1 s2.0 S2589811623000198 Main

Earth System Governance 17 (2023) 100182
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Earth System Governance

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/earth-system-governance
MSPs for the SDGs – Assessing the collaborative governance architecture of

multi-stakeholder partnerships for implementing the Sustainable
Development Goals
Lisa-Maria Glass a, *, Jens Newig a, Simon Ruf 1
a
Research Group Governance, Participation and Sustainability, Institute of Sustainability Governance, Leuphana University Lüneburg, 21335, Lüneburg, Germany
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) involving a diverse set of actors are assumed to reduce implementation
Multi-stakeholder partnerships gaps of the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). While existing research suggests that
Sustainable Development Goals MSPs can complement state-led efforts in environmental and sustainability governance, a deeper understanding
Governance
of the composition, thematic focus, and specific governance functions of MSPs for the SDGs is still wanting. In
Interlinkages
Implementation
this article, we present the results of a survey of 192 MSPs registered on the United Nations Partnership Platform,
United Nations analyzing their set-up and organization, partner composition, agency of partners, governance functions, SDG
coverage, and effectiveness. We further complement existing research by investigating whether MSPs address
SDG nexuses and relate our findings to previously identified interlinkages between the goals. Comparing our
results to earlier studies, we find that MSPs have become more inclusive, involving more non-state actors overall,
and as lead partners. Our results further indicate a complementary role of MSPs in SDG implementation by
focusing on often underrepresented and cross-cutting goals such as climate action (SDG 13), quality education
(SDG 4) and gender equality (SDG 5). However, there appears to be untapped potential for MSPs to capitalize on
shared resources and capabilities to address combinations of SDGs that are likely to produce negative spillovers
among each other. Moreover, we find partnerships between actors from multiple societal sectors to be potentially
more effective than those involving only one societal sector.
1. Introduction challenges to achieving sustainable development by 2030 remain

pressing. Much hope is placed on the fifth “P” – partnerships – which are
People, planet, prosperity and peace – these are four of the “5 P’s” explicitly recognized as important means of implementation within SDG
(Gusmão Caiado et al., 2018; Jayasooria, 2016), the pillars that struc 17 (partnerships for the goals) under targets 17.162 and 17.173 (UN,
ture the United Nations (UN) 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Develop 2015).
ment. Its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 targets are Especially since the 2002 Johannesburg World Summit on Sustain
considered the major internationally agreed normative guiding frame able Development (WSSD), multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) have
work for the attainment of worldwide sustainable social, economic and emerged alongside multilateral agreements and national policies as an
environmental development (Biermann et al., 2022a). However, in the important governance component for addressing complex sustainability
face of a global pandemic, the worsening effects of climate change, and problems (Pattberg and Widerberg, 2016; Bäckstrand, 2006). Although
appalling military conflicts, recent years have shown that major the term often suffers from conceptual vagueness (Pattberg et al., 2012),
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: lisa-maria.glass@leuphana.de (L.-M. Glass), jens.newig@leuphana.de (J. Newig), me@simonruf.de (S. Ruf).
1
Independent scholar
2
“Enhance the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise,
technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals in all countries, in particular developing countries.” (UN,
2015).
3
“Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.” (UN,
2015).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2023.100182
Received 13 February 2023; Accepted 16 May 2023
Available online 16 June 2023
2589-8116/© 2023 Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
L.-M. Glass et al. Earth System Governance 17 (2023) 100182
MSPs are commonly regarded as voluntary collaborative agreements Table 1

between actors from different societal sectors working transnationally to Differentiation between societal sectors and subsectors in the context of MSPs.
implement public policy objectives (ibid.; Pattberg and Widerberg, Sector Public/State Private/Non-state
2016; Bäckstrand, 2006). Academic literature has repeatedly underlined
Governmental Civil society (non- Business (for-
their potential to complement purely governmental efforts in sustain profit) profit)
ability governance (Andonova, 2014; Pattberg et al., 2012; Stafford-
Sub-sector/ • IGOs • NGOs • Companies/
Smith et al., 2017; Biermann et al., 2012) by performing a variety of Stakeholder corporations
governance functions, such as generating and disseminating knowledge, types • National • Research and • Business
setting standards, and facilitating participation in decision-making and government education associations
implementation (Andonova and Levy, 2003). (agencies)
• Cities • Others (e.g., youth
International institutions and national governance initiatives are
• Other groups, faith-based
struggling to address the ambitious 2030 Agenda and the SDGs in an subnational organizations,
integrated way (Biermann et al., 2022a; UN, 2023). In this context, actors (e.g., think tanks)
scholars have emphasized the need to harness the diverse capacities of counties,
public and private actors (Haywood et al., 2019; Coenen et al., 2022), districts,
provinces)
taking into account both positive interactions (synergies) and negative
spillovers (trade-offs) between the goals (Liu et al., 2018; Bennich et al.,
2020; Weitz et al., 2018; Pradhan et al., 2017; Nilsson et al., 2018). 2. MSPs as collaborative governance instrument for SDG
Resonating with the call for integrated implementation efforts, they implementation
suggest nexus approaches that engage different stakeholders to identify
and enhance synergies and reduce trade-offs between the SDGs by Collaborative governance approaches involving public and private
integrating different policy domains (Liu et al., 2018; van Zanten and actors (particularly in the form of MSPs) can be seen as a “manifestation
van Tulder, 2021a, b; Bowen et al., 2017; Boas et al., 2016). Involving a of the ongoing restructuring of environmental governance in the context
diverse set of actors from different societal sectors, MSPs can thus serve of globalization” (Andonova, 2014, p.506). In light of an insufficient
as one important vehicle for putting nexus approaches into practice, response of (inter-)national actors and traditional multilateral agree
provided that their work considers and reflects SDG interlinkages ments to address the urgency and complexity of sustainable develop
(Staffort-Smith et al., 2017). They could thereby help to bridge silos ment (Bäckstrand, 2006; Chan et al., 2019), MSPs have found their way
between the goals and drive integrated and collaborative into nearly all major international climate and development agendas
implementation. over the past thirty years. From the 1992 Earth Summit and the Agenda
By now, research has been devoted to the analysis of (multi-stake 21, to the 2002 WSSD, the 2012 United Nations Conference on Sus
holder) partnerships in environmental and sustainability governance in tainable Development (Rio +20) and more recently, the 2015 Paris
terms of accountability (Bäckstrand, 2008), effectiveness (Beisheim and Agreement and the 2030 Agenda (see Pattberg and Widerberg, 2016) –
Liese, 2014; Pattberg et al., 2012), legitimacy (Bäckstrand, 2006), and the international realm has been promoting the establishment of MSPs
internal and external conditions for their success (Pattberg and Wider with increasing impetus.
berg, 2016; Horan, 2019). However, empirical studies to assess their The proliferation of partnership approaches has sparked consider
potential to overcome silo approaches to SDG implementation by able academic interest. However, the research landscape remains scat
enhancing synergies between the goals through cross-sectoral collabo tered across disciplines and at times inconsistent, from the use of
ration are still missing. With the present study, we aim to address this competing definitions to differing assessments of partnerships (Pattberg
question by presenting the results of a survey of 192 partnerships listed and Widerberg, 2016). Ambiguities in the definition and operationali
on the UN Partnership Platform4 (UN, 2022). zation of the term partnership has led some to discredit it as a buzzword
We structure our analysis as follows. First, we describe the concep (Stott and Murphy, 2020), or as “conceptually empty and merely
tual foundation and previous research findings on MSPs as a collabo politically expedient” (Brinkerhoff and Brinkerhoff, 2011, p.31). This is
rative governance tool. Given the prevailing ambiguity in defining and particularly true for the term MSP. While initially often equated with
operationalizing the term MSP in existing scholarship, we distinguish (transnational) public-private partnerships (Pattberg et al., 2012; Stott
between cross-subsector partnerships (CSSPs) and intra-subsector part and Murphy, 2020), more recent definitions of MSPs in the context of
nerships (ISSPs) as different types of MSPs. This distinction allows us to the SDGs define them as “collaborative relationship between or among
capture nuanced differences between all participating subsectors. After organizations from different stakeholder types aligning their interests
elaborating on our research method, we then turn to the presentation around a common vision (…) to maximize value creation towards the
and discussion of our survey results. We examine MSPs for the SDGs Sustainable Development Goals” (Stibbe and Prescott, 2020, p.23). We
along six dimensions, i.e., set-up and organization, partner composition, believe that the evolution of the term MSP to capture interactions be
agency of partners, governance functions, SDG coverage, and effec tween different stakeholder types is important. First, since in practice,
tiveness. By analyzing which SDGs are addressed jointly by MSPs, we many MSPs (including in the context of the WSSD and the SDGs) are
follow the call to enrich in-depth qualitative research on nexus ap formed between stakeholders from the same sector. Examples hereof
proaches for the SDG with quantitative research methods (Liu et al., include partnerships between governmental agencies and intergovern
2018). Finally, comparing our findings to earlier studies on partnerships mental organizations (IGOs) (public sector only); or between
for sustainable development allows us to provide valuable insights into non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and academia (private sector
the dynamics of the collaborative global sustainability governance ar only). These types of MSPs have been deemed equally relevant to the
chitecture over time. implementation of the SDGs alongside (transnational) public-private
partnerships (Beisheim and Simon, 2016). Second, scholars have
increasingly cautioned against a mere distinction between public and
private (or state and non-state) actors, arguing that actors from the same
4
Hereafter also referred to as “the partnership platform” or “the platform”. In sector often fulfill different governance functions depending on their
June 2022, the “Partnerships for SDGs online platform” (https://sustainablede capacities, resources, and power (Nasiritousi et al., 2016). Since the
velopment.un.org/partnerships) was migrated to a new website and changed its term “sector” has equally been used interchangeably to differentiate
name to “The Partnership Platform” (https://sdgs.un.org/partnerships). In between public and private actors, state and non-state actors or
spring 2023, its name was changed again to “SDG Actions Platform”.
2
stakeholder from different societal subsectors, Table 1 below depicts our It has been argued that the cross-sectoral collaboration character
understanding of the different terms at play. With this, we aim to be izing MSPs makes them particularly suitable for advancing SDG
transparent about the terminology applied in this article. Accordingly, achievement (Boas et al., 2016; Horan, 2019; Stott and Murphy, 2020;
we refer to sectors to denote the duality between public or state and Moreno-Serna et al., 2020). First, their setup of actors with diverse ca
private or non-state actors. The private sector is commonly also further pabilities can help effectively leverage resources, as described above.
divided into civil society and business actors to capture differences be Empirical findings further point to a positive correlation of collaborative
tween non-profit and for-profit organizations. and participatory governance arrangements with the achievement of the
To account for different constellations of stakeholder types (ac SDG at the national level (Glass and Newig, 2019), and underline their
cording to subsectors) involved in many MSPs and to test the added potential to create co-benefits with climate targets under the Paris
value of this more nuanced conceptualization, in the empirical analysis Agreement at the transnational level (Coenen et al., 2022). Second,
of this article we further distinguish between cross subsector partnerships MSPs involving a diverse set of stakeholders from different (sub-)sectors
(CSSPs) involving two or more actors from different subsectors, and intra appear suitable to foster integrated SDG implementation by means of
subsector partnerships (ISSPs), denoting collaborations between two or nexus approaches, bridging silo, and enhancing synergies and mitigating
more actors from the same subsector. While ISSPs also bring together trade-offs between the goals (Liu et al., 2018; van Zanten and van
different actors (e.g., two or more NGOs, or two or more IGOs, etc.), Tulder, 2021a, b; Boas et al., 2016; Bowen et al., 2017; Horan, 2019).
CSSPs combine knowledge, resources and experiences from different Although the 2030 Agenda itself emphasizes that the SDGs are “inte
subsectors, which is argued to be particularly important for advancing grated and indivisible” (UN, 2015, p.3), their setup and operationali
nexus approaches (Boas et al., 2016). zation reflects a siloed approach with weak explicit and rather
While by no means uncontested, MSPs are seen as a promising intransparent connections between the goals that – if implemented
collaborative governance tool for promoting sustainable development, without a holistic understanding – could hinder overall SDG achieve
increasing effectiveness, efficiency and inclusiveness in global policy ment by neglecting negative spillovers (Boas et al., 2016; van Zanten
(Pattberg and Widerberg, 2016). These high expectations placed on and van Tulder, 2021b). To prevent this, and acknowledging the com
MSPs build inter alia on the observed complementarity of state and plex relationship between the social, economic and environmental
non-state action in environmental and sustainability governance dimension of sustainable development, much research has been devoted
(Andonova et al., 2017; Coenen et al., 2022), and the diverse capabilities to revealing the interlinkages between the SDGs (Bennich et al., 2020;
and resources of the actors involved (Moreno-Serna et al., 2020). Mostly Weitz et al., 2018; Pradhan et al., 2017; Nilsson et al., 2018). These
distinguishing between public and private actors only, research has empirical findings form the basis for nexus approaches to help identify
highlighted that non-state actors such as cities and other subnational synergistic effects, minimize trade-offs, uncover unintended conse
actors, NGOs, private business as well as think tanks and other research quences, prevent unbalanced prioritization of some goals over others,
organizations assume a variety of functions in global governance. These and thus support integration and policy coherence for the SDGs (Liu
include e.g., knowledge production and dissemination, capacity build et al., 2018; Boas et al., 2016). Third and lastly, transnational MSPs
ing, technology provision, monitoring and evaluation, agenda or goal could be particularly suitable to tackle interrelated sustainability prob
setting, and mobilization of public engagement (Bäckstrand et al., 2017; lems that often transcend political and jurisdictional boundaries (Boas
Chan et al., 2019). While the distinction is not always clear-cut, these et al., 2016). A typical case in point is the water-energy-food nexus. The
can be considered rather soft governance functions as opposed to hard increasing pressure on water resources related to growing demands for
governance functions such as regulation, rulemaking and funding, food and energy is exacerbated by globalized supply chains which
which are predominantly assumed by states, government agencies and disconnect production and consumption across borders (Newig et al.,
IGOs (Betsill and Milkoreit, 2020). Ideally, effective sustainability 2020). Another example are transboundary river basins, where ques
governance should build on these complementary soft and hard mo tions of competing economic interests, allocation and resource security
dalities to achieve the change required. Leveraging and pooling these could be steered towards more resilient and sustainable development
resources remains a major argument in favor of collaborative gover pathways through the application of a nexus lens (Liu et al., 2018).
nance arrangements and MSPs in particular (Beisheim and Simon, In sum, MSPs can serve as an effective governance tool for integrated
2018). SDGs implementation when attention is given to integration across
The literature provides as many assessments of MSPs as different multiple SDGs (Stafford-Smith et al., 2017). As noted, MSPs have the
definitions. Comprehensive analyses of MSPs in the field of climate and potential to address SDG nexuses by fostering cross-sector collaboration,
sustainability governance question their overall performance, while leveraging resources and overcoming silo approaches. Whether these
simultaneously acknowledging that – under favorable conditions – they expectations are met in practice has to our knowledge not been sys
can be highly effective (Pattberg and Widerberg, 2016; Beisheim and tematically studied. With this article, we aim at examining the current
Simon, 2018; Pattberg et al., 2012). Some ascribe legitimacy to MSPs collaborative governance architecture of MSPs for the SDGs and
based on the involvement of diverse actors and underrepresented groups exploring the extent to which they address previously identified inter
(Chan et al., 2019), while others consider them a neoliberal tool to linkages between the SDGs in practice.
advance business interests (Utting and Zammit, 2009). Similarly, we
find mixed results regarding their ability to close governance gaps 3. Methodology
(Coenen et al., 2022; Pattberg et al., 2012; Chan et al., 2019; Bäckstrand,
2006). This list is by far not exclusive and could be extended to a variety Starting our study in 2019, we contacted the UN Division for Sus
of controversially discussed aspects related to collaborative governance tainable Development Goals requesting access to the underlying raw
approaches (see e.g., Widerberg et al., 2022). And indeed, we should be data of their official partnership platform to conduct our analysis. Our
cautious not to blindly overestimate their potential, also considering request was denied, indicating that the UN “will not be able to provide
that international institutions, and especially the UN, fall short of the data in xls or csv format”.5 Thus, to receive the data required for our
effective monitoring and follow-up of MSPs (Beisheim and Simon, study, we first developed a computer program to systemically crawl the
2018). However, still today, many national governments fail to deliver entries listed on the platform. By means of this program, we retrieved
on their climate and sustainability commitments, and despite their and parsed the data at three different points of time between January
mixed track record, MSPs keep being promoted, are steadily increasing
in number and became normatively situated within the 2030 Agenda as
important means of implementation of the complex and interrelated 5
UN Division for Sustainable Development Goals, personal communication,
SDGs. February 6, 2019.
3
2021 and August 2022. The platform lists different types of initiatives, SDG coverage, and effectiveness. Mostly, we contrast our results on CSSPs
both (single actor) voluntary commitments and MSPs, yet it is not and ISSPs to explore differences between the two types of MSPs. Selec
possible to filter entries accordingly. In general, data quality of the tively, we focus on CSSPs only to examine particularities between the
platform is low, as the data is often unstructured and inconsistent, different societal subsectors involved. While we acknowledge that we
incomplete or outdated. In addition, it is not readily possible to identify cannot assume full representativeness of our sample, our findings can
the types of partners involved in the partnerships. Therefore, we decided nonetheless provide valuable insights on the collaborative governance
to contact all listed initiatives that provided an email address, explicitly architecture of MSPs for SDG implementation.
inviting those that registered a partnership to participate in an online
survey. After filtering out duplicates, we contacted a total of 4226 ini
4.1. Set-up and organization
tiatives between July 2021 and August 2022. We received responses
from 192 initiatives that correspond to the definition of MSPs applied in
Table 2 depicts the findings on set-up and organization related var
the present article. The survey consisted of 20 questions, including on
iables, i.e., activity status, annual project budget, communication fre
the set-up and organization, the partners and their respective roles and
quency and monitoring. We find that most partnerships in our sample
activities within the partnership, the geographic focus, the SDGs
are still active (89%), while 11% have ceased their activities. For the
addressed, the governance functions assumed by partnerships, as well as
subset of CSSPs, we see a higher percentage of active partnerships
about the respondents’ judgement of the partnership’s success in pur
(93%), especially when compared to ISSPs with 76%. We note, however,
suing its objectives (the complete survey is available in the appendix).
that the survey methodology used in our study may bias these results, as
To compile the list of governance functions, we drew on previous
active partnerships are more likely to have available resources to
research on WSSD partnerships (Pattberg et al., 2012), transnational
respond to our questionnaire. Regarding financial resource endowment,
cooperative initiatives (Dzebo, 2019) and agency in earth system
we find huge differences across partnerships. While 17% have no budget
governance (Betsill and Milkoreit, 2020).
at all, 13% indicate an annual project budget of more than $1,000,000.
While the decision to contact the partnerships directly entailed a
Most MSPs (53%) are rather small partnerships, with 1–20 people
smaller sample size when compared to the totality of cases listed on the
actively involved. This number is slightly higher for ISSPs (64% vs. 54%
platform, the survey method offered important advantages: First, this
of CSSPs). However, 25% of CSSPs report working with up to five people
approach ensured that only partnerships that have been or are currently
only, compared to 12% for ISSPs. In terms of regular communication
“active” were included in our study. For there is reason to assume that a
between partners, we find that the majority (68%) communicates at
large part of the 4226 listed initiatives is no longer – or has never even
least monthly or bi-monthly, or even more frequently. This aggregate
been – active. For example, 15% of all survey invitations could not be
result is the same for both types of MSPs. Yet, we find that more ISSPs
delivered, mostly since the provided contact email was inexistent. This
(21%) communicate daily, compared to 12% of CSSPs. Notably, we find
corroborates the claim that the UN failed to provide a clear mandate,
a higher number of ISSPs reporting no or no regular communication
political will and sufficient funding for effective monitoring, review and
(14%) compared to CSSPs (9%). Similarly, a higher share of CSSPs
follow-up of partnerships (Beisheim and Simon, 2018). Further, the UN
(91%) reports regularly monitoring of its activities compared to ISSPs
appears to use the platform to showcase action towards the SDGs.
(79%). Taken together, the analysis indicates that partnerships for the
However, quite some of the initiatives that we contacted for our survey
SDGs in our sample have a relatively high degree of institutionalization.
were not aware of their listing on the platform. To some degree, this can
Previous research has argued that “institutionalization is the basic factor
be attributed to the UN merging commitments from earlier conferences
leading to partnerships’ effectiveness” (Szulecki et al., 2012, p.98). In
and action networks in one platform – including some that were held
how far these institutional variables relate to (self-reported) effective
prior to the launch of the SDGs (see UN, 2022). In conjunction with
ness of MSPs will be assessed in section 4.6.
unstructured, missing or outdated information about partnerships
Fig. 1 shows the location of partnerships’ administrative bases,
registered on the platform, the transparency and accountability of the
spanning 61 different countries. We find a relatively even regional dis
UN database can at least be questioned. Second, we were able to scru
tribution between Africa (27%), Asia (23%) and Europe (27%), while
tinize the SDGs addressed by MSPs though a two-stage selection process.
fewer partnerships report their administrative base location in Latin
In the first step, we asked respondents to indicate the SDGs that corre
America and the Caribbean (14%), Northern America (8%) and espe
spond to both the primary and secondary objectives of the partnership.
cially Oceania (1%). Earlier studies have criticized the predominance of
In the second step, we only displayed the SDGs selected before and asked
Global North-based actors in collaborative climate and sustainability
respondents to choose exclusively those that reflect the partnership’s
governance arrangements, cautioning against a consolidation of power
main purpose. This enabled us to reduce a bias by “box-ticking” all SDGs,
asymmetries in global governance (Bäckstrand, 2012; Chan et al., 2019).
which has been observed in comparable data bases (Coenen et al.,
While we find that, taken together, 35% of partnerships in our sample
2022). It further helped us to create a refined data set for the analysis of
have their administrative base in either Europe or Northern America,
SDG nexuses addressed. We consider a partnership to address an SDG
roughly two thirds of the MSPs’ headquarters or secretariats are located
nexus if it selected at least two goals as the primary objectives of their
in other regions. However, while Northern America has a lower regional
work. Third, by giving respondents the opportunity to comment freely
representation in relative terms, the United States were the second most
on their input provided, we were able to retrieve additional insights
frequently reported administrative base location after India.
about the partnerships that we would not have received by relying only
Fig. 2 depicts the countries of implementation. The partnerships
on the information published at the platform.
reported current or past activity in 147 countries. 20 partnerships (15%)
indicated a global scope7. On average, a partnership is or was active in
4. Results and discussion
four different countries. The pie chart in Fig. 2 shows how many part
nerships report implementation in at least one country of the respective
This section presents and discusses the results of the 192 MSPs that
answered our survey. Of these, 114 qualify as CSSPs, involving at least
two partners from different subsectors. 34 MSPs can be considered 6
A global scope refers to partnerships whose output and impact is not
ISSPs, referring to partnerships between stakeholders from the same focused on a specific territory only, and which aims to address global challenges
subsector. For 44 partnerships, we received no specification on the to advance sustainable development globally.
stakeholder types involved. 7
Regional groupings are based on the UN SDG Indicator site (https://unstats.
We structure our analysis according to six dimensions: Set-up and un.org/sdgs/indicators/regional-groups/) except for Taiwan, which was coun
organization, partner composition, agency of partners, governance functions, ted as Asian country.
4
Table 2
Set-up and organization of partnerships. The table depicts variables concerning the set-up and organization of MSPs for the SDGs for the total sample and its subsets
CSSPs and ISSPs. Data for “NA” refers to survey responses that did not provide further information on the stakeholder types involved.
n Total (CSSPs/ISSPs/NA) Total CSSPs ISSPs NA
Activity status
Active 192 (114/34/44) 170 (89%) 106 (93%) 26 (76%) 38 (86%)
Inactive 22 (11%) 8 (7%) 8 (24%) 6 (14%)
Budget
No budget 191 (114/34/43) 32 (17%) 16 (14%) 6 (18%) 10 (23%)
Less than USD 25,000 34 (18%) 22 (19%) 7 (21%) 5 (12%)
USD 25,001–100,000 31 (16%) 22 (19%) 5 (15%) 4 (9%)
USD 100,001–250,000 24 (13%) 15 (13%) 3 (9%) 6 (14%)
USD 250,001–1,000,000 30 (16%) 17 (15%) 5 (15%) 8 (19%)
More than USD 1,000,000 25 (13%) 14 (12%) 4 (12%) 7 (16%)
Unknown/No answer 15 (8%) 8 (7%) 4 (12%) 3 (7%)
Staff (people actively involved)
1–5 191 (114/34/43) 41 (21%) 29 (25%) 4 (12%) 8 (19%)
6–20 62 (32%) 33 (29%) 18 (52%) 11 (26%)
21–50 35 (18%) 26 (23%) 3 (9%) 6 (14%)
51–200 19 (10%) 11 (10%) 3 (9%) 5 (12%)
More than 200 24 (13%) 11 (10%) 3 (9%) 10 (23%)
Unknown 10 (5%) 4 (4%) 3 (9%) 3 (7%)
Communication frequency
Daily 119 (91/28/-) 17 (14%) 11 (12%) 6 (21%) –
Weekly/Bi-weekly 30 (25%) 25 (27%) 5 (18%) –
Monthly/Bi-monthly 34 (29%) 26 (29%) 8 (29%) –
3–5 times per year 19 (16%) 16 (18%) 3 (11%) –
Once or twice per year 7 (6%) 5 (5%) 2 (7%) –
None/not regularly 12 (10%) 8 (9%) 4 (14%) –
Monitoring
Yes 192 (114/34/44) 171 (89%) 104 (91%) 27 (79%) 40 (91%)
No 21 (11%) 10 (9%) 7 (21%) 4 (9%)
Fig. 1. Partnerships’ administrative base location. The map shows in which countries the partnerships’ administrative base are located. The pie chart indicates
the regional distribution6 (n = 131).
region. Here, Europe and Northern America sum up to 38%, while a On the other hand, Chan et al. (2019) questioned whether predomi
similar share of partnerships implements their projects in at least one nantly Northern-led initiatives can provide real benefits to countries
country in Africa (37%) and Asia (34%). Latin America and the Carib where the need is greatest, or whether they primarily benefit the Global
bean (17%) and again, especially Oceania (5%), are comparatively North. They argue that North-based actors could promote their own
underrepresented. (economic) interests at the expense of actual long-term, local needs.
We can think of two possible interpretations for this. On the one Without further analysis, we cannot draw either one or the other
hand, a relatively equal regional distribution could indicate a positive conclusion and encourage future research to take up this question.
development, as the SDGs aim for universal applicability in all countries. Borrowing from Esparcia et al. (2000), we further inquired about the
5
Fig. 2. Countries of implementation. The map shows the countries for which the partnerships reported past or current activity. The pie chart indicates the regional
distribution6, i.e., the percentage of partnerships that was/is active in at least one country of the respective region (n = 133).
reasons for establishing partnerships (see Fig. 3). For the majority of think tanks, youth organizations or philanthropes. In ISSPs, most actors
both CSSPs and ISSPs, joint implementation, the involvement of local or belong to business and industry, followed by NGOs and research and
national organizations, as well as strengthening an existing partner education. IGOs and national governments are much less represented in
network were important motivators. For ISSPs, the latter was reported absolute terms. We find no ISSPs between subnational actors.
by most respondents (59%). Remarkably, we find that pooling of re If we compare our findings to earlier studies on WSSD partnerships
sources and securing access to funding are much more important drivers for sustainable development registered with the UN Commission on
for CSSPs. This points to a higher awareness of the benefits emerging Sustainable Development (UNCSD) in 2006 (see Pattberg et al., 2012,
from leveraging different capacities and resources through p.82), we find considerable differences in the participation of different
cross-subsector collaboration by actors participating in CSSPs, which societal subsectors (see Fig. 4). Acknowledging that we cannot claim
has been deemed decisive for effective and integrated SDG imple representativeness of our sample, comparison with earlier studies can
mentation, particularly to enhance synergies between the goals (Mor nonetheless provide valuable insights into changes in the collaborative
eno-Serna et al., 2020). However, it is important to assess which specific governance architecture over time. Further, UN data may also be
capabilities and resources and thus, which actors are needed for a non-representative of the universe of partnerships, as many might not
partnership to fulfill its objectives (Pattberg and Widerberg, 2016). even register their activities.
Assuming a broadly similar definition and partnership coverage of
the two UN databases, Fig. 4 shows a relative decline of state actor
4.2. Partner composition participation in partnerships for sustainable development, i.e., a drop of
IGO involvement by 6%, and by 21% for national governments
Concerning the number of partners, we find that most ISSPs in our compared to 2006. In contrast, we find an increase of NGO participation
sample (56%) involve two partners, still 21% involve three partners and by 15%, and by 8% for business and industry as well as research and
15% involve four partners. Only three include more than four partners. education. Thus, our results indicate an increased participation of non-
Numbers for CSSPs are more distributed, yet with the majority involving state actors in global sustainability governance. We see several
three partners (20%), followed by two (18%), four (16%) and five possible explanations for this development. On a positive note, there
partners (12%). The largest CSSP in our sample consists of 117 partners. could be greater awareness among non-state actors of the urgency and
As Table 3 shows, we find that in absolute terms, NGOs or Civil need for action due to an overall societal shift toward greater sustain
Society Organizations (CSOs)8 are the subsector most represented in ability, or due to more noticeable pressures from the increasing deteri
CSSPs, followed by research and education, business and industry, IGOs9 oration of socio-environmental conditions, such as growing inequality,
and national government (agencies). Other subnational actors (e.g., food insecurity, or the effects of climate change. The relatively inclusive
counties, districts and provinces) are less represented, yet still more drafting process of the SDGs involving diverse non-state actors (Bier
frequently than cities. “Other” includes e.g., faith-based organizations, mann et al., 2022b) might have influenced this development as well. To
what extent such changes in global governance arrangements have been
induced by the SDGs is however difficult to single out (Biermann et al.,
8
Hereafter, the terms NGO and CSO are used interchangeably. 2022a). On the other hand, the UN partnership platform could suggest
9
Including e.g., specialized UN agencies such as the World Health Organi
more action than is actually out there. First, and especially regarding
zation (WHO), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UN Educa
business actors, these kinds of platforms give room for window-dressing,
tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); financial organizations
or what in the present context has been coined “SDG-washing” (Dahl
such as the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank; regional organiza
tions such as the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme mann et al., 2020) or “blue-washing” (Beisheim and Simon, 2018).
(SPREP), and others. While both approaches aim at increasing social legitimacy, the first
6
Fig. 3. Motivation for establishing a partnership. The figure shows the reasons for initiating a partnership (multiple answers possible) as percentage of ISSPs (n =
34) and CSSPs (n = 114).
Table 3
Number of partners by subsector (absolute count). The figure shows the involvement of actors from different subsectors for MSPs (n = 148), and for CSSPs (n = 114)
and ISSPs (n = 34) specifically.
NGO/ IGO Research and Business And National Government City Other Subnational Other Not
CSO Education Industry (Agencies) Actors indicated
CSSPs 319 119 156 146 81 10 56 16 9

ISSPs 46 7 28 58 10 0 0 0 0
Total 365 126 184 204 91 10 56 16 9
Fig. 4. Participation of partners in MSPs by subsector (2006 vs. 2022; in %). The figure displays the relative distribution of partners from selected subsectors
(n2006 = 6711; n2022 = 1061). Data for 2006 from Pattberg et al. (2012, p. 82).
7
seeks to do so through superficial or sham commitments to the SDGs, collaborative initiatives established without public sector involvement.
while the latter intends to create benefits from association with the UN. We further analyzed which actors most often lead MSPs. Fig. 7
This could be reduced by sound review and tracking of the registered display the results in comparison to earlier studies by Pattberg et al.
entries. Yet, as we have elaborated in section 3, evidence from our (2012) and Andonova and Levy (2003), who analyzed leadership in
survey suggests that the monitoring, review and follow-up to the WSSD partnerships for the years 2007 and 2003 respectively. Con
registered partnerships is at best moderate. trasting these results with our findings on MSPs for the SDGs in 2022
It is further insightful to examine the representation of stakeholder provides a valuable overview of changes in leadership patterns within
types within partnerships instead of focusing only on the absolute count partnerships for sustainable development over time.
displayed in Table 3. For instance, the sample includes a single ISSP Our findings show NGOs to be the most frequent lead partners in
involving 53 business actors alone. Fig. 5 shows the percentage of MSPs (43%). This contrasts previous findings, where state actors, i.e.,
partnerships involving at least one partner from the respective national and local governments as well as IGOs, led around 60% of all
subsector. partnerships. Interestingly, we find not only an increasing participation
Here, we see that most ISSPs in our sample (47%) are collaborations of non-state actors overall (see Fig. 4), but also as lead partners. In our
among NGOs, followed by research and education partnerships (26%). sample, state actors run only 23% of all partnerships. Our results further
Much less arrangements consist solely of national governments (12%), show an increase of business and industry partners leading MSPs, from
business and industry (9%) or IGOs (6%). Percentages for CSSPs exceed around three percent in 2003 and 2007 to 10% in 2022. Lead partners
100% as every CSSP combines at least two or more subsectors. Here, we from research and education keep steadily increasing over time,
also find a predominance of NGOs, with 75% of all CSSPs including at reaching about 12% in 2022. This could indicate greater collaboration
least one partner from this subsector. Almost half of all CSSPs involve at among scientist or the strengthening of research networks in the context
least one partner from business and industry (48%) or research and of the SDGs. Indeed, the SDGs have attracted considerable scientific
education (46%). National governments participate in 42% of the CSSPs, interest, and evidence-based approaches have become central to
while IGOs are involved in slightly more than a third (36%). assessing progress towards the SDGs. One example is the Global Sus
We find that the vast majority (80%) of CSSPs involves two (53%) or tainable Development Report (GSDR), an UN-mandated scientific
three (27%) different sectors. Fig. 6 shows the most frequent combina assessment report to strengthen the science-policy interface and inform
tions of partners in CSSPs by subsector, displayed as a network graph. the High-Level Political Forum (HLPF), which is responsible for the
While the size of the nodes corresponds to the absolute number of actors follow-up and review of SDG implementation. While we find that rela
from the respective subsector (see Table 3), the thickness of the edges tively fewer MSPs today are led by IGOs, they remain the second most
relates to the number of CSSPs involving at least one actor from both frequent lead partner (15%). Endowed with human and financial re
connected subsectors (see Table 4). sources, IGOs are well-equipped to manage and support partnerships
The most prevalent combinations of actors in CSSPs are those of NGO (Dzebo, 2019). They often lead as powerful orchestrators, which has
and business/industry (46), followed by NGO and research/education been claimed to be key for effective governance (ibid.). Below (section
(38), and NGO and national government (32). When analyzing the 4.6), we further examine the relationship between lead partners and
combination of state and non-state actors in CSSPs (excluding “Others” MSPs’ effectiveness. Finally, we find few MSPs led by subnational actors.
and “NA”; n = 110), we find that most partnerships (65%) involve both In our sample, no city actor, but rather other subnational actors lead
state actors (national governments, IGOs, cities or other subnational MSPs. This is quite surprising given the many city networks, such as C40
actors) and non-state actors (NGOs, research/education, or business/ or 100 Resilient Cities, concerned with building resilient and sustainable
industry). 28% of CSSPs are constellations between different non-state urban areas. It is likely that these networks are simply not registered on
actors, while only 7% are partnerships solely between state actors. the partnership platform.
This underlines again the relevance of non-state actors in global sus In sum, while Pattberg et al. (2012, p.83) concluded that partner
tainability governance, both in combination with state actors, yet also in ships (at the time) “reproduce or even intensify existing relationships in
Fig. 5. Representation of subsectors in partnerships (in %). The figure displays the percentage of partnerships involving at least one partner from the respective
subsector, for both CSSPs (n = 114) and ISSPs (n = 34).
8
Fig. 6. Partner network of CSSPs. The network shows the connections between different subsectors involved in CSSPs for the SDGs (n = 114). The size of the nodes
depicts the total amount of each stakeholder type involved (see also Table 3). The thickness of the edges indicates the number of CSSPs involving at least one partner
from both connecting subsectors (see also Table 4). The network can be explored online at: https://kumu.io/LMAG/msps-for-sdgs.
Table 4
Combination of partners in CSSPs, by subsector. The table depicts the number of CSSPs involving at least one partner from respective subsectors (n = 114).
NGO/ IGO Research and Business and National Government City Other Subnational Other Not
CSO Education Industry (Agencies) Actors indicated
NGO/CSO – – – – – – – – –
IGO 27 – – – – – – – –
Research and Education 38 16 – – – – – – –
Business and Industry 46 17 27 – – – – – –
National Government 32 22 14 20 – – – – –
(Agencies)
City 6 3 7 5 3 – – – –
Other Subnational Actors 17 8 11 11 8 3 – – –
Other 6 2 3 1 4 0 3 – –
Not indicated 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 –
the international system”, our data contrasts their findings, pointing to providing information and expertise (30%), as well as representation
increasing non-state actor involvement over time and in the context of within the partnerships (29%).10 This again points to their role as or
the SDGs. While earlier studies considered the increased participation of chestrators. Additionally, these types of activities suggest that IGOs are
non-state actors in global governance as a shift of political authority involved in partnerships to increase their legitimacy. We further note
from public to private actors (Pattberg and Stripple, 2008), more that the main role of national governments is to fund partnerships. Given
recently the debate has turned to the idea of a “reconfiguration of au that governments are involved in 42% of all CSSPs, this finding un
thority” (Hickmann, 2017, p.432). In this view, non-state action com derlines the remaining importance of nation states in global governance
plements the efforts of governments, but public actors continue to play a besides the growing involvement of non-state actors. Results further
central role in global governance. Our results corroborate this assump show that partners from research and education are primarily concerned
tion, as the next section will elaborate in more detail. with providing information and expertise (28%) as well as communi
cation (24%) and implementation (22%). Together with their partici
pation in 46% of all MSPs, this is another indication of the importance of
4.3. Agency of partners
science-based approaches to SDG implementation, which is a central
component of the nexus approach. Key roles of partners from business
We further analyzed agency within partnerships, i.e., the activities
and industry include representation (23%) and financing (21%). While
assumed by individual actors. Here, we focus on CSSPs only to highlight
critics may interpret representation as pointing towards window-
nuanced differences between actors from different societal subsectors.
Fig. 8 displays the results, focusing on the three most frequently indi
cated activities by stakeholder type.
We find that NGOs are most often involved in implementation (35%), 10
With “representation” we refer to the participation of stakeholders in a
indicating their central role in putting internationally agreed guidelines partnership to represent the respective interests and opinions of their organi
into practice through direct action on the ground. IGOs mostly engage in zation regarding the projects at stake.
9
Fig. 7. Lead partners of MSPs for sustainable development by subsector. The graph shows the distribution of lead partners by subsector for the years 2003 (data
from Andonova and Levy, 2003, p.23; n = 231), 2007 (data from Pattberg et al., 2012, p.81; n = 321) and 2022 (own data for MSPs; n = 145).
dressing, and financing as powerful means to influence decision-making majority of CSSPs, independent of the type of lead partner (except for
or define standards according to their own interests (Chan et al., 2019), subnational actors, excluding cities). Interestingly, this contrasts results
others may see this as sign of growing corporate social responsibility. from Pattberg et al. (2012), who found that partnerships most often
While we find cities to engage most frequently in convening and focus on institution-building rather than on implementation. We find
facilitating participation (50%) as well as implementation (20%), these rulemaking and regulation (33%) as well as standard setting and certi
numbers are almost equal, but reversed, for other subnational actors. fication (36%) to be functions less often assumed by CSSPs. Overall, our
This suggests that subnational actors function as orchestrators and im results suggest that partnerships for the SDGs are predominantly con
plementors in local contexts with a focus on involving stakeholders on cerned with “getting everyone on board” and “getting things done”.
the ground. Considering a lively debate on the importance of “local Regarding NGO-led CSSPs, we find that all functions were rated
izing” the SDGs, i.e., adapting them to the local context for effective “very important” by at least 60%, except standard setting/certification
implementation (Valencia et al., 2019), this is an interesting result. (30%) and rulemaking/regulation (32%). Implementation (87%),
Overall, our analysis of agency in CSSPs confirms earlier findings: knowledge dissemination and capacity building (both 81%) were rated
non-state actors tend to perform rather “soft” activities (except for as core functions of these partnerships. This again confirms the impor
implementation), whereas state actors assume rather “hard” functions tant contribution of NGOs in converting the SDGs into tangible action on
within partnerships. However, by differentiating between societal sub the ground. For CSSPs led by IGOs, we find implementation (90%),
sectors, we could find more nuanced differences. For state actors, we see knowledge production (80%) and capacity building (75%) to be primary
national governments to be primarily responsible for funding, while functions. Comparing this to main activities that IGOs perform as indi
IGOs and subnational actors often appear to orchestrate partnerships, vidual actors in partnerships (see Fig. 8), our results suggest that many
yet most likely at different levels. For non-state actors, we find partners partnerships are established and orchestrated by IGOs as lead partners,
from research and education to provide expertise and engage in with a focus on providing information and expertise to implementing
communication, while business actors mostly represent their interests partners on the ground. Similarly, we find that governments leading
and provide funding to partnerships. Finally, implementation seems to CSSPs do so primarily by funding implementation (89%) and capacity
be a joint effort between state and non-state actors, with NGOs taking a building efforts (78%). These partnerships further rank second in rule
particularly prominent role in this regard. making and regulation (44%) after other partnerships led by sub-
national actors (50%). This was expected, as these rather hard gover
nance functions typically performed by state actors. When research and
4.4. Governance functions education partners take the leading role, we find, as expected, knowl
edge production (80%) and dissemination (70%) as well as imple
Table 5 shows the governance functions that partnerships perform, mentation (80%) to be the main governance functions of these
listed by stakeholder type of the leading partner. To relate our results to partnerships. This corroborates our argument regarding evidence-based
findings from the previous section, we decided to focus also here on SDG implementation in MSPs, especially under the auspice of partners
CSSPs only. On average, we find that most CSSPs are concerned with from the research community. Business-led MSPs are mostly concerned
convening and facilitating participation (74%) as well as implementa with implementation (92%) as well as capacity building (85%). Since we
tion (73%). Convening and facilitating participation serves a variety of found that business actors themselves are not primarily involved in
purposes, such as, inter alia, coordination of stakeholders, ensuring implementation (see Fig. 8), their role as lead partners appears to be
accountability and legitimacy, capacity building and knowledge ex focused on financing projects implemented by others. On the other
change (Betsill and Milkoreit, 2020). According to Betsill and Milkoreit hand, business-led CSSPs rank first in standard setting and certification
(2020, p.78), it “enables the fulfillment of other governance functions if (46%), most likely related to partnerships concerned with private cer
and to the extent that the agent is not willing or able to provide these on tification schemes.
its own”. Thus, this being an important governance function of CSSPs
was expected given their nature of combining partners from different
societal subsectors. Implementation was rated “very important” by the
10
Fig. 8. Activities assumed by partners in CSSPs. The figure shows the three most frequent activities of partners involved in CSSPs by subsector (n = 114).
Percentages relate to the number of actors from the respective sector.
4.5. SDG coverage indicates a need to foster collaboration between different societal sub
sectors in these issue areas.
An analysis of the SDGs covered by MSPs shows that 56% address Leaving SDG 17 (partnerships for the goals) as referring to the means
two or more SDGs in their work. Interestingly, we find that CSSPs more of implementation aside, CSSPs’ work mostly contributes to SDG 13
often than ISSPs address multiple SDGs (59% vs. 42%). Since these re (climate action; 36%), SDG 4 (quality education; 35%), and SDG 5 (gender
sults are based on the goals selected to reflect the partnerships’ main equality; 27%). The focus on SDG 13 is noteworthy, given that imple
purpose, this suggests that partnerships involving different stakeholder mentation efforts at the national level were found to prioritize mainly
types are more likely to consider interrelations between the goals in socio-economic goals (Biermann et al., 2022a). CSSPs thus seems to play
practice. an important complementing role for integrated SDG implementation.
As Fig. 9 shows, SDG 4 (quality education) and, as expected, SDG 17 The relatively high focus on quality education (SDG 4) and gender
(partnerships for the goals) are frequently addressed by both CSSPs and equality (SDG 5) supports this argument, as both goals can be considered
ISSPs. We find CSSPs to address a variety of goals more frequently than cross-cutting issues enabling the attainment of other SDGs (Glass and
ISSPs, i.e., SDG 13 (climate action), SDG 11 (sustainable cities and com Newig, 2019; Leal Filho et al., 2022). SDG 9 (industry, innovation and
munities), SDG 15 (life on land), SDG 16 (peace, justice and strong in infrastructure), SDG 10 (reduced inequalities) and SDG 12 (responsible
stitutions), SDG 10 (reduced inequalities), and SDG 5 (gender equality). consumption and production) are least addressed by CSSPs. It has been
Notably, we find no ISSP focusing on SDG 7 (clean and affordable energy). noted that SDGs 10 and 12 are generally under-researched (Biermann
In contrast, SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 3 (good health and well-being) and et al., 2022a), which may explain to some extent the limited attention
SDG 14 (life below water) are more frequently addressed by ISSPs. This given to these goals. Previous studies have further shown that SDG 9 is
11
Table 5
Governance functions of CSSPs by stakeholder type of lead partner (in %). The cells depict the share of CSSPs that rated a governance function as “very important".
NGO/ IGO Research and Business and National Government Subnational Actors Other/Not Mean
CSO Education Industry (Agencies) (excl. Cities) applicable
(n = (n = (n = 156) (n = 146) (n = 81) (n = 56) (n = 16)

319) 119)
Direct action/ 87 90 80 92 89 0 75 73
Implementation
Capacity building 81 75 40 85 78 50 75 69
Knowledge production 70 80 80 46 56 0 92 61
Knowledge dissemination/ 81 65 70 69 56 50 83 68
Campaigning
Consulting/Policy advice 70 65 20 38 56 50 83 55
Lobbying/Advocacy 60 30 20 31 56 0 75 39
Standard setting/ 30 40 40 46 44 0 50 36
Certification
Convening/Facilitating 74 65 60 69 67 100 83 74
participation
Rulemaking/Regulation 32 35 20 15 44 50 33 33
Monitoring/Review 64 65 40 46 67 50 50 55
Funding/Sponsoring 62 65 40 69 67 50 33 55
highly synergistic with many other goals (Coenen et al., 2022). Conse SDG 10 (reduced inequalities; trade-off pair 1), SDGs 1 (no poverty;
quently, there appears to be untapped potential for partnerships to trade-off pair 2), SDG 6 (clean water and sanitation; trade-off pair 3) and
create additional co-benefits in SDG implementation by focusing more SDG 3 (good health and well-being; trade-off pair 4). According to Pradhan
synergistic action on SDG 9. et al. (2017), SDG 12 to show the most trade-offs with other goals.
We further took a closer look at the SDGs addressed in combination Overall, we find that CSSPs are more likely than ISSPs to address
by CSSPs to examine whether they contribute to integrated SDG multiple SDGs, thus fostering integrated SDG implementation. However,
achievement by considering interrelations between the goals. Fig. 10 we find that partnerships focus more often on synergistic SDG pairs,
shows a heat map of SDG pairs addressed jointly in any combination of while those that potentially involve many trade-offs – e.g., related to
two or more goals selected as reflecting a partnership’s primary objectives SDG 12 – are less often addressed jointly. Based on our results, we
in the survey’s two-stage selection process. suggest encouraging effective CSSPs for potentially conflicting goals in
We find that CSSPs most often address the nexus between quality order to reduce trade-offs and other unintended consequences which
education and gender equality (SDGs 4 and 5). By targeting these cross- might be overlooked in silo approaches. As argued above, the combi
cutting issues jointly, partnerships contribute to integrating both policy nation of knowledge, resources and skills from different societal sub
domains by combining resources, skills, and knowledge from different sectors render these partnerships particularly suitable to do so. We
stakeholder types in action on the ground. Eliminating gender dispar acknowledge that effectively dealing with trade-offs certainly requires
ities in education further constitutes a leverage to increase women strong coordination between partners. Unfortunately, many partner
empowerment and reduce poverty, particularly in countries of the ships might not be sufficiently equipped with the resources to fulfill this
Global South. This is underlined by an observable joint focus on SDG 5 potential, as some indicated explicitly in our survey. On the other hand,
and SDG 1 (poverty eradication). SDG 17 (partnerships) and SDG 13 more partnerships addressing highly synergistic SDG pairs in combina
(climate action) are equally often addressed in combination. This in tion could further increase co-benefits in implementation efforts. While
dicates that partnerships work on fostering collaborative action for many of the most synergistic pairs identified by Pradhan et al. (2017) are
climate protection, thereby complementing (still insufficient) state-led at least moderately covered by CSSPs in our sample, we find untapped
efforts. SDG 13 is further frequently addressed in combination with potential regarding other goals, such as e.g., SDG 3 (good health and
SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities). Since cities are both severely well-being). According to Pradhan et al. (2017), SDG 3 has synergies with
affected by climate change and major polluters, collaborative efforts to many other SDGs, which is however not fully reflected in the work of
address both goals simultaneously are crucial to reducing their adverse CSSPs (see Fig. 10). While this may be due to a perception of health care
environmental impact with a parallel view on securing sustainable as the primary responsibility of the state, unconventional and
socio-economic development. In sum, among the most frequent SDG cross-sectoral approaches could foster progress on SDG 3 and many
nexuses addressed, we find a dominance of SDG 13 (climate action), other goals simultaneously (ibid.; Buse and Hawkes, 2015).
SDG 5 (gender equality) and SDG 4 (education). The SDGs least Finally, we examined which constellations of stakeholder types most
frequently addressed jointly, in contrast, often include SDG 12 frequently address which SDGs. Results show that CSSPs formed solely
(responsible production and consumption) and SDG 10 (reducing among non-state actors (including NGOs, research and education, and
inequalities). business and industry) most often work on SDG 4 (quality education;
We compared our results to a study by Pradhan et al. (2017), who 48%), SDG 13 (climate action; 39%) and SDG 5 (gender equality; 35%).
statistically analyzed synergies and trade-offs among the SDGs. With For those eight purely public CSSPs in our sample (including national
this, we aim to assess whether the patterns we see in partnership ap governments, IGOs, cities, other subnational actors), we find SDG 1 (no
proaches to SDG implementation correspond to previously identified poverty), SDG 8 (decent work and economic growth), SDG 10 (reduced in
interlinkages between the goals. Among the SDG pairs most often equalities), SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities), SDG 13 (climate
addressed in our sample, we find two of the top ten synergistic SDGs action), SDG 14 (life under water) and SDG 17 (partnerships for the goals)
identified by Pradhan et al. (2017, p.1174). These relate to the all covered by two partnerships each (corresponding to 25%). Notably,
city-climate-nexus (SDGs 11 and 13; synergy pair 1), as well as to the purely public partnerships do not address many goals at all, such as SDG
poverty-gender-nexus (SDGs 1 and 5; synergy pair 3). In contrast, four of 2 (zero hunger), SDG 5 (gender equality), SDG 6 (clean water and sanita
the least addressed SDG pairs in our sample are among the top ten tion), SDG 7 (clean and affordable energy), SDG 9 (industry, innovation and
trade-off SDGs identified by Pradhan et al. (2017). All these concern infrastructure), SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production) and SDG
SDG 12 (responsible consumption and production), in combination with 16 (peace, justice and strong institutions). However, as purely public CSSPs
12
Fig. 9. SDGs addressed by MSPs. The figure shows the percentage of CSSPs (n = 113) and ISSPs (n = 31) addressing the respective SDG as “main purpose” of
their action.
represent only 7% in our sample, results should be treated with caution. 4.6. Effectiveness
Lastly, when both state and non-state actors are involved, the SDGs
addressed most often concern climate action (SDG 13; 34%), partner Finally, we asked respondents to evaluate the success of their part
ships (SDG 17; 31%), education (SDG 4; 30%) and gender equality (SDG nership in pursuing its objectives. We find that CSSPs are rated more
5; 25%). Thus, results suggest that education, climate action, gender successful compared to ISSPs, with 51% of CSSPs rated “very success
equality and the enhancement of collaborative implementation efforts ful”, meaning that most or all objectives were achieved. Still 40% re
are topics that are driven forward particularly through cooperation with ported their partnership to be “somewhat successful” (some of the
or among non-state actors in collaborative governance arrangements for objectives were achieved), while only 9% of CSSPs are judged as “hardly
SDGs. Again, this underlines the relevance of involving a diverse set of successful” (none or few of the objectives were achieved). By contrast,
state and non-state actors in SDG implementation efforts since they as only 39% of ISSPs were rated “very successful”, 42% reported “some
sume different yet complementary roles and governance functions in what successful” and 19% reported “hardly successful”. We acknowl
fostering global sustainable development. edge that self-reported success does not constitute an objective
measurement of effectiveness and encourage future research to validate
our findings, e.g., by building on previous research on external and
13
Fig. 10. SDGs addressed jointly by CSSPs. The heat map displays the frequency with which two SDGs are addressed jointly by CSSPs (n = 113). Data relates to the
SDGs included in any combination of goals (two or more) indicated as the partnerships’ primary objectives.
internal conditions for success (see Pattberg and Widerberg, 2016; necessarily seem to be better: Those that communicate (bi-)weekly
Horan, 2019). However, our results suggest a positive impact of (68%) or (bi-)monthly (54%) were most often rated “very successful”,
collaboration between different societal subsectors on partnership compared to 30% communicating daily. Overall, our results support the
effectiveness. argument that effective monitoring, reporting, and evaluation are
To provide a more detailed assessment, we further analyzed which crucial for partnership success by enabling organizational learning,
organizational and institutional characteristics relate to self-reported increasing transparency and legitimacy, and helping meet internal and
effectiveness of CSSPs (see Table 6). First, we find that CSSPs that are external demands for disclosure and accountability (Pattberg and
still active are evaluated much more successful than those that already Widerberg, 2016).
ceased their activity. 38% of inactive partnerships were rated “hardly Finally, results show considerable differences in CSSP (self-reported)
successful”, compared to only 7% of active CSSPs. On the one hand, it effectiveness depending on the type of lead partner. Remarkably, 90% of
could be that active partnerships are still in an early phase in which it IGO-led CSSPs were reported to be very successful. Again, this indicates
may be difficult to adequately assess success. On the other hand, the that IGOs often function as effective orchestrators of partnerships,
relatively high proportion of inactive CSSPs rated hardly successful providing “personnel and resources to support, steer and transform an
could also indicate that they have ceased operations prematurely due to initiative from idea to practice” (Dzebo, 2019, p.458). Similarly, CSSPs
problems such as insufficient funding. led by national governments were mostly reported to meet all or most of
We find no clear relationship between annual project budget and their objectives (67%). Powerful lead partners such as IGOs or govern
(self-reported) effectiveness. While partnerships with a budget of USD ments may not only be important in terms of resource provision, but
100,001–250,000 are most often evaluated “highly effective” (67%), so most likely also add credibility and legitimacy to partnerships, thereby
are still 50% of CSSPs with no budget at all. Similarly, and in accordance positively influencing their effectiveness. However, previous studies
with previous findings (see Dzebo, 2019), we find no clear link between caution against large power asymmetries (Pattberg and Widerberg,
(self-reported) effectiveness and number of staff. 2016), and underline that a clear commitment of powerful, influential
In contrast, our results show regular communication and monitoring partners is key to success (ibid., Beisheim, 2012). In contrast,
to be positively related to partnerships’ self-reported effectiveness. business-led CSSPs and those led by research and education partners
While 50% of CSSPs who do not monitor their activities were rated report low levels of effectiveness. While those critical of for-profit or
“hardly successful”, 52% of those who do monitor reported meeting all ganizations’ involvement in sustainability governance might interpret
or most of their objectives. Additionally, CSSPs without regular these findings as pointing to SDG-washing activities, low levels of
communication among partners were most often rated “hardly suc (self-reported) effectiveness could also relate to more ambitious goal
cessful” (38%). Nevertheless, a higher frequency of exchange does not setting or more critical assessments of success in these partnerships. As
14
Table 6
Effectiveness of CSSPs. The table shows the relationship between organizational and institutional characteristics of CSSPs and their self-reported effectiveness.
n Hardly successful Somewhat successful Very successful
Activity status
Active 113 7% 41% 52%
Inactive 38% 25% 38%
Budget
No budget 113 6% 44% 50%
Less than USD 25,000 18% 27% 55%
USD 25,001–100,000 5% 48% 48%
USD 100,001–250,000 – 33% 67%
USD 250,001–1,000,000 – 53% 47%
More than USD 1,000,000 14% 36% 50%
Unknown/No answer 25% 38% 38%
Staff (people actively involved)
1–5 113 17% 34% 48%
6–20 3% 31% 66%
21–50 – 58% 42%
51–200 9% 45% 45%
More than 200 9% 45% 45%
Unknown 50% – 50%
Communication frequency
Daily 91 20% 50% 30%
Weekly/Bi-weekly 8% 24% 68%
Monthly/Bi-monthly – 46% 54%
3–5 times per year 6% 56% 38%
Once or twice per year 20% 40% 40%
None/not regularly 38% 25% 38%
Monitoring
Yes 113 5% 43% 52%
No 50% 10% 40%
Lead partner
NGO/CSO 113 11% 43% 47%
IGO – 10% 90%
Research and Education 10% 70% 20%
Business and Industry 15% 62% 23%
National Government (Agencies) 11% 22% 67%
Subnational Actors (excl. Cities) – 50% 50%
Other/Not Applicable 8% 42% 50%
we cannot draw a definitive conclusion based on the results of our study, diverse skills, resources and knowledge of the partners involved seems
we encourage future research to explore our findings in more detail. especially important in this regard. Future research should however
assess whether MSPs deliberately consider and, more importantly,
5. Conclusion actually mitigate trade-offs in the nexuses they address. Our results
further suggest an important complementary role of MSPs for SDG
In this article, we analyzed the emerging collaborative governance implementation, as they often address frequently under-represented and
architecture for SDG implementation by means of a survey of 192 MSPs cross-cutting sustainability goals such as climate action (SDG 13),
listed on the UN partnership platform. Compared to previous research, quality education (SDG 4) and gender equality (SDG 5). However, we
our results indicate that partnerships for sustainable development have find untapped potential regarding SDG pairs that potentially involve
become more inclusive over time, involving more non-state actors many trade-offs, such as those concerning SDG 12 (sustainable con
overall, and as leading partners. In particular, we find a strong increase sumption and production) and SDG 10 (reduced inequalities). Here,
in NGO involvement and leadership. We further note that distinguishing collaboration between different societal subsectors could be particularly
between CSSP and ISSPs as different types of MSPs yields additional helpful in advancing integration between the goals with an eye towards
insights, accounting for nuanced differences between diverse societal mitigating potential negative spillovers. Finally, we find MSPs to be
subsectors involved instead of focusing on broader categories such as the relatively well institutionalized, which positively relates to their (self-
public and private sector only. Looking at the activities that state actors reported) effectiveness. Results further show that leadership by IGOs or
perform within MSPs, we find that national governments mostly provide national governments are conducive to success, most likely through
funds, while IGOs and sub-national actors seem to orchestrate partner orchestration efforts and the provision of resources. Overall, our results
ships at different levels. For non-state actors, results show that NGOs are indicate a positive impact of cross-subsector collaboration for partner
primarily involved in direct implementation, research/education part ship effectiveness. Importantly, we acknowledge the limited represen
ners provide expertise, and business actors fund partnerships. Our tativeness of our sample and encourage future research to reassess our
findings thus confirm the idea of a “reconfiguration of authority” results, both through in-depth analyses and large-n studies applying
(Hickmann, 2017) in global sustainability governance, where state ac objective measures of effectiveness.
tion remains central, but is complemented by efforts of non-state actors. Based on our findings, we would like to conclude with an appeal to
Main governance functions assumed by MSPs can be summarized with the UN system. First, we strongly encourage the UN to make the un
“getting everyone on board” and “getting things done”, i.e., focusing on derlying data of their partnership platform readily available to the
convening and facilitating participation as well as implementation on public, especially to advance research, knowledge generation, and ul
the ground. Our findings on SDGs coverage show that CSSPs more timately, SDG implementation. Second, there appears to be much room
frequently than ISSPs address multiple SDGs, which suggests a relatively for improvement regarding the monitoring, review and follow-up of
strong ‘nexus’-orientation by partnerships involving actors from partnerships registered. Currently, transparency and accountability
different societal subsectors. Their cross-subsector nature combining seem limited, with data often being missing, incomplete or outdated.
15
Further, some of the partnerships we contacted during our research Bennich, T., Weitz, N., Carlsen, H., 2020. Deciphering the scientific literature on SDG
interactions: a review and reading guide. Sci. Total Environ. 728, 138405 https://
process were not even aware of their listing on the platform, and others
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138405.
commented in the survey about the lacking support on behalf of the UN. Betsill, M., Milkoreit, M., 2020. The performance of agency in earth system governance.
Additionally, sound monitoring, review and follow-up could help reduce In: Betsill, M., Benney, T., Gerlak, A. (Eds.), Agency in Earth System Governance.
the opportunity for SDG- or blue-washing. Third, greater engagement Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Biermann, F., Abbott, K., Andresen, S., Bäckstrand, K., Bernstein, S., Betsill, M.,
with partnerships registered on the platform could accelerate SDG Bulkeley, H., Cashore, B., Clapp, J., Folke, K., Gupta, A., Gupta, J., Haas, P.,
achievement. For example, drawing on scientific research, the UN could Jordan, A., Kanie, N., Kluvánková-Oravská, T., Lebel, L., Liverman, D.,
actively promote the establishment of MSPs for SDGs potentially Meadowcroft, J., et al., 2012. Transforming governance and institutions for global
sustainability: key insights from the Earth System Governance Project. Curr. Opin.
involving many trade-offs and steer them towards nexus approaches to Environ. Sustain. 4, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.01.014.
improve integrated implementation of the goals. They could further help Biermann, F., Hickmann, T., Sénit, C.A., Beisheim, M., Bernstein, S., Chasek, P., Grob, L.,
to connect partnerships with a similar issue focus to foster resource and Kim, R.E., Kotzé, L., Nilsson, M., Ordoñez Llanos, A., Okereke, C., Pradhan, P.,
Raven, R., Sun, Y., Vijge, M.J., van Vuuren, D., Wicke, B., 2022a. Scientific evidence
knowledge sharing. We recognize that all of this requires political will on the political impact of the sustainable development goals. Nat. Sustain. https://
and sufficient resources. Yet, operating a transparent and accountable doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00909-5.
partnership platform – rather than using it as a vehicle for showcasing Biermann, F., Hickmann, T., Sénit, C.A. (Eds.), 2022b. The Political Impact of the
Sustainable Development Goals. Transforming Governance through Global Goals?.
(sometimes questionable or inexistent) action – could help increase Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
credibility and legitimacy, and mobilize more effective partnerships that Boas, I., Biermann, F., Kanie, N., 2016. Cross-sectoral strategies in global sustainability
as we have shown can serve important complementary functions in ef governance: towards a nexus approach. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. 16
(3), 449–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-016-9321-1.
forts to achieve the SDGs.
Bowen, K.J., Cradock-Henry, N.A., Koch, F., Patterson, J., Häyhä, T., Vogt, J., Barbi, F.,
2017. Implementing the “Sustainable Development Goals”: towards addressing three
key governance challenges – collective action, trade-offs, and accountability. Curr.
Declaration of competing interest Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26 (27), 90–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cosust.2017.05.002.
Brinkerhoff, D.W., Brinkerhoff, J.M., 2011. Public–private partnerships: perspectives on
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal re purposes, publicness, and good governance. Publ. Adm. Dev. 31, 2–14.
lationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Buse, K., Hawkes, S., 2015. Health in the sustainable development goals: ready for a
paradigm shift? Glob. Health 11 (1), 13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-015-0098-
Simon Ruf is employed by the German Federal Foreign Office. His 8.
contributions to the article were made in a personal capacity and do not Chan, S., Boran, I., van Asselt, H., Iacobuta, G., Niles, N., Rietig, K., Scobie, M.,
stand in connection with his professional affiliation. Bansard, J., Delgado Pugley, D., Delina, L., Eichhorn, F., Ellinger, P., Enechi, O.,
Hale, T., Hermwille, L., Hickmann, T., Honegger, M., Hurtado Epstein, A., La Hoz
Theuer, S., et al., 2019. Promises and risks of nonstate action in climate and
Data availability sustainability governance. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 10 (3), 1–8. https://
doi.org/10.1002/wcc.572.
Coenen, J., Glass, L.-M., Sanderink, L., 2022. Two degrees and the SDGs: a network
Data will be made available on request.
analysis of the interlinkages between transnational climate actions and the
Sustainable Development Goals. Sustain. Sci. 17, 1489–1510. https://doi.org/
Appendix A. Supplementary data 10.1007/s11625-021-01007-9.
Dahlmann, F., Stubbs, W., Raven, R., Porto de Albuquerque, J., 2020. The ‘purpose
ecosystem’: emerging private sector actors in earth system governance. Earth Syst.
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. Gov. 4, 100053.
org/10.1016/j.esg.2023.100182. Dzebo, A., 2019. Effective governance of transnational adaptation initiatives. Int.
Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. 19, 447–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10784-019-09445-8.
References Esparcia, J., Moseley, M., Noguera, J., 2000. Exploring Rural Development Partnerships
in Europe. An Analysis of 330 Local Partnerships across Eight EU Countries.
University of Valencia, Valencia, ES.
Andonova, L.B., 2014. Boomerangs to partnerships? Explaining state participation in
Glass, L.-M., Newig, J., 2019. Governance for achieving the Sustainable Development
transnational partnerships for sustainability. Comp. Polit. Stud. 47 (3), 481–515.
Goals: how important are participation, policy coherence, reflexivity, adaptation and
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013509579.
democratic institutions? Earth Syst. Gov. 2, 100031 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Andonova, L.B., Levy, M.A., 2003. Franchising global governance: making sense of the
esg.2019.100031.
Johannesburg Type II Partnerships. In: Stokke, O.S., Thommessen, O.B. (Eds.),
Gusmão Caiado, R.G., Leal Filho, W., Quelhas, O.L.G., Luiz de Mattos Nascimento, D.,
Yearbook of International Co-operation on Environment and Development.
Ávila, L.V., 2018. A literature-based review on potentials and constraints in the
Earthscan, Oxford, UK.
implementation of the sustainable development goals. J. Clean. Prod. 198,
Andonova, L.B., Hale, T., Roger, C., 2017. National policy and transnational governance
1276–1288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.102.
of climate change: substitutes or complements? Int. Stud. Q. 61 (2), 253–268.
Haywood, L.K., Funke, N., Audouin, M., Musvoto, C., Nahman, A., 2019. The sustainable
https://doi.org/10.1093/isq/sqx014.
development goals in South Africa: investigating the need for multi-stakeholder
Bäckstrand, K., 2006. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development:
partnerships. Dev. South Afr. 36 (5), 555–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/
rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. Eur. Environ. 16 (5),
0376835X.2018.1461611.
290–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.425.
Hickmann, T., 2017. The reconfiguration of authority in global climate governance. Int.
Bäckstrand, K., 2008. Accountability of networked climate governance: the rise of
Stud. Rev. 19, 430–451.
transnational climate partnerships. Glob. Environ. Polit. 8 (3), 74–102. https://doi.
Horan, D., 2019. A new approach to partnerships for SDG transformations. Sustainability
org/10.1162/glep.2008.8.3.74.
11, 4947. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11184947.
Bäckstrand, K., 2012. Are partnerships for sustainable development democratic and
Jayasooria, D., 2016. Sustainable development goals and social work: opportunities and
legitimate? In: Pattberg, P., Biermann, F., Chan, S., Mert, A. (Eds.), Public–private
challenges for social work practice in Malaysia. J. Human Rights Soc. Work 1 (1),
Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Emergence, Influence and Legitimacy.
19–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-016-0007-y.
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK.
Leal Filho, W., Kovaleva, M., Tsani, S., Țîrcă, D.-M., Shiel, C., Dinis, M.A.P., Nicolau, M.,
Bäckstrand, K., Kuyper, J.W., Linnér, B.O., Lövbrand, E., 2017. Non-state actors in global
Sima, M., Fritzen, B., Lange Salvia, A., Minhas, A., Kozlova, V., Doni, F., Spiteri, J.,
climate governance: from Copenhagen to Paris and beyond. Environ. Polit. 26 (4),
Gupta, T., et al., 2022. Promoting gender equality across the sustainable
561–579. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2017.1327485.
development goals. Environ. Dev. Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-022-
Beisheim, M., 2012. Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Why and How Rio+20 Must
02656-1.
Improve the Framework for Multi-stakeholder Partnerships. RP 3. Stiftung Wissenschaft
Liu, J., Hull, V., Godfray, H.C.J., Tilman, D., Gleick, P., Hoff, H., Pahl-Wostl, C., Xu, Z.,
und Politik. German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
Chung, M.G., Sun, J., Li, S., 2018. Nexus approaches to global sustainable
Beisheim, M., Liese, A., 2014. Transnational Partnerships: Effectively Providing for
development. Nat. Sustain. 1, 466–476. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0135-
Sustainable Development? Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
8.
Beisheim, M., Simon, N., 2016. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for implementing the
Moreno-Serna, J., Purcell, W.M., Sánchez-Chaparro, T., Soberón, M., Lumbreras, J.,
2030 agenda: improving accountability and transparency. In: Analytical Paper for
Mataix, C., 2020. Catalyzing transformational partnerships for the SDGs:
the 2016 ECOSOC Partnership Forum. German Institute for International and
effectiveness and impact of the multi-stakeholder initiative el día después.
Security Affairs, Berlin. Retrieved from. https://www.un.org/ecosoc/sites/www.un.
Sustainability 12, 7189. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177189.
org.ecosoc/files/files/en/2016doc/partnership-forum-beisheim-simon.pdf.
Nasiritousi, N., Hjerpe, M., Linnér, B.-O., 2016. The roles of non-state actors in climate
Beisheim, M., Simon, N., 2018. Multistakeholder partnerships for the SDGs: actors’ views
change governance: understanding agency through governance profiles. Int.
on UN metagovernance. Glob. Gov. 24, 497–515.
16
Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. 16 (1), 109–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Pattberg, P., Biermann, F., Chan, S., Mert, A. (Eds.), Public–private Partnerships for
s10784-014-9243-8. Sustainable Development: Emergence, Influence and Legitimacy. Edward Elgar,
Newig, J., Challies, E., Cotta, B., Lenschow A, A., Schilling-Vacaflor, A., 2020. Governing Cheltenham, UK.
global telecoupling toward environmental sustainability. Ecol. Soc. 25 (4), 21. United Nations, 2015. Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11844-250421. Development (A/RES/70/1. Retrieved from. http://undocs.org/A/RES/70/1.
Nilsson, M., Chisholm, E., Griggs, D., Howden-Chapman, P., McCollum, D., Messerli, P., United Nations, 2022. The partnership platform. Available at: https://sdgs.un.org/part
Stafford-Smith, M., 2018. Mapping interactions between the Sustainable nerships.
Development Goals: lessons learned and ways forward. Sustain. Sci. 13 (6), Utting, P., Zammit, A., 2009. United nations–business partnerships: good intentions and
1489–1503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0604-z. contradictory agendas. J. Bus. Ethics 90 (1), 39–56.
Pattberg, P., Stripple, J., 2008. Beyond the public and private divide: remapping Valencia, S.C., Simon, D., Croese, S., Nordqvist, J., Oloko, M., Sharma, T., Buck, N.T.,
transnational climate governance in the 21st century. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Versace, I., 2019. Adapting the sustainable development goals and the new urban
Law Econ. 8, 367–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-008-9085-3. agenda to the city level: initial reflections from a comparative research project. Int.
Pattberg, P., Widerberg, O., 2016. Transnational multistakeholder partnerships for J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 11 (1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/
sustainable development: conditions for success. Ambio 45, 42–51. https://doi.org/ 19463138.2019.1573172.
10.1007/s13280-015-0684-2. van Zanten, J.A., van Tulder, R., 2021a. Towards nexus-based governance: defining
Pattberg, P., Biermann, F., Chan, S., Mert, A. (Eds.), 2012. Public-private Partnerships for interactions between economic activities and Sustainable Development Goals
Sustainable Development: Emergence, Influence and Legitimacy. Edward Elgar, (SDGs). Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 28 (3), 210–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Cheltenham, UK. 13504509.2020.1768452.
Pradhan, P., Costa, L., Rybski, D., Lucht, W., Kropp, J.P., 2017. A systematic study of van Zanten, J.A., van Tulder, R., 2021b. Improving companies’ impacts on sustainable
sustainable development goal (SDG) interactions. Earth’s Future 5 (11), 1169–1179. development: a nexus approach to the SDGS. Bus. Strat. Environ. 30, 3703–3720.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2017EF000632. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2835.
Stafford-Smith, M., Griggs, D., Gaffney, O., Ullah, F., Reyers, B., Kanie, N., O’Connell, D., Weitz, N., Carlsen, H., Nilsson, M., Skånberg, K., 2018. Towards systemic and contextual
2017. Integration: the key to implementing the sustainable development goals. priority setting for implementing the 2030 agenda. Sustain. Sci. 13 (2), 531–548.
Sustain. Sci. 12 (6), 911–919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0383-3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0470-0.
Stibbe, D., Prescott, D., 2020. The SDG Partnership Guidebook: A Practical Guide to Building Widerberg, O., Boran, I., Chan, S., Deneault, A., Kok, M., Negacz, K., Pattberg, P.,
High-Impact Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships for the Sustainable Development Goals. The Petersson, M., 2022. Finding synergies and trade-offs when linking biodiversity and
Partnering Initiative and UNDESA. Retrieved from. https://sdgs.un.org/publications climate change through cooperative initiatives. Glob. Policy 1–5. https://doi.org/
/sdg-partnership-guidebook-24566. 10.1111/1758-5899.13158.
Stott, L., Murphy, D., 2020. An inclusive approach to partnerships for the SDGs: using a United Nations, 2023. Progress Towards the Sustainable Development Goals: Towards a
relationship lens to explore the potential for transformational collaboration. Rescue Plan for People and Planet. Retrieved from. https://hlpf.un.org/sites/defau
Sustainability 12 (19), 7905. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197905. lt/files/2023-04/SDG%20Progress%20Report%20Special%20Edition.pdf.
Szulecki, K., Pattberg, P., Biermann, F., 2012. Partnerships for sustainable development
in the energy sector: explaining variation in their problem-solving effectiveness. In:
17

1 s2.0 S2589811623000198 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S2589811623000198 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S2589811623000198 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Earth System Governance 17 (2023) 100182

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Earth System Governance

MSPs for the SDGs – Assessing the collaborative governance architecture of

1. Introduction challenges to achieving sustainable development by 2030 remain

MSPs are commonly regarded as voluntary collaborative agreements Table 1

CSSPs 319 119 156 146 81 10 56 16 9

(n = (n = (n = 156) (n = 146) (n = 81) (n = 56) (n = 16)

You might also like