*Review* **A Literature Review of Inter-Organizational Sustainability Learning**

#### **Tulin Dzhengiz**

School of Business, Aalto University, 02150 Espoo, Finland; tulin.dzhengiz@aalto.fi; Tel.: +44-7521-759-122 Received: 23 May 2020; Accepted: 12 June 2020; Published: 15 June 2020

**Abstract:** Sustainable development goals (SDGs) have become increasingly important for today's firms as they build sustainability strategies that integrate SDGs into their core activities. Addressing these goals collaboratively, in line with SDG 17—partnerships for the goals, has gained momentum, hence the growing literature on sustainability-oriented partnerships. However, addressing SDGs through partnerships is not straightforward. For firms, contributing to SDGs through alliances and partnerships requires building environmental capabilities and embracing new value frames; in other words, going through the complex process of inter-organizational learning. This paper reviews the literature on sustainability-oriented partnerships with a focus on the inter-organizational learning process. As a result of the review, a model of inter-organizational sustainability learning is presented. This model captures the different levels and types of the inter-organizational learning process; partner and partnership characteristics that impact learning; the environmental conditions that set the conditions for learning to take place; the catalyst and inhibitors of learning; and finally outcomes of learning. This model expands and re-organizes the existing scholarly conversation about inter-organizational learning in the context of sustainability-oriented alliances and partnerships and offers a learning-based understanding of sustainability partnerships to practitioners. Based on the review, the paper proposes ideas for future research and contributes to the development of a future research agenda in the area of sustainability-oriented alliances and partnerships.

**Keywords:** inter-organizational learning; sustainability; SDGs; collaboration; capabilities; frames

#### **1. Introduction**

Sustainable development goals (SDGs) "aim the combination of economic development, environmental sustainability and social inclusion" and they can only be addressed with the efforts of the private sector [1]. According to some scholars [2], these goals "present both a significant opportunity and a significant challenge [for the private sector]: an opportunity as it brings the benefits of additional finance, technology, skills and innovation from the business sector; and a challenge in that it bestows unprecedented power and expectations on business as a development agent purposely seeking to deliver sustainable development outcomes." Overcoming these challenges requires the development of capabilities that address and integrate sustainable development into the core business and also a deeper engagement with value frames that promote sustainable development [3,4]. Partnerships can facilitate a platform to address complex and systemic issues highlighted in the different SDGs collectively [5,6].

SDG 17—partnerships for the goals, invites the private sector to implement SDG 1–16 through collaboration with other societal actors to create value for nature and society by sharing knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources [7]. In their seminal work, Austin and Seitanidi [8] discuss four different types of value generated as a result of collaborative work: associational value, transferred resource value, interaction value and synergistic value. The authors define associational value as "a derived benefit accruing to another partner simply from having a collaborative relationship

with the other organization"; transferred resource value as a "benefit derived by a partner from the receipt of a resource from the other partner"; synergistic value as "value that arises from the underlying premise of all collaborations that combining partners' resources enables them to accomplish more together than they could have separately" [9]. While partnerships for SDGs are expected to create these four different types of value, this article specifically focuses on the interaction value which is defined as "the intangibles that derive from the processes of partners working together". One of these intangibles is considered as inter-organizational learning, which is the focus of this article [9].

Collaborative partnerships trigger inter-organizational learning processes which lead to the development of new capabilities that would help businesses to address sustainability concerns internally [10]. Furthermore, they enable cognitive changes in the private sector to embed sustainability into the core through frameshifts that take place in such collaborations [11,12]. Indeed, Agarwal, Gneiting and Mhlanga [2] proposed that partnerships with various stakeholders can help firms "shift from using a narrow business case approach to aligning their core activities with broader societal values and interests."

This paper positions itself in this area of inter-organizational sustainability learning that takes place in alliances and partnerships formed to tackle SDG-related challenges. The objective, herein, is to re-organize the pre-existing work on sustainability-oriented alliances and partnerships with a focus on the inter-organizational learning process, its antecedents, and its outcomes. The paper, therefore, uses a review of 122 academic articles to provide a comprehensive review of the field.

The review results in a model which includes the following categories: partner and partnership characteristics that impact the learning process; the environmental conditions that set the conditions for learning to take place; the catalyst and inhibitors that impact learning; and finally firm-level, partnership-level, and system-level outcomes of learning and partnerships. This model organizes the existing literature on inter-organizational sustainability learning. Furthermore, the model demonstrates how different theoretical approaches and concepts fit together, as opposed to competing, when it comes to explaining the process of inter-organizational sustainability learning.

This paper contributes to the literature on sustainability-oriented alliances and partnerships. This contribution is thanks to the model and the future research agenda built in the paper because of the synthesis of different theoretical approaches and concepts that help us explain the complex phenomenon of inter-organizational sustainability learning. Furthermore, the model also contributes to the work of sustainability practitioners who manage alliances and partnerships by demonstrating factors that help them enhance inter-organizational learning and partnership performance.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. The Theory section summarizes the literature on SDGs, partnerships for SDGs and inter-organizational learning in the business context. The following Methods section introduces the stages of the systematic review, as well as the role of the metaphor in re-organizing the existing literature. The Findings section introduces a model that shows the antecedents and outcomes of the inter-organizational learning process in the context of sustainability. The Future Research section outlines research gaps in the field based on the review and provides a path for further research. Finally, the Conclusions section draws on the contributions of this paper to theory and practice.

#### **2. Theory**

#### *2.1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Business Context*

Sustainable development goals (SDGs) define 17 global targets for all types of organizations to address sustainability issues ranging from healthcare to fighting inequalities to climate change [13,14]. SDGs are positioned to cover the triple bottom line of sustainability (economic, environmental, social) and address concerns to do with people's well-being, planetary boundaries and an inclusive notion of prosperity [6,14], and equality [15,16].

SDG 17—partnerships for the goals, emphasizes that the first sixteen goals need to be addressed by different constituents of the system [17]. In other words, SDG 17 recommends partnerships as a tool to foster sustainable development, underlining the importance of interactions between different societal actors. Sachs, et al. [18] highlight that achieving SDGs require societal transformations that "engages a different subset of business and civil society, facilitating targeted problem-solving, clear communication and the mobilization of stakeholders." Similarly, Horan [19] recognizes that various stakeholders would be involved in these partnerships with different perceptions, expectations and interests. Indeed, thanks to the cross-sector interaction space in partnerships, actors from across different sectors can generate different types of value. While this article acknowledges the potential of value creation for different societal actors in a partnership context, the article specifically focuses on the 'private sector' and interaction value of 'learning' that private sector actors can gain through partnerships.

The private sector has already played an essential role in determining what SDGs should be [2,20–22]. Moving forward, the private sector has a crucial role in addressing the goals, re-designing business models, developing capabilities, accommodating resources and shifting their mission from profits to the wellbeing of the planet and people [2,20–22]. SDGs already impact the private sector, as we see some firms' innovative products and services address SDGs, while other firms are changing their business models to align their core business with the SDGs [20]. It is important to note that some SDGs are relatively easier for the private sector to address, such as SDG 8—sustainable and inclusive growth, while other SDGs may be too complex to be addressed by a single actor alone [6].

Building sustainability-oriented partnerships, SDG-17, only became a goal in 2015 when the agreement on the SDGs was made. However, research on sustainability-oriented partnerships has been growing since the 1990s, both in the social [23,24] and the environmental sustainability domains [25–28]. Recent studies on SDGs in the business context suggest that a "way to enhance the strategic relevance of the SDGs is to engage in a proper portfolio of cross-sector and intra-sectoral coalitions or partnerships" [6]. These portfolios consist of two distinct types of collaborations: inter-firm alliances and cross-sector partnerships [29,30].

#### *2.2. Inter-Firm Alliances and Cross-Sector Partnerships*

Inter-firm alliances are defined as "a form of organizational arrangement for ongoing cooperative relationships among firms" [31]. In other words, alliances are "voluntary arrangements [between firms] involving durable exchange, sharing, or co-development of new products and technologies" [32]. Alliances are viewed as a hybrid form of governance "between markets and hierarchy that occur when transaction costs associated with a specific exchange are too high for an arm's-length market exchange but not high enough to mandate vertical integration" [32,33]. This explanation sets the transaction cost economics motivation for formations of inter-firm alliances [34,35]; however, this is not the only rationale for why alliances exist.

Others explain how alliances help firms access resources [36], acquire knowledge [37], and develop new capabilities [38,39], thanks to inter-firm interactions. Furthermore, alliances help firms comply with institutional norms, values and regulations, and legitimate their actions using alliance arrangements [40]. Inter-firm alliances can occur between suppliers and customers in the firm's value chain [41,42], with competitors [43] or various other innovation partners from different industries [44]. They may take a form whereby the partners share equity, as in the case of joint ventures, or a non-equity form whereby partners have a legal agreement, such as a memorandum of understanding (MoU), which clarifies the roles of partners and the boundaries of the alliance [34,45].

Cross-sector partnerships are "vehicles to mediate the changing roles and perceived responsibilities of what are commonly referred to as the three primary institutional sectors of society: government, business, and the civil sector" [46]. Firms engage in cross-sector partnerships with similar motivations to that of inter-firm alliances. Existing literature also studies cross-sector partnerships through the transaction-cost economics lens [47], resource and knowledge-based views [48], capabilities [49], and finally, compliance with institutional norms, values and regulations, and legitimation of their actions [50].

This paper reviews the literature on both inter-firm alliances, and cross-sector partnerships in the context of sustainability since research shows that they both play a crucial role in firms addressing SDGs [6]. However, it is crucial to highlight that there are some differences in inter-firm alliances and cross-sector partnerships.

First and foremost, the partner type; in other words, the heterogeneity of partners' organizational forms, resources and capabilities, are different in these two distinct categories of engagement [51]. Due to the embeddedness of both partners in the private sector, inter-firm partners are often conceptualized as constituting lesser diversity in comparison to cross-sector [11,51].

Second, it is often assumed that public, private and civil sectors are dominated by different logics [50,52–56]. The differences in dominant logics lead partners to focus on different value objectives and introduce further challenges for the partnership [57,58].

Third, other than the differences in organizational forms, resources, capabilities, institutional logics and value objectives, some cross-sector partnerships are often identified with altruistic partnership motivations, aiming to impact systemic and societal grand challenges that go beyond self-interest [11]. However, this may not apply to all cross-sector partnerships, as some may not focus on sustainability challenges [59]. Though there are differences between inter-firm and cross-sector partnerships, they both provide a room for learning, development, and change.

#### *2.3. Inter-Organizational Learning in the Business Context*

Organizational learning and learning organizations have long been discussed in the domain of organization studies [60–68]. This literature discusses how organizations store knowledge in their memory [69]. Organizations absorb knowledge from external knowledge sources and transfer such knowledge internally [70]. They learn to change their behaviors, develop new capabilities and even alter the embedded collective cognition and, as a result, they shift towards new mental models [71]. Organizations need to learn because they need to fit the external environment [72]; in other words, co-evolve with the institutional environment and settings [73].

The literature on organizational learning could be categorized into two realms depending on the knowledge or value sources [74]. If the learning takes places across different teams and functions within an organization, then this learning or knowledge transfer is often referred to as *intra*-organizational [74]. If the knowledge sources are external to the organization, such as in the case of networks, alliances, consultants, suppliers and customers, then this learning is often referred to as *inter*-organizational learning [74]. The focus of this paper is on the latter, inter-organizational learning, and there are several ways in which it differs from intra-organizational learning [75].

Inter-organizational learning is often described as a paradoxical process due to the competitive tensions between the knowledge partners [76–78]. If two inter-firm partners are engaged in an alliance, scholars observed firms engaging in a competition to outlearn their partner. Indeed, some argue that "creating a successful alliance learning environment is the exception rather than the rule" [79].

Inkpen [79] lists several "explanations for the failure to learn from a partner: the alliance knowledge was undervalued; the necessary knowledge connections' were not put into place; the nature of the knowledge itself made learning difficult; the parent corporate culture did not support learning." Some studies focus on other barriers of inter-organizational learning and highlight that the "fear of loss of ownership, fear of loss of control of knowledge, and fear of loss of competitive edge" negatively affect the creation of a learning environment in an inter-organizational setting [80]. In a similar vein, others highlight that "the dynamics of power, opportunism, suspicion, and asymmetric learning strategies can constitute processual barriers to collective knowledge development" [81]. Generally, explicit knowledge is easier to be acquired from a partner than tacit knowledge [78]. However, "if there is access to, and recombination of, diverse knowledge in a network, it might be difficult to establish barriers to protect the competencies that each network member has in various knowledge fields" [78].

Moreover, the power imbalance between engaged parties may also create difficulties in establishing "inter-firm routines and the sharing of knowledge" [78].

In response to the barrier of partner opportunism and the fear of losing a competitive edge, the literature proposes governance mechanisms to ensure the protection of parties and social capital to improve their relationship. Two distinct forms of governance are relational governance and contractual governance [82]. Scholars highlight that when partners have relational governance based on competence trust which refers to "the confidence in the abilities of the other party to perform its share of the workload in an exchange"; then they are more likely to be engaged in learning [82]. Besides, governance through formal contracting also aims to protect parties and outline the roles and responsibilities of each party involved; hence "formal written contracts accomplish learning objectives by specifying the obligations and expected duties of partners" [82].

Scholars have identified that social capital, defined as "the aggregate of resources embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or organization" is also an essential factor in catalyzing the learning process [83]. Indeed, some propose that in networks, thanks to the availability of social capital between network members, inter-organizational learning is facilitated further in comparison to that of inter-firm alliances [83]. Scholars propose that trust impacts the commitment between partners positively [84].

Social capital becomes important in inter-organizational transfer, not only because of possible partner opportunism but also because access to knowledge is more difficult outside the firm boundaries. Outside the firm boundaries, there is an additional issue that will affect the learning performance: cognitive distance or proximity [85–88].

Cognition "denotes a broad range of mental activity, including proprioception, perception, sense-making, categorization, inference, value judgments, emotions, and feelings, which all build on each other" [87]. Differences between organizations in terms of cognition lead to cognitive distance amongst partners [87]. Nooteboom shows that there is an inverted U-shaped relationship between cognitive distance and innovation performance [87]. This means that there is an optimal cognitive distance and "the challenge then is to find partners at sufficient cognitive distance to tell something new, but not so distant as to preclude mutual understanding" [87].

Cognitive distance shows that firms learn something new if they already have an existing knowledge and value base that will allow them to learn, which is a concept called 'absorptive capacity' [70,77,89,90]. Absorptive capacity is a dynamic capability that consists of the following processes: recognizing the value of new, external information, assimilating it, and applying it to commercial ends [71]. As a dynamic capability, absorptive capacity helps to create, extend or modify a firm's resource base and develops other organizational capabilities [71,90]. Therefore, there is "a recursive relationship between organizational learning and absorptive capacity, where increased learning in an area can enhance a firm's knowledge base and help to build greater absorptive capacity, which in turn can improve learning" [91].

Absorptive capacity is necessary but not sufficient for inter-organizational learning to take place. For knowledge transfer to take place between partners, partners would also need to have a disseminative capacity, defined as the "ability of knowledge holders to convey knowledge in a way that a recipient can comprehend it and put it into practice" [92]. In other words, disseminative capacity is "a combination of the sender's ability to codify and articulate knowledge, the sender's willingness to share knowledge, and the sender's propensity to create and use opportunities for knowledge acquisition by the receiver" [93].

Above, different conditions for learning to take place in an inter-organizational setting are outlined, and the impact of different factors are briefly summarized. Other than the above-summarized conditions for learning to take place in an inter-organizational setting, it is essential to highlight that not all learning can be conceptualized in the same way. Crucially, learning can be exploratory and exploitative learning [71,94–97], single or double-loop learning [98]; or higher-level and lower-level [66]. These different levels and types of learning are defined in Table 1.


**Table 1.** Levels and types of learning.

Based on the learning levels and types summarized in Table 1, it is possible to conceptualize two distinct categories of learning outcomes: changes in capabilities, routines, and organizational behavior and changes in mental models, values and beliefs [101].

For the first category of outcomes, this paper focuses on the concept of organizational capabilities which can be defined as the "existing repertoire of the possible actions of the groups and organizations" [86]. Otherwise, the "routinized processes that are embedded in the organization" [102]. Depending on the level and type of learning, organizations can refine and leverage existing capabilities or develop new capabilities using the knowledge acquired from partners [103,104].

For the second category of outcomes, this paper focuses on the concept of 'value frames' which refers to perceptions of value that guide different sustainability organizational level interpretations and priorities in terms of economic, environmental and social value creation and preservation [4,12,52,105]. Through higher-level learning, changes or shifts in value frames are also expected [106,107].

The newly developed capabilities or shifted frames are expected to improve a firm's performance in two ways. First, it may help firms develop combinative capabilities that help a firm's general innovativeness and, as a result, its competitiveness [73]. Second, firms would also develop capabilities to manage alliances [38,108,109] and alliance portfolios [110], which would improve their partnership performance or success.

#### **3. Methods**

The objective of this study is to re-organize the pre-existing work on sustainability-oriented partnerships and alliances with a focus on the inter-organizational learning process, its antecedents, and outcomes. Therefore, this article takes a systematic approach to review the existing literature in this area.

A systematic literature review research helps to identify, evaluate and synthesize the existing body of completed and recorded work produced by scholars in a systematic way guided by a reproducible method [111]. The review is guided by the PRISMA checklist, which identifies the steps that researchers need to take when conducting systematic literature reviews [112,113]. The introduction section has identified the rationale behind the review, and the theory section developed the theoretical basis of the review. The focus of this section is to explain how the review is conducted.

The review includes the following stages: searching for academic articles in databases, screening the articles found based on an inclusion and exclusion criteria, processing the selected articles through qualitative content analysis and coding, synthesizing, and presenting the review findings. Table 2 summarizes the searching and screening stages followed in the systematic review.


**Table 2.** Summary of searching and screening.

In the searching stage, the Web of Science database is selected to gather articles in the field. Web of Science provides access to a wide range of journal articles that are both within business, management and sustainability domains and is commonly used for systematic review purposes [114]. It is necessary to identify keywords that will make up the search string to conduct a thorough and comprehensive review of a field [115,116]. The critical keyword categories for the searching stage are identified as learning, partnerships, and sustainability. The keywords in each category are selected in line with previous studies. For instance, for learning keywords such as knowledge development, knowledge acquisition, knowledge absorption, are also searched in line with prior studies in the field [10,89]. For sustainability, keywords such as green and eco-friendly, or social responsibility are used to cover the broad literature in the field. Even though the terms have slightly different meanings, scholars' use of these terms have been converging, and at times they have been used interchangeably [117]. Finally, for partnerships, keywords such as alliance, cooperation, partnering, and collaboration are also used [118,119]. As a result, the search string below is generated with AND/OR Boolean operators:

*("sustainability" OR "sustainable" OR "CSR" OR "corporate social responsibility" OR "green" OR "eco-friendly") AND ("collaboration" OR "collaborative" OR "partnership" OR "partnerships" OR "partners" OR "partnering" OR "partner" OR "cooperation" OR "alliance" OR "alliances" OR "joint venture") AND ("knowledge development" OR "knowledge absorption" OR "absorptive" OR "capability development" OR "frame shift" OR "knowledge transformation" OR "knowledge exploitation" OR "knowledge assimilation" OR "knowledge acquisition" OR "learning" OR "transformation")*

This string of keywords used to search the Web of Science database for academic articles included that this content be in the English language and that all years are available. This search yielded 5688 articles.

These articles were screened based on two sub-processes: inclusion of articles only from relevant research fields, and exclusion of articles which contain the search string but in a different context. First, as an inclusion criterion, the following four Science and Social Science Index categories are selected

to provide coverage of journals that are both in the business and management and sustainability fields [10]: Green and Sustainable Science Technology, Environmental Studies, Management and Business. Application of this inclusion criterion yielded a sample of 1655 articles.

Second, as an exclusion criterion, the scope of the current study is used. Within the 1655 articles, some studies referred to 'sustainability of partnerships' or 'financial sustainability of businesses' within business and management studies but were not about environmental or social sustainability issues. Other studies focused on sustainability partnerships but did not consider partnerships whereby a business actor was involved. Instead, they focused on cities, local authorities, communities and NGOs and their sustainability partnerships with each other whereby business actors were not among the partners or the study did not provide learning opportunities for the business context, which is the focus of this paper. As a result of this screening of 1655 articles, 75 articles were identified from the Web of Science.

Furthermore, to further check if any relevant articles were missed in the searching and screening phases, recent reviews on the topic have been used for snowballing. One of these review articles was about capability development in the context of sustainability, which included a subset of articles that studied capability development through collaborations [10]. Another review article was about value frames, which included a subset of articles that studied frameshifts through collaborations [52]. Finally, one study was providing a general overview of environmental collaborations [120], and another was providing an overview of the role of stakeholder engagement for environmental innovations [4]. After cross-checking the references of these previous review papers, 47 other relevant articles were identified.

Overall, 122 articles formed the review database for this study. The review was conducted using qualitative content analysis and coding on NVivo 12 Plus. Inductive two-stage coding is used on NVivo to identify patterns within the review articles. In Figure 1, the coding process is demonstrated with some examples for the development of each category.

In addition to the coding mentioned above, articles are also coded in the following areas: theories and methods, types of partnerships (inter-firm vs. cross-sector) and SDGs, (see Table in the Appendix A). The coding concerning SDGs was conducted using a study which describes the role of businesses in addressing SDGs [6]. The theories and methods were coded based on the relevant sections of the papers. 36% of articles in the review explicitly referred to the resource-based view, 32% to absorptive capacity, 30% to dynamic capabilities, 17% to institutional theory, and 11% to stakeholder theory. Furthermore, more than half of the articles in the review were qualitative, and mostly case-based (64), followed by 43 quantitative studies and 13 studies that are review or theoretical works and only two studies which employed mixed methods.

Finally, the review was dominated by articles that studied cross-sector partnerships (55), followed by studies that studied both forms of partnerships with various stakeholders (36) and finally, inter-firm alliances (31). Studies that focused on inter-firm alliances were mostly from the context of sustainable supply chain relationships [121–124]. Only a few studies discussed inter-firm alliances that were not in the supply chain context [125]. Cross-sector partnership studies focused on engagements between firms and governments [126,127], firms and NGOs or non-profits [25,128,129], or universities and research institutions [130]. Furthermore, a few studies focused on firms' engagement with several societal actors in the same initiative through multi-stakeholder partnerships [131,132]. Besides, recently some authors studied cross-sector partnerships between firms and social or environmental enterprises as cross-sector [133,134].


#### **4. Findings**

This section introduces a model based on the review findings as organized in Figure 2. This model includes the following categories: partner characteristics, partnership characteristics, environmental conditions, catalysts and inhibitors, inter-organizational learning process and its outcomes (See Table in the Appendix A to view the articles in the review that contribute to different categories in the model).

**Figure 2.** The model of inter-organizational sustainability learning.

This model shows some differences when compared to the inter-organizational learning process that take place in the context of commercial business alliances, which is discussed in the Theory section. First, while the learning literature in the business context discusses both internal and external pressures that motivate actors to learn, in the sustainability context, 'environmental conditions' demonstrated mostly isomorphic pressures set by the external environment. Second, there are several feedback loops identified in this review (represented with a thinner curved line in Figure 2). Third, other than firm-level and partnership-level outcomes, in the context of sustainability-oriented alliances and partnerships, system-level outcomes have been identified.

#### *4.1. Partner Characteristics*

In his critical review, Wassmer calls partner characteristics as "focal firm-level antecedents" and identifies that existing resources and capabilities, a focal firm's strategy and existing portfolio of partnerships fall under this category [120]. While these factors are focal-firm level antecedents that explain firms' entrance into collaborations, based on the review, two critical partner characteristics appear as antecedents of inter-organizational learning: absorptive capacity and disseminative capacity.

Absorptive capacity is the capacity of learning at an organization; in other words, the ability of a firm to assimilate and apply new knowledge successfully to its goals [122]. In the context of sustainability, these goals are not only commercial but also social and environmental. Hence, a firm's absorptive capacity in the sustainability context is to do with pre-existing alliances and partnerships for sustainability, its sustainability-related management systems and organizational capabilities [135,136].

A recent study expands the notion of absorptive capacity in the area of sustainability from the ability to absorb sustainability-related external knowledge to create economic value to incorporating societal values to create social/environmental value [137]. This study argues that absorptive capacity helps firms to go beyond the acquisition of essential environmental or social sustainability-related knowledge from external sources. At the same time, it explains why some firms are receptive to

a broad understanding of value; they articulate consistently their willingness to engage in value creation with a responsive approach [137]. Studies emphasize that absorptive capacity explains how some firms develop sustainable product and service innovations [136,138–141], proactive sustainability strategies [142], and environmental and CSR practices and capabilities [143].

Absorptive capacity explains why a focal firm would be willing and open to learning in different areas [144,145], and how it can engage in inter-organizational learning using its specific ability to acquire knowledge based on its prior experience [146]. However, inter-organizational learning does not only depend on this focal firm. It also depends on their partner's ability to teach and disseminate knowledge and values [147]. In the context of environmental collaborations with suppliers, "firms that have a high quality of environmental capabilities disseminate green knowledge to supply chain partners by means of diffusing new capabilities to achieve high efficiency in supply chain processes" [146]. Similarly, in multi-stakeholder platforms about climate change, the dissemination of "information about climate change challenges and opportunities to the participants" helped in "motivating them to start innovating new low-carbon products, services, and business models" [132].

Similarly, Lin [148] gives the example of the collaboration between "the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and theWorld Resource Institute" which "are working closely with firms to promote and disseminate environmental solutions/technologies." Through the knowledge and value dissemination that takes place between the partners, she highlights that a partner may shift their mental models and develop sustainable business models that address complex environmental problems proactively. Others focus on the role broker organizations in disseminating knowledge in public private partnerships (PPPs). They highlight that broker "organizations frequently organize problem-related round tables and disseminate PPP best practice cases with an inspirational purpose" [126].

In sum, in addition to firms' existing knowledge, resources, culture and strategies that motivate them into entering alliances and partnerships for sustainability, firms' absorptive capacity and their partners' disseminative capacity help explaining the extent of their learning from these collaborations. It should be highlighted that absorptive capacity can be enhanced as a result of engaging in collaborations, developing new capabilities, and gaining new perspectives and values, hence the feedback relationship in Figure 2 [145]. In a similar vein to the literature in alliances in the business context [92,93,149,150], the research on sustainability-oriented partnerships also focus much more on focal firm's absorptive capacity, and yet much less attention has been given to partner firm's ability to disseminate knowledge and values.

#### *4.2. Partnership Characteristics*

The alliance or partnership characteristics are to do with the bond between the focal firm and its partner. Wassmer refers to this as "partnership-level contingencies" [120]. The review shows that the essential partnership characteristic that impact learning is to do with governance.

Governance, herein, is defined as "the coordination that is characterized by organic or informal social systems" [151]. In other words, it describes "the facilitation and administrative routines" [152]. Governance determines "the structures and processes by which societies share power, shapes individual and collective actions" by introducing "laws, regulations, discursive debates, negotiation, mediation, conflict resolution, elections, public consultations, protests, and other decision-making processes" [153].

Different forms of governance may aim to impact at different levels. For instance, a PPP with local authorities may intend to create a local effect [154,155]. In contrast, initiatives such as the UNGC, the UN Principles for Responsible Investment (UNPRI), and the GRI aim for global impact [151]. Nevertheless, other initiatives such as Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative, Responsible Care, Forest Stewardship Council and Marine Stewardship Council aim impact in specific industrial fields [151,156].

Actors such as governments, firms or NGOs can engage in non-collaborative forms of governance to tackle environmental and social sustainability challenges. A study finds that "firms should first invest in becoming a strongly sustainable firm before investing in external collaboration" since they "will benefit from co-aligned sustainability collaboration with external partners only if they are leading in sustainability practices within their own practices" [157]. Others, however, highlight that "collaborative forms of governance are best viewed as dynamic, problem-solving processes in which learning about social-ecological change is an essential component" [158].

In the context of sustainability, some studies have referred to polycentric governance, whereby there are many authorities involved that act as centers for decision-making [153]. Polycentric governance "creates possibilities for moderating vertical interplay among institutions" [153]. Such governance is often tripartite; meaning that it includes "representatives from businesses, civil society, and the state; therefore, they can be distinguished from more traditional types of alliances, such as strategic alliances between business organizations, social alliances between business and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and public-private partnerships" [132].

Other than tripartite partnerships, studies show various types of collaborative governance that can be applied to environmental and social sustainability challenges, including joint ventures [159], licensing [27], and social franchising [160,161], to other forms of network governance [151]. Generally, scholars, in a similar fashion to the commercial business context, differentiate between formal and informal governance [162]; in other words, contractual and relational governance [125,163]. Indeed, while parties may collaborate by abiding by the rules and norms and contract sets, parties may also rely on trust to create synergistic relational rents [157]. To discuss relational governance, studies often discuss 'trust'. However, since trust is also a relational dimension of social capital, it will be discussed as a catalyst.

Governance affects how the relationship between different parties are organized and therefore, crucially, it has an impact on how the partners can learn from each other. For instance, some scholars note that the distinct equity and non-equity forms of governance impact inter-organizational learning [164]. They highlight that while equity forms require a tight coupling between the parties, non-equity forms are often associated with loose coupling. These scholars propose that the non-equity forms are likely to be associated with exploratory learning with a diverse set of partners; whereas equity forms are likely to be associated with an exploitative learning homogenous set of partners [164]. Therefore, the way in which the partnership is governed would affect the degree and type of inter-organizational learning.

#### *4.3. Context*

Environmental conditions are often used to explain why firms need to engage in inter-organizational learning in the first place [120]. In the words of Liu, Esangbedo and Bai [161], "the purpose of organizational learning is to achieve a new understanding of the external environment of the members and organizations through an effective mechanism of formation, dissemination, and sharing"; hence environmental conditions set a rationale for learning. Indeed, one study finds that "companies adapt their strategies and orient them towards CSR to stakeholder pressures also independently from what they are actually learning from them" [138]. This finding shows the crucial impact of the external environment in shaping firms' organizational behavior when it comes to sustainability issues. For instance, the "environmental catastrophe following the explosion at the Fukushima nuclear plant in March 2011" has led to "growth in anti-nuclear sentiment, a rise in the stock prices of renewable energy companies, and an interest in clean technology and renewable energy firms" [165]. Such external events often motivate companies to engage in various partnerships with stakeholders.

Environmental conditions are often explained using theories such as stakeholder theory [138,166] or institutional theory [133,164,167]. These scholars focus on 'institutional pressures' or 'stakeholder pressures' that create a form of legitimacy crisis on firms, which then motivate them to enter collaborative relationships and engage in inter-organizational learning. Most scholars refer to Suchman's [168] seminal definition of legitimacy which is "a generalized perception or assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable, proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions" [137,156,169]. Drawing on the seminal work of DiMaggio and

Powell [170], the review articles discuss three types of isomorphic pressures that lead firms to engage in inter-organizational learning [148,155,167,171,172]: coercive, mimetic and normative.

Coercive pressures are often associated with government policy and regulations about sustainability challenges [139,164,173,174]. For instance, a study highlights how "legal trends, such as the European Union Directives, significantly influence operation systems, product-markets, and business strategies of firms" as well as their collaboration patterns [121]. Another study, on the other hand, highlights how in multinational corporations, depending on the regulatory environment, the absorptive capacity of a subsidiary changes from that shared absorptive capacity of headquarters [143]. Another study highlights that often cross-sector partnerships and multi-stakeholder platforms are positioned to address government failures [120] and the creation of positive externalities [127,174].

Normative pressures may arise from industrial or societal norms [164]. For instance, Lin and Darnall give the example of the participation of electric utilities in the US Department of Energy's Climate Challenge Program "to collectively improve their public image and reduce the climate emissions for the utility sector as a whole" which helped these firms "to ameliorate normative pressures from their professional networks, and conform to values and social norms exerted by the industrial associations" [164].

Mimetic pressures are to do with the competitive environment of the firms. For instance, one study finds that firms' engagement in CSR is difficult to imitate by other firms even when there exist conditions for mimetic pressures [167]. The authors highlight that this is because the knowledge that is needed for substantive CSR engagement is sticky. However, the study highlights that such substantive engagement may be facilitated by the selected governance structure, culture, or capability development [167].

It is essential to highlight, however, that coercive, normative and mimetic pressures, of course, affect the actors through their cognitive filters or perceptions. Zou, Xie, Meng and Yang [167] highlight that the perceptions of decision-makers about the institutional pressures faced are shaped by their accumulated experience and knowledge. Therefore, the engagement of firms with a proactive or reactive strategy due to isomorphic pressures also come down to firms' perceptions of these pressures. This perception, indeed, would both affect the motivation to engage in a partnership and the intention or willingness to learn [175].

Finally, the institutional environment may also impact the kind of alliances and partnerships that focal firms form. For instance, "in industries with diffuse stakeholder pressures, firms that seek to strategically differentiate themselves engage in proactive alliances, e.g., the alliance between Starbucks, a leading specialty coffee company, and the environmental non-profit Conservation International" [145]. On the contrary, "intense public criticism and impending regulatory pressures in the extractive and energy production industries drive reactive alliances as seen between DuPont and the non-profit World Resources Institute" [149]. In sum, the institutional environment impacts the perception of actors, and shapes their intention to partner, and therefore, affect who they partner with and how much they can learn [145].

#### *4.4. Catalyst*

In the context of sustainability-oriented alliances, scholars define social capital as "social cohesion and strength of relationships among partners" [176], or as "a set of resources such as trust, norms, and values that are accessed through a network of social relations and can be mobilized to facilitate action" [126]. These studies discuss how social capital and the idea of investing in social relations can bring about new opportunities for actors [177]. For instance, the social capital of social enterprises offers some benefits to corporations such as access to community and local knowledge when they engage in collaborations [134].

Arya and Salk [145] propose that "firms with greater social capital across hierarchical levels within and between cross-sector alliance partners will positively influence learning that can enhance diffusion and integration of codes of conduct into corporate culture compared with firms with lower social capital." In a similar vein, others highlight that social capital "instil[s] a shared vision and strategic alignments toward common goals and collective outcomes [151]. At an individual level, boundary spanners can facilitate the accumulation of social capital [145]; at an organizational level, on the other hand, a similar facilitation role is taken by broker organizations who connect otherwise unconnected contacts [126,172].

Scholars identified three dimensions of social capital, in line with the seminal work of Nahapiet and Ghoshal [178]: structural, cognitive and relational. Structural dimension "refers to the overall pattern of connections between actors" [126]. These patterns of connections include the "roles, rules for decision-making and communication, procedures, precedents and networks that facilitate mutually beneficial collective action" [177]. Relational dimension "describes the personal relationships people have developed through a history of interactions" [126]. Finally, the cognitive dimension is described as "shared representation, interpretation, and systems of meaning among partners" [126]. Scholars highlight that social capital "may be produced and/or increased" as a result of inter-organizational learning [158].

#### 4.4.1. Structural Dimension of Social Capital: Effective Coordination

The structural dimension of social capital is to do with coordination patterns, roles and responsibilities of parties involved.

Coordination is to do with "communicating potential solutions, setting priorities for particularly promising ones, and assimilating various solutions" [179]. In a partnership setting, different partners would provide different types of resources, knowledge and values, and effective coordination helps actors integrate these different types of resources, knowledge and values to come up with a solution to a sustainability challenge [179]. In the context of cross-sector partnerships, a study finds that cross-team coordination mechanisms have proved helpful by allowing organizations to "understand each other's unique circumstances" and thanks to these coordination mechanisms, organizations were able to fuse different value frames [12].

Sustainability-related initiatives may require changes in the traditional relationships between some partners. For instance, a firm needs to extend or transform an existing relationship with supply chain partners to align itself with the principles of the circular economy [180,181]. Effective coordination mechanisms and establishment of clear roles and responsibilities improve inter-organizational relationships and, more specifically, inter-organizational learning outcomes [131,157]. Notably, an agreement on how collaboration is coordinated, along with how roles and responsibilities are distributed, require attention in the initial partnership design phase [182].

#### 4.4.2. Relational Dimension of Social Capital: Trust

The relational dimension of social capital that impacts inter-organizational learning is trust. Scholars highlight that trust "facilitates the openness for exchange of tacit knowledge, which is relatively difficult to communicate or trade in markets, and durability of relationships, which otherwise may collapse when problems arise between exchanging partners in pure market relationships" [183]. The literature highlights that the stronger the trust between partners, the stronger their ties and the more they can learn and innovate in a partnership [122,183,184].

Scholars have defined trust in different ways and focused on different types of trust. One definition is "a belief, sentiment or expectation about an exchange partner that results from the partner's expertise, reliability and intentionality, or from the partner's honesty and benevolence" [122]. In other words, trust is identified as "the expectation that the partner will pursue cooperation, fulfil obligations, and try to maintain the relationship between the other parties" [161].

Scholars differentiated between personal trust which is "extended primarily to another human being" and system trust, which "concerns trust in the steering mechanisms of social interaction and the functionality of so-called expert systems (e.g., money, power, companies, and networks)" [156]. Others defined institutional trust, similar to the concept of system trust [185]. They highlighted that trust in institutions specifically play a significant role in the management of relationships between actors from different sectors [185]. Finally, some scholars defined a specific type of trust that makes sustainability collaborations distinct: aspirational trust. Aspirational trust "reflects a vision of the potential that may transcend one's organization, expressing one's personal, "pro-social" ideology and motivation for action" [152].

Having prior relationships with a particular partner is identified as a factor that would help trust formation [152,186]. According to Vinke-de Kruijf, et al. [187], "when actors interact with each other over a longer period of time, they gain additional information about other actors that are rooted in relational experiences." If their experiences are positive, then they will be more inclined to trust others [187]; however, partners may also be engaging for the first time in some sustainability-oriented alliances and partnerships. In these cases, their perceived reputation may yield an initial bonding trust [188]. Trust can even enhance relationships and improve learning when there are cognitive differences between partners since it acts as a glue and helps actors empathize with their differences [184].

#### 4.4.3. Cognitive Dimension of Social Capital: Optimal Distance

The review demonstrates that the cognitive dimension of social capital is to do with shared cognition, values, logics, norms, and culture [120]. However, the review shows that in the context of sustainability-oriented alliances and partnerships, it may not be straightforward to share cognitive elements due to the complexity and subjectivity of sustainability. Although, based on the review, it is possible to identify two characteristics: the proximity (or distance) of cognition and institutional logics [189]. The degree of similarities in these dimensions is also commonly referred to as compatibility between partners or inter-organizational fit [166].

Scholars define cognitive distance as differences of partner organizations with regards to their organizational frames, which are "interpretations used to make sense of the world." In other words, cognitive distance is to do with the "similarity in actors' frames of reference, and mental modes facilitate effective and efficient communication and transfer of knowledge, although some extent of differentiation is needed for new ideas, creativity, and innovation to emerge" [183]. On the other hand, institutional distance is referred to as field-level differences between organizations with regards to their institutional logics which are "taken-for-granted assumptions and practices that shape the behavior of organizations in specific societal sectors" [189].

Some scholars highlight that these cognitive and institutional distances between partners pose both opportunities and challenges in terms of inter-organizational learning [189]. Some highlight that an optimum level of frame plurality can be achieved in collaborations [11]. Nevertheless, others argue that "different logics, values, interests, and knowledge systems need to converge" [131]. In other words, they argue that "shared mental models of interpretation may improve the firm's capability to perceive focal issues in strategic nets and may empower the firm and the network to better respond to environmental challenges" [165].

Some scholars focus on measuring the impact of distance on the partnerships' and firms' sustainability performance [189]. Others take a longitudinal understanding of distance and argue that "the initial cognitive distance between the parties reduces through interactions and becomes a bidirectional exchange of knowledge" [140]. Indeed, some argue that it is this process of social learning that lead to changes or shifts in value frames [184]; which will be further discussed in Section 4.7.

For example, the following differences between for-profits and social enterprises due to logics are evidenced [134]: the value creation objectives (private value vs. public value), ownership structure (for-profit vs. non-profit), organizational governance (hierarchical vs. participative), accountability (to shareholders vs. to stakeholders). In the context of environmental research partnerships between scientists and for-profits, a study found that the differences in dominant logics can lead to different expectations regarding the outcome of the research [174]. As such, for-profit firms are associated with

a market or commercial logic that drives them to expect "exploitable results through short-term applied research" from such partnerships, while scientists may target generation of publications out of the research partnership as an outcome [174].

Similar tensions are also commonly observed in firm-NGO interactions [12,128,190]. A recent study highlights that the impact of such cognitive and institutional differences on learning may depend on partners' "value empathy" [190]. The "value empathy mechanism involves interventions which not only create an exchange of resources in the context of an individual project but also an ongoing capability to absorb knowledge across sectors" [190].

The review shows the learning from a partnership depends on the cognition and institutional backgrounds of collaborating parties. While the differences are more substantial in the context of cross-sector partnerships, even in the context of inter-firm alliances, partners have varying degrees of corporate environmentalism or corporate sustainability, which means varying value frames about sustainability [186,188]. It is plausible to expect that there would be an optimal distance between the partners whereby they are different enough to learn from each other and, at the same time, close enough to be able to understand each other's language and work together, which would act as a catalyst to inter-organizational learning [11,189].

#### *4.5. Inhibitors*

The review shows that partner opportunism and power imbalance may inhibit inter-organizational sustainability learning.

Opportunism is defined as "self-interest seeking with guile, leading to deceit-oriented violation of implicit or explicit promises" [122]. Therefore, an opportunistic partner would manipulate the goals or the outcomes of the partnership towards its interests; which would diminish trust between partners and inhibit inter-organizational learning [122,166,171,180]. It is the various forms of governance that often protects an organization from a potentially opportunistic partner [134]. For instance, through equity-based governance, as in the case of joint ventures, firms can incentivize their partners financially against possible opportunism [127]. Partner opportunism can also be tackled with non-economic mechanisms, including trust and development of social capital [156]. Indeed, the expectation of partner opportunism increases in the existence of another inhibitor: power imbalance; meaning that partners who perceive themselves weak or inferior in the relationship dynamic would expect their partners to act opportunistically, and even engage in opportunism themselves, to shield themselves from potential opportunism and damage the relationship [186].

Scholars note different types of power, including but not limited to operational power, informational power, economic power, or social power [191]. Scholars also highlight that "if the power base of stakeholders is weak or if critical actors use their power to resist, learning is hampered" [191]. Some argue that "where knowledge exchange takes place it is likely to be because power is also being shared—to a greater or lesser extent—helping to provide a more conducive decision environment where the proponent/authority is also willing to receive" [169]. In line with this, others find that power imbalance between partners negatively moderates the relationship between incompatible logics and partnership survival [171]. These scholars highlight that the power imbalance would further amplify the cognitive differences between partners and may lead to situations whereby the more powerful partner imposes their dominant logics and frames to the weaker partner [171]. Relying on resource dependence theory, these scholars argue that one way to combat power imbalance is through the mutual dependence of partners, which are "bilateral dependencies regardless of whether the partners' dependencies are balanced or imbalanced" [171]. These mutual dependencies are also reflected as complementarities between partners and "the extent of which each partner contributes unique strengths and resources to synergize new value" [166].

Finally, like other discussed characteristics, power imbalance and opportunism are not stable during a partnership relationship [174]. One study found that "balance in power and dependence develops over time" and "in the process of balancing the relationship between power and dependence, the relative absorptive capacity also increased, especially in the knowledge base and dominant logic dimension" [174].

#### *4.6. Inter-Organizational Learning Process*

Studies have discussed different types of learning processes, namely single-, double-, and triple-loop or higher-order learning, and exploitative and exploratory learning are discussed. Here, what is meant by learning is 'relationship learning' which is "a joint activity in which two parties strive to create more value together than they would create individually or with other partners" [192].

Single-loop or first-order learning is identified as "fixing errors from routines" [158] without questioning "boundary conditions, frames, assumptions", in other words, "the usually 'tacit' assumptions implicit in the paradigm" [193]. It "contributes to insights and approaches for improving performance and efficiency (e.g., in skills and practices) to meet existing goals" [194]. This type of learning is characterized as the "optimization of existing routines, practices and systems" [184]. One study highlights that actors do not reflect on whether a particular system is sustainable or not during single-loop learning [184].

Double-loop or second-order learning is identified as "correcting errors by examining values and policies" [158], or "reflecting on the assumptions which underlie our actions" [177]. In other words, it is about "reflecting on existing frames and [that] actors have become capable of viewing and adapting these frames, paradigms, and values by a process that has been coined frame reflection" [193].

Triple-loop learning is identified as "designing governance norms and protocols ... to improve the capacity of an organization to engage in single- or double-loop learning" [158]. This kind of learning "encourages a more open-ended and deep-seated discussion about what the primary challenges are and ways to reshape the values, norms, and social structures to address it" [194].

Exploitative learning focuses on "applying successful practices into large-scale manufacturing, dissemination of existing technology, and standardization of the current routine to enhance efficiency" [148]. In other words, exploitative learning is to do with "the acquisition of new behavioral capacities framed within existing insights" [191]. On the other hand, exploratory learning is associated with "new searches and experimentation" and "risk-taking and variance-increasing activities in learning, experimentation, flexibility, discovering, and distant search" [195].

It is important to note that, to contribute towards SDGs, all types of learning are needed [158]. While single-loop or first-order learning helps firms with building new or enhancing existing sustainability-oriented capabilities, double- and triple-loop learning helps firms reflect on existing values and shift their frames.

#### *4.7. Outcomes*

The review demonstrates different types of outcomes: firm-level, partnership-level and system-level [120].

#### 4.7.1. Firm-Level Outcomes

Firm-level outcomes can be described in two categories: firm-level learning and general outcomes. As introduced earlier in the introduction, the value generated from a partnership is not limited to the interaction value of learning. Therefore, herein, the outcomes of learning are recognized as capability development and shifts in value frames, while other outcomes of partnerships are identified as 'general outcomes' in the model presented in Figure 2.

According to Vinke-de Kruijf, Bressers and Augustijn [187] "there are mutual relations between an interaction process and actor characteristics: the characteristics shape the process and are also shaped by the process"; meaning, "learning involves changes in actor characteristics." As highlighted in the Partner Characteristics section, existing resources, capabilities, and absorptive and disseminative capacity are included in these characteristics. In this paper, the focus as an outcome is on capabilities because a large number of studies focus on how firms can develop new capabilities through learning that takes place in sustainability-oriented partnerships [49,139,141,165,196–198]. Development of new capabilities and shifts towards different frames are often associated with an improved absorptive capacity [192,197,199]. Therefore, partner characteristics improve as a result of the learning process [187].

In the context of sustainable supply chain management, collaborative relationships with suppliers positively impact the development of organizational capabilities, which then positively impact a firm's sustainability performance [200]. Similarly, in alliances between governments and firms that aim to foster radical eco-innovations, close interactions in alliances have yielded a generation of new capabilities that can help firms address sustainability problems [127]. These can be technical or operational capabilities that can help firms reduce their environmental or societal impact [141]; equally, these capabilities may also be dynamic capabilities such as alliance/partnership management or 'external integration' capabilities [4]. This capability is an organization's ability to organize and manage relationships with external partners [201]. Indeed, through partnerships, firms would not only learn 'what to do' and 'how to do it' to become sustainable; but also, would learn how to engage with various partners better.

While these capability-related changes are likely to result from single-loop learning [197], more profound changes can also be observed. Thanks to close interactions with partners that lead to cognitive learning, shifts in value frames can also be observed [127]. Collaborative partnerships may require "reframing, which involves perspective-taking and the possibility of enlarging or revising one's frame to take account of how their counterparts view the situation" [202]. Le Ber and Branzei [12] find evidence of "partners not only updat[ing] their frame concerning each other, but they also do so in reference to, and in conversation with, each other" whereby they go beyond the reframing process to frame fusion in which their frames are continually changing.

At the organizational-level, studies have differentiated between narrow or simple and broad or complex frames [189]. While some studies propose that the engagement of various types of partnerships depend on these simple or complex frames [189,203], others focus on how, within a partnership, these frames shift over time. An optimal frame plurality is achieved whereby various frames evolve within the lifecycle of a partnership; some frames lose traction, yet others are sustained [11]. These kinds of frameshifting, frame fusing, or frame-breaking outcomes are likely to be associated with double- or triple-loop learning [191].

There are also general outcomes of partnerships associated with the creation of associational value, transferred resource value and synergistic value [9], as well as interaction value, which is considered as learning in this article. Thanks to the development of new capabilities and shifts in value frames, as well as the creation of associational, transferred resource and synergistic value, partnerships would help firms improve their environmental performance [136,146,147,189,195,198], social performance [133,167], sustainability performance [200,204], innovation performance [205] and may even improve economic performance [121].

It is important to note that not all studies find evidence that inter-organizational learning, or sustainability collaborations, in general, impact performance positively [173,206]. This study, as shown in Figure 2, expects to see an improvement in the sustainability performance of a focal firm, both due to gained capabilities and shifts in frames, as well as other types of value created within a partnership. However, it may also be methodologically problematic to measure the exact contribution of a partnership on a firm's sustainability performance. Often, firms engage in a portfolio of partnerships [203] and it is this portfolio that allows firms to create synergistic value at the portfolio-level [119,120]. Furthermore, realizing the benefits of partnerships either through the value created thanks to learning, or other value dimensions, may require time and, therefore, observation in longitudinal settings.

#### 4.7.2. Partnership-Level Outcomes: Alliance/Partnership Success

Amongst other performance outcomes in the review, partnership-level outcomes have received the least attention. The definition of partnership success has been somewhat vague: while some took

partnership success as the sustenance of the partnership [171], others provided an organization-level definition focusing on what different organizations take away from the partnership [207]. Partnership success can generally be considered as an accomplishment of goals that are set out by the parties involved within the timeframe agreed upon [176]. One study explicitly focuses on the role of institutional logics and resource dependencies on partnership success [171]. Others refer to 'partnership' or 'alliance' success; however, they do not explicitly measure the impact of various factors on partnership success [186]. Sanzo, Álvarez and Rey [207] proposed that "the existence of a process of learning within the non-profit will probably enhance the firm's perception (and also the non-profit's own appreciation) about the non-profit's capability to contribute to partnership success".

Partnership-level outcomes are expected to be in a dynamic relationship with (shown as a feedback relationship in Figure 2) to the partnership characteristics, catalysts, and inhibitors. Generally, collaboration experience can help to build capabilities to manage such partnerships more effectively in the future and assess what modes of governance are more appropriate under which circumstances, which was also discussed in the previous section [51,127]. Also, within a continuing partnership, partners can reflect on the partnership outcomes collectively, assess whether the chosen mode of governance allowed creating a solution space for a particular problem, and evaluate whether the expected learning outcomes are achieved by all parties involved. Furthermore, within a continuing partnership, partners can also reflect on the inhibitors and catalysts that impact the learning process.

It should be noted that poor learning may also impact partnership performance negatively and may later act as an inhibitor, or a positive learning experience may enhance trust (feedback relationships). These feedback relationships explain why a focal firm would partner with an organization that they had an amicable relationship with before and why it may refrain from partnering an organization that they have lost trust in due to a previous engagement that resulted in poor performance.

#### 4.7.3. System-Level Outcomes: Contribution to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

System-level outcomes are macro-level societal or environmental benefits [208]. Several studies identified the system-level outcomes of inter-organizational sustainability learning by discussing how these alliances and partnerships help to address SDGs [5,19,131,176,193,203,209], or previously discussed millennium development goals [210]. For instance, Dzhengiz [203] provided evidence from electric utilities focusing on alliances and partnerships that address SDG 7 and 13. Kolk and Lenfant [211] focus on the role of partnerships for SDG 16, promotion of just, peaceful and inclusive societies, while Le Ber and Branzei [12] focus on the role of partnerships for SDG 3, access to healthcare. Even though the majority of the articles have not explicitly referred to how studied alliances and partnerships have contributed to SDGs, all articles in the review focused on alliances and partnerships that addressed various SDGs implicitly (see Table in the Appendix A).

Among others, only SDG 5 was not addressed by the studies in the review. All articles in the review have contributed to SDG 17, as all articles discussed the role of partnerships and alliances to tackle sustainability challenges. SDG 17 was followed by SDG 8, as expected, highlighted in 40% of the articles with the emphasis on sustainability-oriented innovation that can be generated through partnerships. Finally, around 5% of articles focused on partnerships that aimed to tackle SDG 13, climate action and SDG 12—sustainable cities (3%).

#### **5. Future Research**

As a review article, this study identifies some limitations of the extant research and offers paths for future studies, following the categories in Figure 2.

#### *5.1. Partner Characteristics*

Articles in the review have frequently focused on partners' characteristics such as partners' capacity to learn or absorb knowledge. However, they have not taken 'learning' as a bi-directional concept, whereby both partners need to absorb and disseminate knowledge. This shows that studies

that focus on inter-organizational sustainability learning can benefit from a more comprehensive bi-directional understanding of learning, hence, an understanding of both parties' absorptive and disseminative capacities. To do so, future studies should integrate the recently growing literature on disseminative capacity [92,93,149,150].

In line with this comment, it should be also noted that this study also provided a limited understanding of the learning phenomenon since it mostly focused on actors from the private sector, their learning needs and outcomes, and their potential contributions to systemic and wicked sustainability challenges. Future studies can empirically study the partner characteristics of other societal actors and how these different characteristics would impact the bi-directional process of learning.

Moreover, studies in this realm can benefit from a paradoxical understanding of inter-organizational sustainability learning by focusing on how embeddedness into existing capabilities may create vicious or virtual cycles, drawing on the literature of organizational paradoxes [212–217]. The review shows that, to some degree, a firm's organizational capabilities and absorptive capacity will determine how much it can learn from a sustainability-oriented alliance or partnership. Focusing on longitudinal studies, future studies can further interrogate how firms overcome this embeddedness paradox in the context of sustainability and provide evidence for firms that were able to turn their vicious cycles into virtuous ones through mindful interventions [213,218].

#### *5.2. Partnership Characteristics*

Articles in the review have frequently referred to "governance" as a partnership/alliance characteristic that would impact learning. However, comparative explorations seeking to understand which modes of governance allow more room for learning, and under what conditions, have been somewhat limited [148,158,164]. Future studies can focus on the relationship between different modes of governance (such as equity vs. non-equity alliances, network governance, polycentric governance) and learning types or levels (exploratory, exploitative, single-/double-/triple-loop).

Besides, it is plausible to expect that different SDGs would require different forms of learning, and hence, different forms of governance. However, a holistic approach to how firms address different SDGs through different types of governance that allow a different type of learning is yet to develop. Such an approach can be developed, drawing on the literature on alliance or partnership portfolios [219].

Furthermore, studies also highlight that there would be differences in the contractual governance of partnerships, depending on the partner type (inter-firm vs. cross-sector) [220]. However, there has generally been limited attention to this area in literature, which requires further attention [221,222]. Notably, future research needs to investigate the differences in inter-organizational learning in inter-firm and cross-sector partnerships for various governance forms and examine the how governance affects the learning mode and type and the impact of learning on sustainability performance.

#### *5.3. Context*

The review showed that both institutional theory and stakeholder theory highlighted the role of the external environment and legitimacy pressures on firms as a motivator of engaging in inter-organizational sustainability learning. However, articles in the review have not focused on the role of the 'internal context' of firms also setting pressures for such engagement. Meaning, employees', and managers' roles in initiating inter-organizational sustainability learning processes need to be understood further.

Furthermore, it would be interesting to measure the impact of 'legitimacy crisis' on inter-organizational learning using a quantitative method. While existing studies highlight the legitimacy crisis as a factor that explains partnership formation, it is also evidenced, in some studies, that partnerships formed to address a legitimacy crisis may not always yield learning opportunities [223].

#### *5.4. Catalyst*

Articles in the review frequently focused on at least one of the dimensions of social capital, social capital's role in improving inter-organizational sustainability learning and partnership outcomes. However, it is essential to highlight that most studies have analyzed different dimensions of social capital in isolation, with a few exceptions [126]. Some solely focused on trust as a relational dimension [122,156,188]; others on cognitive and institutional differences [12,189]; and yet others on structural dimensions and coordination patterns [179]. Future research needs to address the impact of social capital on inter-organizational sustainability learning, especially using longitudinal studies since social capital changes in different phases of a partnership.

Furthermore, the extant literature often studied how social capital may generally catalyze the relationship between the partners and improve partnership outcomes; however, it is most likely that the impact of social capital on partnership performance is mediated by inter-organizational learning [122]. Future studies can take into consideration more sophisticated models to test these webs of relations.

Finally, future studies should also take into consideration to what extent social capital improves inter-organizational learning when there are strong influences of various inhibitors such as power imbalance and partner opportunism. In line with this, recent literature lacks a longitudinal analysis of both inhibitors and catalysts, looking at whether and how these factors change in different phases of an alliance relationship.

#### *5.5. Inhibitors*

The impact of partner opportunism on inter-organizational learning and partnership performance is widely discussed in the context of inter-firm alliances [224–226]. Surprisingly, in the context of inter-organizational learning within sustainability-oriented alliances and partnerships, partner opportunism has not been studied as much. This is likely to do with the researcher bias in the field and the expectation that sustainability-oriented alliances and partnerships are more altruistic [11]. However, this does not mean a firm's relationship with an NGO would involve less opportunism than a firm's relationship with another firm. The review shows that partner opportunism and learning paradoxes must be unpacked further in the context of sustainability-oriented alliances and partnerships. Future research can focus on building a comparative analysis of how firms' opportunistic behaviors differ depending on the partner type and partner status.

Another inhibitor, power imbalance or asymmetries, is rarely studied in this literature. Furthermore, when it is studied, it is typically through the lens of resource dependence theory [171]; and rarely combined with theories of learning and knowledge development [174]. Power imbalance or asymmetries also impact what can be learned from whom within a partnership setting. Future studies in this field can benefit from studying inter-organizational learning, capability development and frameshifts through the lens of political processes of power, and draw on recent literature that integrates learning and power [227–229].

#### *5.6. Inter-Organizational Learning Process*

There has been growing attention given to triple-loop learning in the context of sustainability in recent years [106,107,158,194]. However, as a construct, triple-loop learning has also received some criticisms in the broader literature of organizational learning [230]. Studies within the context of sustainability have not elaborated these debates regarding 'triple-loop learning', and the concept appears to be misused or gets reified as did other concepts such as absorptive capacity [231], and recent clarifications about the concept can contribute to the work of future scholars [230].

Second, there have been studies that focused on partnership formation motivations that proposed how "resourced-based motivation is more likely to be associated with firms' participation in exploration alliances" [148]. In contrast "institutional motivation is more likely to be associated with firms' participation in exploitation alliances" [148]. However, these studies have not focused on how some

prior exploitation alliances may, in the future, yield exploration alliances with the same partners or vice versa for exploration.

Longitudinal assessments of partnership portfolios can further enhance our understanding by showing how firms engage with various partners, as well as explore and exploit. Furthermore, it is likely that, as in the context of commercial inter-firm alliances [94,95,232], firms would use their alliance and partnership portfolios: (a) to balance the tensions between exploration and exploitation of sustainable products, technologies and processes, (b) to balance the tensions between the triple bottom line of sustainability (environmental, social and economic sustainability), (c) to balance the tensions between short-term and long-term concerns. However, the literature on partnership portfolios has, thus far, been limited in the sustainability context [203,219]. While some studies highlighted how, at the level of the dyad, a single alliance provides a space for learning, portfolios are likely to provide a broader space for resolving tensions mentioned above.

#### *5.7. Outcomes*

In the extant literature, there was some focus on frameshifts [11,12] and capability development [49,233], but a limited quantitative assessment of how such learning enhances firm performance (environmental, social, economic). A reason why this has been a barrier is also to do with the dyadic focus of this literature [120]. Future research can, instead, focus on portfolios to measure: (a) what kind of alliances/partnerships improve what kind of performance (environmental, social, economic), and (b) how the impact of partnership type on performance is mediated by various types of learning. Such approaches have been limited [135,234], and often used different measures or different types of collaborations. Therefore, the results have been somewhat conflicting [173], which is why future research should clarify the impact of inter-organizational sustainability learning on various performance outcomes.

Still, in comparison to firm-level outcomes, partnership-level outcomes have been studied even less. In the commercial inter-firm alliance context, partnership effectiveness or success has been frequently discussed [235–237] However, in the context of sustainability, only a few studies have focused on partnership terminations [186] and partnership success [171,207]. Future studies can further explore how inter-organizational learning and firm-level outcomes impact perceived partnership performance and study the impact of catalysts and inhibitors on this relationship.

Even though many studies used system-level arguments to explain partnership formation motivations, the system-level outcomes of partnerships themselves require further research. Most studies discuss why firms enter partnerships to tackle 'systemic' sustainability issues. However, they do not explain whether and how these partnerships effectively solve some societal and environmental sustainability challenges, or which SDGs these partnerships contribute towards and to what extent the impact of these partnerships can be measured. Future research should further focus on the effectiveness of these partnerships and their contribution to tackling sustainability challenges. A way this can be done is by identifying metrics that firms use to measure and communicate their sustainability progress according to different SDG areas, and to measure the improvements or the impact of a partnership using these metrics [238–240]. Another way is to link inter-organizational learning to sustainability transitions literature [241,242] and discuss how the single-, double- and triple-loop learning that takes place in alliances and partnerships may yield changes at the system-level [243,244].

Finally, it should be noted that the model presented in Figure 2 demonstrates potential relationships based on the extant literature. This model can be considered as a conceptual framework that helps us organize the existing literature through the lens of inter-organizational learning. However, this model is not tested empirically in this review article. Therefore, while some relationships and mechanisms are discussed herein, future research should further test this model, and especially investigate how the firm-level learning, firm-level general, partnership-level and system-level outcomes relate to and impact each other.

#### **6. Conclusions: Contributions to Theory and Practice**

This study contributed to theory in several ways. First, the study synthesized different theoretical perspectives and concepts and demonstrated how these different concepts build a complex picture of inter-organizational sustainability learning that is represented in Figure 2. Second, the study clarified various outcomes of sustainability-oriented alliances and partnerships, and one of these outcomes is at the system-level, which can be understood as a contribution towards SDGs. The paper outlined how such a contribution does not only result directly from the partnership itself but also firm-level outcomes through the development of capabilities and shifts or expansions of firms' value frames. Besides, the paper outlined that these system-level outcomes make sustainability-oriented alliances and partnerships distinct, as commercial alliances and partnerships do not focus on societal or public value creation. Finally, drawing on the review findings, the paper identified gaps and proposed areas for future research. Doing so, this study contributed to the literature on sustainability-oriented alliances and partnerships of firms.

This study also contributed to the practice of sustainability practitioners. Previous research has already evidenced that sustainability practitioners are increasingly involved in managing alliances and partnerships, and therefore, they need skills to work in an interdisciplinary and collaborative manner. This study further adds that to manage sustainability-oriented alliances and partnerships effectively, practitioners need to focus on how best they can learn from their partners, develop capabilities that enhance their sustainability performance and broaden their mental models—their value frames to different interpretations of sustainability. Furthermore, the model presented in the study is intended to guide practitioners in identifying what catalyzes and inhibits their learning relationship with partners and under which environmental conditions. Furthermore, the model helps in interrogating what characteristics a firm and its partners need to enhance the learning outcomes (such as capabilities, resources, absorptive capacity, disseminative capacity). Using such a model can improve the work of practitioners and the impact they can generate from partnerships at the firm-, partnership-, and system-level.

#### **Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Acknowledgments:** I would like to thank Haydn Kirkman for his helpful feedback on this paper. I also would like to thank the special issue editors and the reviewers for their valuable feedback and suggestions. This study benefited from the theories developed on absorptive capacity, capability development, inter-organizational learning and knowledge sharing and transfer. Therefore, I owe thanks to the scholars who have contributed to building this literature area. This community has recently lost a valuable member, Mark Easterby-Smith, and I would like to dedicate this paper to his memory.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.


**TableA1.**ArticlesintheReview:Typeofpartnership,SDGs,theories,methods,contributiontotheframeworkandashortsummary.


 **A**






**Table A1.** *Cont.*


**Table A1.** *Cont.*

















**[144]**

CS

 17

Corporate social responsibility,

cross-sector partnerships

Qual.

Catalyst, environmental

partnership characteristics,

characteristics,

learning process

 conditions,

This study discusses three phases of cross-sector partnerships:

partner selection, partnership design, (potential) exit. This model also highlights the challenges and

risks in each of these phases such as "determining effective

criteria for partner selection, designing appropriate risk

assessment techniques, experimenting

agreements, objectives, reporting mechanisms and other systems,

managing crises to the benefit of the partnership, and balancing

the necessary personal relationships with needs for ongoing

organizational

institutionalization."

 with and adapting

institutionalization

 and

> partner

inter-organizational









#### **References**


© 2020 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

### *Article* **Navigating Governance Tensions to Enhance the Impact of Partnerships with the Private Sector for the SDGs**

**Stella Pfisterer \* and Rob Van Tulder**

Partnerships Resource Centre, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands; rtulder@rsm.nl

**\*** Correspondence: spfisterer@rsm.nl; Tel.: +31-10-4082833

**Abstract:** Partnering with the private sector is a key modality in development cooperation to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Despite their increasing importance, such Public-Private Partnerships for Development (PPPD) experience major challenges in defining, assessing and reporting on their actual impact. This paper explores why, and how this can be improved. We engage in a qualitative synthesis review of academic, gray literature and evaluation reports of public-private programs of development agencies. We identify challenges, tensions and contradictions that affect a proper understanding and assessment of the impacts of such partnerships. The analysis shows that the main challenge in understanding and assessing impacts is the double governance logic that emerges in PPPD monitoring and evaluation (M&E). While M&E functions as an accountability and risk mitigation approach, it should also support collaborative characteristics of PPPDs such as trust and power-sharing, in order to enhance impactful PPPDs. Enhancing the impact of PPPDs for the SDGs requires bridging the divide between (a) result-based, upward accountability monitoring and evaluation approaches and (b) emerging learning, participatory and complexity-based approaches. The paper provides suggestions on how to navigate these governance tensions by using a paradoxical lens.

**Keywords:** sustainable development goals; public-private partnership for development; governance tension; impact; development cooperation; monitoring and evaluation

#### **1. Introduction**

Partnerships for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are perceived as important governance tools to deliver a twofold impact for development: principle-based and goal-based. Firstly, a principles-based approach was adopted at the launch of the SDGs with the '5P' framework: People, Planet, Profit, Peace and Partnering [1]. These five principles are the guiding foundation for all SDGs. They represent a synthesis of principles as discussed in the global arena for the post-World War-II period: from universal human rights principles and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) guidelines on multinational enterprises, to principles as defined by the United Nations Global Compact. All five principles are equally important and apply basic ethical frames like consequences, duties, rights, virtues and capabilities. 'Partnering' can thereby be interpreted as a means to achieve the other four principles [2].

Secondly, the SDG project is also known as 'governing through goals' [3]. The 17 SDGs (and 169 targets) present an interconnected set of measurable goals designed to address interrelated challenges and achieve global sustainable development [4]. SDG 17 (partnerships for the goals), thereby, specifically encourages multi-stakeholder engagement in general and effective partnerships, particularly with the private sector. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development requires a massive step-up in resource mobilization and collective efforts for development impact. More than 50 per cent of the financing needed to achieve the SDGs will have to be mobilized through the private sector. Therefore, the 2030

**Citation:** -Pfisterer, S.; Van Tulder, R. Navigating Governance Tensions to Enhance the Impact of Partnerships with the Private Sector for the SDGs. *Sustainability* **2021**, *13*, 111. https:// dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13010111

Received: 24 August 2020 Accepted: 5 December 2020 Published: 24 December 2020

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/).

Agenda "calls on business to apply their creativity and innovation to solve sustainable development challenges" [5].

#### *1.1. Problem Statement*

In practice, private sector engagement has become a strategic priority across many development agencies. Public-Private Partnership for Development (PPPD) is one modality for actively engaging the private sector in implementing development policy. PPPDs differ in their actor constellation, thematic focus, scope, funding and implementation structures and how development agencies frame them (e.g., public-private development alliances, development partnerships or SDG partnerships). In general, PPPDs—as an approach for private sector engagement in development cooperation—have in common that they create more or less formalized, temporary arrangements between at least a development agency and a private sector actor. Often, PPPDs involve also civil society organizations, knowledge institutions and/or public actors. These actors jointly aim to accomplish long-term social and/or economic development changes, through sharing costs, risks, responsibilities, competencies, and knowledge [6–10]. PPPDs aim to combine complementary logics of each sector: the advantage of private sector such as access to finance, knowledge and technologies, managerial efficiencies and an entrepreneurial spirit with the development concerns, funding and networks of development agencies [11]. PPPDs aim to pro-actively engage the private sector in the implementation of the partnership's activities, and not only contracting out the implementation to other actors such as civil society organizations. The PPPD should develop a collaborative effort at the governance and the project level. PPPDs differ from more well-known infrastructure or service delivery Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in several ways; PPPDs usually work on a short-term program or project basis and aim to identify innovative solutions to longer-term development challenges. PPPDs are not service contracts and often use different governance forms and agreements rather than arrangements that emerge in long-term infrastructure PPPs. To conclude, PPPDs are collaborative governance approaches for addressing development challenges that should ultimately contribute to the SDGs.

Despite the growth of PPPDs, less is known about their actual impact and how to improve this. Participants in partnerships have found it particularly challenging to define, assess and report on their actual impact in a meaningful way [12]. So far, evaluations of development agency partnership programs have found mixed results [13]. The Donor Committee for Enterprise Development summarizes that on the one hand, some programs have not successfully catalyzed wider effects beyond the project. On the other hand, "context analysis to understand market-wide impact and hands-on management have been identified as success factors that are on track to achieve their development targets" [13]. It is in particular the development impact of PPPDs that falls below expectations [14].

Consequently, the discourse on the actual effectiveness of PPPDs as a means to achieve the SDGs and practical improvements is laden with critical accounts [15], often suggesting that the partnership is (a) not adequately—or measurably—addressing the problems for which the partnership was introduced; (b) has engaged an overly dominant private sector partner resulting in excessive or insufficient ambitions that created 'collaborative complexities' [16]; or (c) has overly optimistic or superficial claims, subdued responsibilities, or the governance is inadequate. These critical accounts might also explain why—according to the latest assessment of the status of specific SDG partnerships in 2019 by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs—it was concluded that despite the overwhelming efforts put into partnering around the world, "we are still only scratching the surface in terms of the number, and quality, of partnerships required to deliver the SDGs" [17].

#### *1.2. Research Objectives*

We argue that a key factor that explains the impact challenges of PPPDs lies in three types of theoretical and practical difficulties for which this paper aims to provide a contribution.

First, there is a clear need to properly understand and assess the impact of PPPDs. We focus on the critical role that monitoring and evaluation (M&E) approaches play. Extant research shows that M&E practices regularly suffer from a poor design—particularly due to a lack of a clear theory of change. They are often ad-hoc, and fail to produce the required information [5,18]. Promoting improved monitoring and evaluation systems of PPPDs should arguably be a priority to enhance the impact of PPPDs on the SDGs [13]. This ambition resonates well with previous academic research calling for improved impact studies e.g., see [12,19], evaluation frameworks e.g., see [9,12] and M&E practices of PPPDs [18]. Recent research still reiterates that "little is known about the ability of such partnerships to actually produce beneficial societal impact" [20]. Monitoring and reporting on development results of PPPDs is a critical function for accountability, direction, learning and communication purposes [5]. So, challenging PPPDs in their ability to use the M&E function well might have consequences in assessing their impact and further governing and improving the partnership. We perform a qualitative synthesis review of academic and gray literature, and development agencies' PPPD evaluation reports in order to identify key M&E challenges related to PPPD's impact.

Second, there is a need to explain the underlying cause for various impact measures in the hybrid governance nature of partnerships e.g., see [21,22]. There exists a doublegovernance logic in PPPD M&E practices in which M&E functions as a control and risk mitigation approach but should also support collaborative characteristics such as trust building and joint learning. The crucial tension between control and collaboration highlights that the two approaches start from different theoretical assumptions about managing relationships. Control approaches—often rooted in agency theory—assume goal divergence between partners and highlight an adverse partner perspective, which emphasizes control mechanisms in order to prevent opportunistic behavior, but which also might entail high transaction costs. In contrast, collaboration approaches emphasize collective behavior in which a higher value is placed on goal convergence than on self-interest [23]. The potential trade-off between control and collaboration underlying partnership M&E, raises significant governance tensions: can partnerships simultaneously be goals and means, can they simultaneously be aimed at control and collaboration, and what are the implications for the impact understanding, assessment and learning? This raises fundamental criticism and doubts about partnerships as effective governance mechanisms for the SDGs.

Third, there is need for a practical approach to deal with governance-related M&E tensions. We propose a paradoxical lens to better navigate PPPD M&E (and overcome basic governance tensions). The contradictions of partnering are often presented as tradeoffs [24] and zero-sum games. Seemingly divergent assumptions accentuate dualities between control and collaboration. Both control and collaboration are however required in partnership governance at the same time for effective impact capturing. A control approach helps to ensure efficiency and effectiveness, while a collaboration approach stimulates participation and empowerment. Control and collaboration are contrasting, yet potentially complementary approaches to governance [25]. A paradoxical lens (as a meta-theory) may be supportive in dealing with the governance tensions associated with effectively capturing the impact of PPPDs [26].

In the remainder of the paper, Section 2 presents the exploratory research design in which we synthesize theoretical and practical insights. Section 3 presents the results of this effort, describing five key challenges related to M&E practices that PPPDs face. Section 4 discusses the underlying governance tensions of PPPD M&E that affects the impact understanding and assessment of PPPDs. We introduce a paradoxical lens to formulate theoretical and practical suggestions for navigating these tensions in order to enhance capturing the impact of partnerships. Section 5 concludes and outlines future areas of research.

#### **2. Research Approach**

#### *2.1. Qualitative Research Synthesis*

Academic insights on PPPDs are sparse; the phenomenon and its results are mainly discussed in studies developed by the partnering organizations themselves or advisory organizations [26]. Given the lack of a consolidated knowledge base on PPPDs, this paper systematically accumulates and synthesizes information available from scientific and practitioner research on PPPDs. A qualitative research synthesis is an explorative research approach aimed at synthesizing qualitative studies on a certain topic for the purpose of making contributions beyond those achieved in the original studies [27]. A qualitative research synthesis largely presents an inductive approach from which new conceptual understandings can emerge.

Unlike traditional literature reviews or systematic reviews and meta-analyses, qualitative synthesis studies can accommodate differences between questions, research design and the contexts of individual studies [28]. In addition, qualitative synthesis can include theoretical contributions as well as gray literature, including contributions in practitioner journals, conference papers, policy documents and reports from public or private sector organizations [28]. From this perspective, qualitative research synthesis can contribute to the development of actionable knowledge on practical phenomena [28].

#### *2.2. Method of Synthesis*

The synthesis is based on three data sources: (1) academic literature; (2) gray literature; and (3) evaluation reports.

(1) Key insights on the understanding and assessment of the impact of PPPDs in the academic literature were reviewed. The first search focused on the Scopus database as principal search system due to its multidisciplinary nature and its retrieval qualities [29]. The search was limited to the following subject areas: social sciences, agricultural sciences, environmental sciences, business management and accounting, and economics. Since the first donor-driven PPPD programs emerged in early 2000, the search period was defined as being between 2000 and 2020.

We used the following keyword combinations:

Partnership AND "development cooperation" AND impact (21 hits)

Partnership AND "international development" AND impact (77 hits)

Partnership AND "development policy" AND impact (51 hits)

Cross-sector partnership AND impact (56 hits)

The titles of all hits were scanned and when in doubt, the abstracts were read. We only selected publications that discuss partnerships with business involvement in development cooperation, or publications that discuss the impact of cross-sector partnerships in the broader context of sustainable development. We did not include very specific impact areas (e.g., climate change or gender). Articles that focused on publicprivate partnerships for infrastructure development and intra-sector partnerships (e.g., international NGOs and their local counterpart or government-government partnerships, or research-policy partnerships) were dismissed. Additional articles were found through snowballing techniques (pursuing the references of references and checking citations of respective articles). In total, the search identified 10 relevant publications discussing partnerships with private sector involvement in development cooperation. In addition, we identified 13 publications providing insights into the impact of cross-sector partnerships for sustainable development.

(2) Knowledge on PPPDs is mainly discussed in 'gray literature', i.e., in "the diverse and heterogeneous body of material available outside, and not subject to, traditional academic peer-review processes" [30]. Including gray literature broadened our research scope to more relevant studies, thereby providing a more complete view of available evidence. We applied the same key-word combinations as in the academic literature search in two databases (google and google scholar). In addition, we searched repositories of organizations that are experts in the field of PPPDs (e.g., the Donor

Committee for Enterprise Development). We selected 10 key documents that explicitly focused on the impact and results of efforts of partnerships and programs with the private sector of bilateral development agencies.

(3) The third search focused on evaluation reports of partnership programs of various development agencies. We selected reports that focus on PPPD programs and not on other type of collaborations such as business-to-business programs, or other forms of private sector engagement. In addition, our aim was to capture a wide variety of results from diverse agencies instead of zooming into a specific impact area (e.g., inclusive green growth or gender). It is noteworthy how little evidence of significant evaluations of PPPDs exists [31] or is publicly available. We identified the following three reports that fit our criteria (see Table 1).



PPPD programs differ in terms of size, focus, design and structure. Similarly, the identified assessments of PPPD programs differ in type (e.g., process, impact, result assessments), purposes (e.g., accountability), depth and methodology. Therefore, our aim was not to compare the specific programs and their outcomes but rather focusing on findings regarding M&E practices for capturing impacts of PPPDs as stated in the evaluation and review reports. The selected reports analyze the program level but build their findings based on assessing PPPD projects of the program portfolio.

All data was analyzed by means of a thematic analysis [34]. In a first step, the key challenges of PPPD impact understanding and assessments were identified in each publication by developing first-order codes. We could identify patterns of these codes between the different publications and assigned second order codes (e.g., focus on direct results, goal alignment challenges, financial and development additionality). This interpretative coding means that we 'translated' concepts from one study into another, even if they did not use identical words [35]. In a next step, these second order codes were linked to key characteristics of PPPDs, as discussed in the literature. This allowed us to cluster the second order codes and identify five emerging themes: (1) time-span; (2) ambitions; (3) alignment; (4) added value beyond project results; and (5) relational M&E practices.

#### **3. Findings: Five M&E Challenges for Capturing Impacts of PPPDs**

The synthesis analysis identified five interrelated challenges of understanding and assessment of the impact of PPPDs in terms of: (1) time-span; (2) ambitions; (3) alignment; (4) added value beyond project results; and (5) relational M&E practices.

#### *3.1. Time-Span: PPPDs Assess Short-Term Tangible Outputs of Activities Instead of Long-Term Changes*

PPPDs are often set up as short-term projects while aiming for long-term relationships and change [8,21]. Developing deeper links and more substantial collaboration then serves as a key factor in enhancing the impact of partnerships. Moreover, collaborative relationships should become longer-term while at the same time remaining flexible. It has been found in practice that some of the best collaborations with business arise from regular and deep engagement between the staff from the development agency and company involved in the partnership [36]. Even though the quality of engagement has become increasingly prioritized over the number of public-private projects as a measure of success, the current aid system does not always facilitate the development of deeper and longerterm links with business [36].

#### 3.1.1. Focus on Immediate Results

In contrast with infrastructure PPPs that are designed as long-term public-private arrangements, PPPDs are often designed as projects of three to five years that implement a series of activities. Monitoring is than operationalized as an accountability mechanism following efficiency principles e.g., see [14]. The short-time frame of the project feed the perception that time and money are too limited to allow for proper impact measurement [37]. Tewes–Gradl et al. identify that "many private sector and donor project managers did not see the value of measuring changes that were far removed from their own sphere of influence and which might not be observable during a project's lifetime" [37]. Assessments then focus on immediate results; indicators at longer-term outcome level are seldom used; the same applies to indicators at the impact level [14,38]. Consequently, the short-term duration of PPPDs results in unclear development impacts—which in turn can negatively influence mutual engagement and increase transaction costs [33].

#### 3.1.2. Focus on Performance

The emphasis on measurable results and accountability requires monitoring approaches that assess the efficiency of collaborative projects and whether they perform as agreed. These insights help to correct the partnership and ultimately mitigate risks of possible failures. It is therefore observed that in PPPDs, more monitoring (i.e., measurement of activities and baseline performance) is happening than evaluations (measurement of results, effects, outcome or impacts of the PPPD) e.g., see [14,33]. This is similar to other development interventions that are often rooted in performance-based models, which emphasize monitoring at the expense of evaluation [39]. The focus gets therefore easily distracted to short-term indicators of 'success' [33]. Academic literature that mainly investigates the performance and efficiency of partnerships, as highlighted by Vestergaard et al. [20] also reflects this perspective. The point of time at which an assessment is undertaken has implications for the findings [40]. "Short-term changes are, however, not good indicators of long-term change" [41].

#### *3.2. Ambitions: PPPDs Have a Transformative Ambition but They Struggle to Capture Multiple Direct and Indirect Changes*

Many PPPDs aim to be transformative; i.e., they use distinctive partner contributions to co-create sustainable societal, organizational and individual value [38,42]. Evaluations showed however that PPPDs often have unrealistic expectations [14,33]. PPPDs may use standardized M&E systems of involved organizations, that may fail to fully capture the complexity of partnerships in various contexts.

#### 3.2.1. Various Impact Levels

Academic studies highlight that partnerships are complex and multi-layered [12]. Impact of partnerships can occur at various and multiple levels, such as the broader system and the target group. Impact is usually defined as the longer-term, direct, and indirect effects on whole issues—including the costs and benefits the partnership brings to the wider society [12]. In practice, various impact levels are studied but they are often not comparable. Mainstream research argues that the impact dynamics and the impact on poverty alleviation need to be measured at the level of the beneficiaries [20]. Others argue that longterm changes are often better observed in changed partner relationships, within partner organizations and in changed attitudes of individual participants in a partnership [9,12]. The latter argues that the partnership might add value by affecting how specific partner organizations conduct their core business as a result of their engagement in the partnership. This may translate into longer-term impact on society and the SDGs—even if a concrete partnership project fails.

#### 3.2.2. Focus on Direct Results

PPPDs show positive unintended effects such as new and different relationships developed, changes in the way how work is done, relevant capacity development for future partnerships or project spill over effects that usually involve that project objectives being surpassed. PPPDs also show negative unintended effects, such as loss of reputation [14,33]. Research shows that partnerships struggle to capture and recognize their multiple direct and indirect changes; the focus on tangible results may overshadow recognition of intangible results and longer-term effects [43].

#### 3.2.3. Unclear and Ambitious Objectives

Buse and Harmer [44] (p. 264) refer to a review of 74 Global Health Partnerships which identified that very few partnerships articulated objectives explicitly and measurably. The ambition may be to use comprehensive impact assessments that would attempt to capture all impact pathways. In practice, PPPD evaluations highlighted that some PPPDs have developed overambitious plans that are challenging to realize and ultimately measure the impact [32]. Consequently, postulated causal links between results are often not verifiable, assumptions are too optimistic for the given context, and packages of measures are too ambitious [14]. PPPDs have often multiple objectives. This increases the complexity and need of information gathering. Expected impacts should be estimated for each category of action, which leads to an overwhelming number of indicators and a significant rise in gathering costs. M&E budgets are often limited. So, a comprehensive impact assessment often focuses on some selected cases of the PPPD program—often comprising a collection of opinions by the actors involved and by experts. A meta study of evaluations of Dutch private sector programs found the following justification for a lack of impact data: (a) impact measurement was beyond the scope and budget of the evaluation effort; (b) there was no impact visible due to delayed implementation of projects and transactions; (c) measurement was impaired by a lack of baseline data and (d) the result indicators were too general to measure impact [45]. These findings also illustrate that not all PPPDs may lend themselves to rigorous impact evaluations [46].

#### *3.3. Alignment of Partner's Accountability Requirements in PPPD M&E System Is a Challenge*

PPPDs implement various policy objectives. They must serve both commercial business interests and development objectives. However, public and private actors may have different impact rationales and accountability mechanisms. Private sector actors gain financial returns and access to markets, while development agencies aim to contribute to SDG 17 and mobilize additional resources and capacities [5]. The partners in a PPPD may not be able (or willing) to specify desired development impacts in any meaningful way. As a result, partnerships often lack a theory of change that would underpin the relevance of the objectives of the intervention towards development impact. Monitoring systems, consequently, may instead focus on the inputs and track leveraging effects.

#### 3.3.1. Goal Alignment Challenges

PPPD evaluations show that goal alignment between public development impact and business interests present a considerable challenge. The evaluation of the develoPPP.de program identified a crucial tension between interests of the private partners and the development impact as specified in the programs' requirements. The evaluation found that companies' objectives were achieved in all analyzed cases, whereas development objectives were met only in half of the cases, which seriously reduced the added value of the partnerships [14] (p.58). The review of the Dutch FDOV program found in contrast, that most PPPDs were able to strike a relative balance between poverty reduction and business objectives, partly because they did not focus on the poorest of the poor [32].

#### 3.3.2. Diverse Perspectives on Function of M&E

PPPD partners are usually clear that robust M&E systems are important to demonstrate impact to internal and external stakeholders and to taxpayers [31]. However, partners often differ in their perspective on the function of the evaluation, and what and how to assess [37]. The closer the PPPDs activities are to a core business interest, the more engaged the corporation is in M&E [31]. Utilizing public money as leverage for private investments in development creates a form of tension between public accountability requirements and corporate management rationales [32]. The M&E systems of development agencies are often aimed at control and accountability, which can cause a sense of rigidity in the eyes of involved companies [32]. Being accountable for the correct use of public funding can overshadow the appraisal of PPPD results [14]. An overemphasis on accountability may lead to a view on reporting as a duty or burden and not as a means to an end [14,37].

#### 3.3.3. Financial and Development Additionality

Analyzing and measuring development and financial additionality is a key part of development agencies' accountability requirements. Additionality means that the business would not implement the project without development agency support [47]. Measuring additionality—in particular of partnerships—is complex [5] and "hard to prove and disprove" [32]. Existing evidence and assessment criteria are limited or vague; assessments are often done ex-ante and rely heavily on information provided by applicant business [32,47]. It remains difficult to determine whether PPPDs would not have materialized without development agency (financial) engagement. Development additionality is noted e.g., in terms of gender equality, or improved working conditions [48], or is linked to an increase in scale and speed of project management [32]. Moreover, when adopted, additionality assessment is done for the business involvement only and not for the additionality of the development agency's engagement.

#### *3.4. Added Value: PPPDs Need to Demonstrate Their Value beyond Project Results*

PPPDs are a means to an end. But in international development practice, the distinction between means and ends is often unclear [49]. Attributing results is a general challenge of evaluations. But for cross-sector partnerships, it is particularly difficult to attribute the effect of an intervention when several actors are involved who aim to bring about social change over a longer period of time [41], while operating in complex and changing environments. The OECD [5] suggests that "in the absence of an agreed, cost-effective methodology, measuring impact should focus on assessing the contribution of the collective effort to the partnership outcome". The impact of the partnership might largely result from the collaborative process, and the synergies between the activities or other types of 'value added' by the partnership. Collaboration scholars, therefore, call for a better understanding of how partner relationships influence results in order to improve understanding about the usefulness of the partnership approach [38]. Partnerships can develop various institutional designs [50] and therefore it is necessary to understand which approaches are most effective in which context [37]. Evaluations largely describe the activities and some also describe the direct outputs. They are much less analytical towards whether the desired outcomes are being achieved and how these outcomes and impacts can be attributed to the partnership [33]. Most PPPDs still need to proof whether the partnering approach used for achieving the results was useful and of added value from the perspective of those involved and affected by the partnership's intervention. In practice, measurement processes rarely reflect on the partnership as an instrument [37].

#### *3.5. Relational M&E Practices: PPPDs Require M&E Practices that Include Equity, Participatory Methods and Flexibility*

PPPDs imply a change of what to assess (partnership), for whom to assess (partners), and with whom to assess (with partners) [51]. Partnerships require different designs and metrics than purely contractual relationships; they should be based on inclusion, equity, transparency and mutual accountability.

#### 3.5.1. Equity

Partnering assumes a relationship built on non-hierarchical structures. This creates challenges, in particular for development agencies partnering with business. Although government agencies require traditional upward accountability from the partnership projects they fund, they are also a partner and mutual accountability becomes relevant. It is argued that in order to harness the private sector's long-term commercial interests for development, the donor-private sector relationship has to become more equal, long-term and strategic [5,31]. Consequently, partnering requires development agencies relinquish some control and predictability and learn how to engage on equal terms with the private sector [13].

#### 3.5.2. Participatory M&E Approaches

The collaborative nature of partnerships challenges how M&E is usually done in development cooperation projects. Integrating participatory approaches into M&E activities is experienced as challenging by PPPDs [33]. Consequently, final evaluations are often not produced as a joint result of the partnership [33]. A vital distinction in their effectiveness depends on the level of trust partners can establish in the partnership. In the Dutch case, the PPPDs experienced M&E frameworks as challenging and complicated and as having high administrative burdens (adding to transaction costs). M&E related communication had to fit into the standardized reporting and monitoring framework of the development agency [32]. The evaluation of the develoPPP.de program, in contrast, highlighted the fact that the monitoring systems were strongly based on trust. The challenge that these projects faced was that they sometimes led to information deficits, which made it difficult to verify the projects' development activities and results [14] (p. 49).

#### 3.5.3. Flexibility

Conventional evaluation approaches to partnership M&E either lack rigor, or are too narrowly focused and are mostly unable to capture the complexity of partnerships for development. Effective partnerships have been dynamic in adapting activities and strategy to changes in the configuration of the partnership or due to changing context requirements [19]. Partnerships thus require flexible M&E systems. During the partnership realization phase, partners may encounter tensions when predefined monitoring indicators are applied because processes change, relationships are fluid and, therefore, flexibility is required in a partnering approach. PPPDs can become stuck in promises made early on in their funding contract, requiring renegotiations between partners—with serious consequences for the partnering relationship. The review of the Dutch PPPDs identified limited flexibility for PPPDs to conduct changes. This reduces their ability to experiment with and adapt underlying business cases and may lead to risk-minimizing behavior of PP-PDs [32]. In contrast, the more trust-based approach identified in the German develoPPP.de program led to project criteria that could be flexibly applied and cover the different needs of companies in various partnering phases [14].

#### **4. Discussion and Approach: Dealing with Two Contradictory Logics**

The above findings highlight that PPPD M&E processes need to link two governance logics that influence a proper understanding and capturing of impact (see Table 2). Managing these two contradictory logics, however, is also required to enhance the impact of PPPDs. The divide between both logics can be bridged by seeking a compromise between

the two. But this is often the actual practice of present PPPDs, which—as argued—may explain for their impact challenges. Following a discussion of rich tradition of organizational research insights, in this section we explore how a paradoxical lens can enable partners to better navigate the different logics and consequently enhance capturing PPPD impacts. The governance tension between control and collaboration is thereby inherent in the hybrid nature of PPPDs [26]. Can M&E practice include a paradoxical lens and deal with these tensions?

**Table 2.** Differences between control and collaboration approaches to monitoring and evaluation.


(Source: partly based on Regeer et al., 2016 [52]).

#### *4.1. Two (Seemingly) Contradictory Logics and the Emerging Tension*

#### 4.1.1. Control Approach

Control approaches assume goal divergence between partners. They highlight an adverse partner perspective which emphasizes control mechanisms in order to prevent opportunistic behavior of partners [25]. M&E in PPPDs following a control logic mainly emphasizes accountability to the development agency. It has a strong focus on collecting timely performance information, measures the result indicators as defined in the planning and design phase of the partnership, focuses on the project activities and outputs, compares results with targets using performance information to make decisions and is often steered by one organization (i.e., the development agency). A control approach requires that impact is defined in the partnership's influence span; it follows measurable indicators and metrics, mainly at an output or immediate outcome level. A control approach is informed by agency theory, which follows the traditional rationales of accountability rooted in neo-classical

economics [53]. Agency theory is premised on the assumption that there is goal divergence between principal and agent, and tight controls and monitoring need to be imposed to eliminate situations of contractors pursuing opportunistic behavior [54]. In summary, control emphasizes contracts and other forms of rules and procedures (e.g., monitoring or penalties) that provide a framework for relationships through which organizations can protect themselves from opportunism and conflict.

#### 4.1.2. Collaboration Approach

At the same time, PPPDs follow a collaborative approach which emphasizes actor diversity and complementarity, a notion of equity and mutuality, a joint goal (and potentially also a joint problem definition, although this might be disputed because of the complex topics that partnerships try to address) [15]. Collaboration approaches emphasize collective behavior, which places a higher value on goal convergence than on self-interest. They are based on the assumption that long-term relationships are developed between actors based on trust, reputation, collective goals and involvement where alignment is an outcome that results from relational reciprocity [23]. In this sense collaboration moves beyond the purely instrumental relationships suggested by classical governance theories (e.g., agency theory or resource dependency theory) [55].

A collaboration approach aiming for transformative impact emphasizes flexibility and learning, is focused on sharing lessons learned and uses tools and measurements that should support relationship-building between partners. From this perspective, M&E comprises complex interactive processes where learning occurs in social relations. Partners monitor their experience, reflecting on this and subsequently analyzing those reflections, and then take action that becomes new experience for further reflection [56]. For an interpretation supported by all parties, a multi-actor assessment team is useful. Flexibility with room for re-interpretation enhances an atmosphere of mutual commitment and cooperation. In this context, from a collaborative perspective, assessment "is understood as learning and becomes a tool for sense-making and probing as much as for finding solutions" [57] (p.37). In conclusion, M&E that follows a collaboration approach emphasizes collaborative learning, aims to involve the target group (i.e., beneficiaries), targets holistic monitoring systems that are multi-level and adaptable if required. This perspective is sensitive to power dynamics, inclusion and exclusion issues, empowerment and disempowerment [41].

From a governance perspective, both approaches follow contrasting logics and reasoning (Table 2), resulting in tensions between learning and accountability which may be considered as incompatible trade-offs [39] and should not be conflated [58]. For example, if the emphasis is (perceived to be) on accountability, assessments may invoke defensive reactions, which may restrict the learning process [59] (p. 202). As our analysis showed, reporting by some PPPDs was experienced as a duty and not as a means to an end [33].

This tension is also highlighted by the fact that assessments following a control function tend to be public—due to transparency criteria imposed upon public agents—and are often performed by external consultants. Partners whose management and implementation activities are monitored are often inclined to defend their actions and achievements. This limits opportunities to learn from evaluations in terms of possible improvements [59]. In a collaborative approach, in contrast, the process of sense-making and interaction should be given room. This may conflict with the accountability function. Another example of how the tension between collaboration and control may manifest itself is how partners appreciate the results. Whether the realized impact and collaboration are perceived as successful may vary depending on expectations. From a control perspective, information from evaluation studies may help in decisions on the continuation of the partnership. Such data is sometimes not intended to be shared with others, and only used for internal improvement. From a collaboration perspective, the information needs to help partners to make sense of the process, and the impact and the lessons learned should also be shared externally to enhance learning from partnerships in general. Partnerships may neglect the fact that there are legitimate differences between partners about findings and may seek

consensual conclusions instead of retaining the tension that is productive for their own learning [60].

#### *4.2. Bridging the Divide between Both Logics for Improved Impact Understanding and Assessment*

Despite their contradictory logic, PPPDs need both approaches, and they should be complementary. The development agency requires a control approach due to the involvement of public funding. The partnership between organizations—as distinct from traditional contacting out relationships—requires a collaborative approach for adhering to collaborative fundamentals such as equity, mutual benefit and mutual acceptance or responsibilities [24]. The contradictory requirement of control in the form of accountability and collaboration in the form of learning may create a paradoxical tension for PPPD M&E and ultimately impact understanding and impact assessment.

Linking the two logics of collaboration and control leads to conceptual and practical M&E tensions for PPPDs. While accountability and collaboration are juxtaposed, they are also synergistic and interrelated in partnerships. The tension can be framed as a paradox—"contradictory yet interrelated elements that exist simultaneously and persist over time" [61] (p. 382). At the core of paradox theory lies the acceptance of dualities of coexisting tensions where no compromise or singular choice between them has to be made [62].

Literature highlights that control and collaboration in partnering can be powerful and beneficial if harnessed. Reporting and monitoring mechanisms are often highlighted as critical formal implementation structures for ensuring the continuation of on-going efforts [43] but are also required for learning purposes. M&E literature increasingly emphasizes the need to think about multiple forms of accountability (upward, downward, mutual). Reeger et al. developed an integrative approach for reconciling both accountability and learning in one unified evaluation approach for collaborations [52]. This offers an engaging strategy attempt to deal with paradoxes on a longer-term basis and acknowledges paradoxes as a natural condition of work [63].

#### *4.3. Practical Application: Navigating the Governance Tension for Impact Understanding and Assessment*

Following this paradoxical perspective, we suggest that partnerships for development require navigating techniques that follow more procedural and learning approaches to assessing and upgrading impact over longer periods [15]. Several suggestions for navigating the control and collaboration tension for increased impact of PPPDs are discussed below. They include and combine the five interrelated themes that were identified as key challenges of PPPDs for understanding and assessing their impacts.

First, development agency and business partners need to align their impact understanding for the respective collaboration. For PPPDs this means determining clear business and development goals from the outset [33]. Partnerships in development cooperation usually emerge from or are initiated by tender processes or direct interaction with development agencies. In this first initiation phase, partners define the (added) value of their collaboration and how they link to the development agency's policy objectives. An important foundation for impact understanding is therefore defined in this initial partnership stage; all involved must develop a shared understanding of the aspired impact and drivers for the M&E system [33]. In consequence, guiding (navigating) questions focus on the collective aspired impact and aim to prevent tensions that can emerge if motivations of individual partners do not match the jointly agreed impact objective. A possible tool to align different impact logics is the process of jointly developing a Theory of Change (ToC) and developing clarity and mutual understanding about the assumptions underlying the partnership logic. However, although developing a ToC together can support relationship-building, it may not necessarily help to overcome asymmetries in the power relations among actors [64].

Second, development agency and business partners should together define the purpose and the design of the assessment(s) based on whether they can construct appropriate measurement tools. The partnership M&E framework should be developed based on a

common decided purpose that is relevant for all partners' individual accountability and learning needs and requirements and best fits the partnership. Joint goal setting and a commitment of conducting useful evaluations supports trust building and learning about partners' interests [33]. Such trust-building measures are needed to bring public and private institutional logics closer together [32]. Transparency around needs and willingness to understand the needs and requirements of others are key to aligning the M&E needs and developing an impact assessment that is helpful for the purpose of the partnership and of all partners involved. In addition, it should provide an assessment of the partnership's contribution to the SDGs [65]. Control-oriented needs may require quick results and success of the partnership, whereas the other partners may aim to learn along the way and appreciate the learning more than direct results. Embedding measurements from the start of the PPPD [37] and engaging key stakeholders early in the process of designing assessments of partnerships [66] helps the PPPD to link internal steering with external reporting and exchange.

Third, process and impact are interdependent in partnerships, and organizing connections between the two types of assessment will put both in perspective [59]. Partnerships risk exclusively focusing either on impact or purely on the process or performance, though during a partnership's realization, it becomes apparent whether an approach works and whether all specific aspects of the context have been adequately considered or all necessary stakeholders have been involved. Health checks and monitoring may reveal that the partnership approach requires a change while keeping an eye on the societal issue being addressed. Uncovering relational mechanisms such as risk sharing, power, commitment and trust can help to grasp potential or hidden problems of the partnership [67] and lower transaction costs. Unexpected monitoring findings can affect the relationship, process and activities, as they require changing the course of the partnership or even rethinking the approach, actor configuration or even the relevance of the partnership. Making agreements on how to collaborate on adaptation and unforeseen challenges (instead of deciding beforehand exactly what to do in a situation) can satisfy the control perspective, while the collaboration perspective can be used to exchange and joint reflection and learning as a source for addressing possible emerging issues.

Fourth, external exchange and peer-review can help comparisons with other collaborative and non-collaborative initiatives. Comparing and contrasting results can support both accountability and learning. It allows for making sense of findings, provides insights into which factors contributed to the success of the project or indicates created barriers that prevent contributing to societal issues. Comparing partnering approaches requires consideration of the setting and context in which the comparative case operates. Data on the process of partnering and the achievement of impact needs to be an integral part of any plans for replication and scaling of the partnership project. Such information is vital for funding and planning for future activities, and it also helps partners to reflect on the added value of their partnering approach. In addition, linking self-evaluation to an external visit would make the tension productive and prevent external assessors from drawing conclusions that are not considered justified by the partners, a procedure that may enrich internal sense-making through 'independent' observations. Thus, both functions may be effectively combined [59]. This process could be supported by a learning partner that supports the generation, access and use of knowledge among PPPD partners for a longer period of time, with the aim of improving the outcomes of the collaboration and developing and sharing lessons that are learned [68].

#### **5. Conclusions and Further Research**

Public-Private Partnerships for Development (PPPDs) face several challenges related to impact understanding and assessment. PPPD is an increasingly widespread practical phenomenon which has only been modestly researched for its impact—including possible lessons learned. The effectiveness, not the necessity, of PPPDs remains debated, which points to the importance of effective monitoring and evaluation approaches. This study used a qualitative research synthesis approach for bringing research evidence together from academia and practice to produce an actionable knowledge base [28]. The study synthesized five key emerging themes on M&E challenges related to the impact of PPPDs:


These challenges are caused by the double governance logic of PPPDs. This consequently has implications on M&E practice. Although partnership M&E has a control and risk mitigation function, M&E should also support collaborative characteristics such as trust-building and power-sharing. To enhance the impact of PPPDs on reaching development goals, M&E practice needs to bridge the divide between result-based, upward accountability monitoring and evaluation approaches and emerging learning, participatory and complexity-based approaches. This study elaborates on a paradox approach to address related governance and M&E tensions, by delineating processes through which the tension can be navigated. By doing so, the paper responds to calls from partnership research that highlights the need to shift practitioners' thinking away from the search for prescriptions and move towards resolutions which are innovative [69]. In line with Vangen (2016), this paper suggests that the paradox lens can support partnership practitioners to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of both control and collaboration approaches for their M&E system and practices [70]. The paper defines several navigating interventions that support a more complex-sensitive M&E [15] and governance structure: aligning impact understanding; agreeing on a common purpose; consider process and impact as interdependent; and engaging in external exchange and peer-review. A paradox approach considers the partnering process as a continuous improvement process in which M&E serve both control and collaboration ambitions.

#### *Avenues for Future Research*

This study has several limitations.

First, this paper engaged in a qualitative synthesis study of partnership evaluation reports and key scientific studies. The findings are not based on primary data of actual partnerships or partnership programs. A further limitation of synthesizing studies in order to identify key themes is that critical contextual information is reduced (with some exceptions). Future research could investigate the impact at the (comparative) partnership or partnership program level in order to draw further lessons on more or less effective (national) PPPD M&E practices adding the broader partnership impact literature.

Second, the paper focused predominantly on one specific type of partnerships for the SDGs: Public-Private Partnerships for Development. This is an increasingly important and relevant type of partnership that operates mainly at the interface of aid and trade. However, further research could investigate whether and how similar governance and impact measurement tensions may emerge in partnerships with different actor constellations (e.g., business—non-profit partnerships; multi-stakeholder partnerships) and with various scopes (e.g., global, regional or national) or different purposes (e.g., policy, service delivery, infrastructure, capacity-building and economic development) [6].

Third, this paper concentrated on the impact of development partnerships. The intention was not to consider insights from studies that evaluate other forms of collaboration or collaborative processes e.g., see [71]. An extended perspective may provide additional insights from other collaborative forms and broaden the impact focus. The five key themes that were distinguished in this paper can thereby serve as benchmark for further testing, validation and benchmarking.

Fourth, by performing a review of the literature, this paper has systematically disentangled the impact challenge of PPPDs and conceptually explained the underlying governance tension in the M&E of PPPDs. In addition, it suggests applying a paradox approach to deal with this tension. Future empirical research could explore how PPPD cases actually deal with the paradox in practice and create an inventory of actual strategies applied by PPPDs when facing governance tensions in their partnership M&E. Due to the 'navigating' approach that was introduced as a way of dealing with the inherent paradoxes of PPPDs, it seems logical that researchers apply a participatory or action oriented research approach, in which the research follows and interacts with the various phases of the partnership. Witnessing the very large number of PPPDs that have been created in support of the SDG agenda, it should not be difficult to find willing candidates for this effort.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, S.P. and R.V.T.; methodology, S.P.; formal analysis, S.P.; resources, S.P. and R.V.T.; writing—original draft preparation, S.P. and R.V.T.; writing—review and editing S.P. and R.V.T.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**

