that success and impact are dimensions that are understudied in the partnerships research [57], this research also opens room for further research on the contributions that large partnerships make toward their collaborative goals and to their partners’ sustainability outcomes, and what difference the structural features make in achieving that progress.