The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2042-6763.htm

Social
Partnering for UN SDG #17: a marketing
social marketing partnership partnership
model
model to scale up and accelerate
change 49
Sinead Duane Received 13 October 2020
Revised 30 March 2021
Department of Marketing, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway and 12 July 2021
Ryan Institute, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland 26 July 2021
Accepted 29 July 2021
Christine Domegan
Department of Marketing, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland, and
Brendan Bunting
Department of Psychology, Faculty of Life and Health Sciences,
University of Ulster, Coleraine, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The United Nations (UN) 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) places partnerships as a vital
mechanism, which strengthens the implementation of change strategies. The SDG targets are ambitious;
acknowledging the interconnected multifaceted issues that are currently facing society. Similarly, social
marketing thought is transitioning to embrace systemic change strategies, realising no one organisation can
have an impact on the emerging grand challenges. Partnerships are the 5th P in the social marketing mix,
however, partnerships is also a nebulous term which has been criticised for lacking theoretical development.
This study aims to answer the call from both the UN and social marketing community for further research to
guide the development and implementation of impactful transformative partnerships.
Design/methodology/approach – A robust mixed method approach to develop and test a social
marketing partnership model is presented. Trust and relationship commitment are at the forefront of
successful partnership exchanges. Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) trust and relationship commitment model is
extended into the social marketing domain.
Findings – The findings validate Hasting’s (2003) call for social marketers to listen to their commercial
marketing counterparts, positioning trust and commitment as essential to change strategies. As the degree of
complexities in the multifaceted world continues to accelerate, partnerships for change (UN SDG #17) will pay
off, driving more effective and smarter collaborations amongst a diverse range of stakeholders at different
levels in different networks. Partnerships will elevate social marketing to deliver systemic transformation for
complex problems with far reaching collective and sustainable consequences.

© Sinead Duane, Christine Domegan and Brendan Bunting. Published by Emerald Publishing
Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone
may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and
non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full
terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
The authors would like to acknowledge safefood the funders of this research, Dr Marita Journal of Social Marketing
Vol. 12 No. 1, 2022
Hennessey and the safefood team who co-designed the Get Your Life in Gear intervention. We would pp. 49-75
also like to acknowledge and thank the Get Your Life in Gear steering group members. We would Emerald Publishing Limited
2042-6763
also like to thank research participants. DOI 10.1108/JSOCM-10-2020-0200
JSOCM Research limitations/implications – With trust/mistrust critical to successful exchanges and
exchange central to social marketing, quantitative measurement of the antecedents to and outcomes of
12,1 partnerships can inform the evaluation, impact and management of social marketing interventions.
Practical implications – Three contributions are made, which support the selection, implementation and
evaluation of social marketing partnerships. Key social marketing partnership characteristics are
operationalised supporting the partnership selection process. Measurement scales are developed to assist in
evaluating partnership relationships over time. The model is empirically tested to investigate the
50 relationships between key mediating variables of social marketing partnerships.
Originality/value – This paper presents a validated 5th P Partnership model for social marketers,
accelerating social marketing’s capacities to deliver systemic transformation for complex problems with far
reaching collective and sustainable consequences and UN SDG #17.
Keywords Structural equation modelling, Social marketing theory
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
The 17 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) provide a global agenda
for change calling for urgent action through global partnerships (United Nations, 2019). This
landmark blueprint accepts that the issues facing society are multifaceted, dynamic and
interconnected making them hypercomplex. For example, the targets for SDG #1 “no
poverty” cannot be achieved without tackling other interrelated SDGs such as SDG #4
“quality education” and SDG #5 “gender inequality” issues. Multi-stakeholder partnerships
across developed and developing economies are vital to achieving the ambitious SDGs
targets by 2030, so much so that “partnering for the goals” has been identified as a
standalone SDG #17. Successful partnerships in this context require cross-sectoral
responses, which transpose country boundaries collaborating between governments, the
private sector and civil society. These inclusive partnerships are built upon the notion that
“principles and values, a shared vision and shared goals that place people and the planet at
the centre, are needed at the global, regional, national and local level” (UN Sustainable
Development Goals, 2021). Social good, shared vision and goals are central to the UN vision
for transformative partnerships, as is trust, which can be strengthened or diminished over
time (United Nations, 2020).
Although viewed as a key success factor for achieving SDGs, just like the problems they
are trying to address, partnership relationships can be complex and dynamic. A reflective
approach is required to guide their continued development (United Nations, 2020). To
support impactful multi-stakeholder partnerships, research is urgently required into the
mechanisms or active ingredients for developing effective partnerships to support capacity
and skills building, as well as partnership evaluation, so that collective action can manifest
(ibid).
Social marketing as an approach has the potential to support the global efforts to meet
SDG targets through collective action strategies. Similar to the SDGs, social marketing as a
discipline places social good as the primary objective guiding all behavioural, societal and
systemic change activities. Transformative and sustainable behaviour change outcomes are
associated with integrated interventions, highly participatory, collaborative partnerships
and trust-orientated social marketing programmes (Eagle et al., 2016). Social marketing has
also positioned partnership approaches as central to change activities. Partnerships have
been part of the formation of behavioural change strategies for in excess of 50 years and
have even been described as the “5th P” in the social marketing mix (Donovan and Henley,
2010; Weinreich, 2011). Partnership insights have also been included as part of the definition
of social marketing (Tapp and Sherif, 2013). The importance of cross-sectoral partnerships is
further captured in the emerging macro social marketing (Biroscak et al., 2014; Brennan, Social
2016; Kennedy, 2016) and systems social marketing discourses (Biroscak et al., 2014; marketing
Domegan et al., 2016; Kennedy, 2016; Zürcher, 2018; Truong et al., 2019). This holistic or
partnership
systems-based change approach has the potential to understand the interdependency and
interconnectedness between the issues we seek to address (Flaherty et al., 2020). It also model
acknowledges the significant roles that stakeholders play in developing solutions when
addressing collective action problems, with stakeholder engagement equating to better 51
behavioural outcomes (Domegan, 2021; Domegan et al., 2019).
Research into the conceptual development of social marketing partnerships is lacking
(Truong, 2017; Truong and Dietrich, 2018), not because it is unimportant but rather because
as Hasting’s (2003) mentions, partnerships are difficult to understand and manage whatever
the social marketing issue being examined. Social marketing will continue to suffer if
partnership development at a managerial or theoretical level does not occur, especially when
faced with any one of the UN SDG (Lee, 2020). A recent critical review of the evolution of
social marketing partnerships took the first steps in understanding social marketing
partnerships. It found that partnership approaches have been used, as the advent of the
discipline in different forms. Social marketing has continued to evolve in response to the
dynamic issues it faces, as did the role of partnerships. It concluded that a definitional
ambiguity surrounding social marketing partnerships remains. In the absence of a
definition, partnerships can be conceptualised by examining the key characteristics
common across three eras of social marketing development, from a transactional to
formalisation to an integrated systems approach (Duane and Domegan, 2019). Key
characteristics include shared interest/value, sharing of resources (tangible and intangible),
formal agreement, prioritisation of partners and trust and commitment. However, the
relationships between these characteristics has never been empirically tested (ibid).
The overall aim of this paper is to develop and empirically test a social marketing
partnership model to scale up collective action. This research answers the UN call for further
exploration into strategies to support the development of mechanisms and platforms to
revitalise global partnerships. For the first time from a social marketing perspective, a
theoretical model for the development and maintenance of social marketing partnerships is
discussed. This research contributes to:

the operationalising of social marketing partnership constructs, which can be used
to support the partnership selection process;

the development of social marketing partnership scales, which could be used to
evaluate existing multi-stakeholder partnership relationships and guide their long
term implementation;

empirically test the proposed social marketing partnership model to deepen our
understanding of the dynamic interactions between the key characteristics of social
marketing partnerships. This knowledge supports the development of mechanisms
to improve the efficiency of partnership selection and maintenance activities; and

identifying the active ingredients to support capacity and skills building to foster
collective action.

This paper begins by discussing how relational thinking guided the theoretical development
of the first social marketing partnership model. The latter half of this paper introduces the
model building and testing process, followed by a discussion on how this knowledge can
help achieve UN SDGs targets and accelerate the scaling up of change activities.
JSOCM Relational thinking for social marketing partnerships
12,1 The centralised role of partnerships is undisputed however, the theoretical development of it
is lacking (Duane and Domegan, 2019; Hastings, 2003). Marketing exchange as a defining
characteristic within social marketing (Hastings and Saren, 2003) can be used to illustrate
the important role of relational thinking in twenty-first century partnership development.
Whilst it is beyond the scope of this article to discuss the role of exchange theory in detail,
52 which is discussed elsewhere (Duane et al., 2016), it is important to introduce the notion of
“complex exchange”, which reflects the type of partnership approaches needed to address
the SDGs.
The type of multilevel, cross-sectoral partnerships needed to meet SDG targets are
beyond simple restricted exchange activities that were traditionally built on short term,
discrete transactions (Domegan et al., 2019). Instead, transformative partnerships manifest
as complex exchanges that are defined as “a system of mutual relationships between at least
three parties” (Bagozzi, 1975 p. 33). Complex exchanges represent webs or networks of
exchanges between multiple parties and can be direct and indirect usually developing over
time (Duane et al., 2016). Time is important to social marketers as there is usually a delay
between the return on investment in these high involvement exchanges as the impact of
partnership activities is not instant (Hastings and Saren, 2003). The presence of time permits
the development of trusting relationships as it allows partners to observe each other’s
responses to issues as they arise. For instance, is engagement maintained or do tensions
manifest (Domegan et al., 2019)? Trust underlines effective partnerships in social marketing
(Lefebvre, 2012) and is central to the development of any social marketing programme
(Hastings, 2003). The non-profit nature of social marketing places trust as central to social
marketing relationships (Hastings, 2003) where society is the focus of benefit and not the
shareholder (Lefebvre, 2012). Trust is central to the development of any long-term
relationships as trust should increase over time (Johansson et al., 2018). Time is a critical
factor that transitions trust into commitment (ibid). Commitment and trust are thought to be
greater amongst parties whom do not receive monetary rewards for their activities
(Hastings and Saren, 2003). Trust also manifests as reliability and dependency over time,
reinforcing the notion of certainty within change relationships (Baloch et al., 2020). Trust
has also been described as a value, the impact of which spans beyond interpersonal
relationships, a trait that prevents stakeholders from losing confidence in change activities
(Lefebvre, 2012). This is important when addressing highly complex multifaceted issues. If
there is no trust or commitment, the motivation to continue a relationship diminishes (Singer
and Kayson, 2004). Trust and commitment allow for a working relationship to manifest in
the presence of different sectors, different values or marketing systems (Choi et al., 2007).
This type of cross-sectoral transfer impacts on the level of trust, and therefore, commitment
because it also introduces new types of transactions (Andreasen, 2001).
As social marketers continue to adopt systemic change activities built on complex
exchange systems, there is a renewed recognition of the role of relational thinking and
associated partnership constructs in social marketing. Hastings (2003) was one of the first
social marketers to recognise the potential of relational thinking for the discipline. This
expanded approach recognises mutual beneficial relationships as an important
consideration when dealing with high involvement multifaceted issues (Hastings, 2003).
This perspective positions trust and commitment at the core of developing long-term
relationships, particularly in the non-profit environment. Relational thinking promotes
partnership development through the identification of motivational opportunities because of
the presence of trust (Gordon, 2013). It is built on the premise of customer satisfaction that
again transitions from a short term to a longer-term sustainable orientation. In addition,
Brennan et al. (2016 p. 232) propose six key social marketing characteristics that highlight Social
the appropriateness of relational thought in social marketing: marketing

the absence of the profit motive;
partnership

the focus on high-involvement decisions; model

complex and multifaceted behaviours;

changes that take a long time;
53

the relevance of trust; and

the need to target the most needy and hard-to-reach groups in society.

As described above, the complex and high involvement nature of social marketing asserts
that characteristics such as trust and commitment must be present to move beyond once off
transactions into longer-term relationships. To meet SDG targets, social marketers need to
transpose sector, organisations and communications with trust and commitment becoming
the foundations of cooperative working.
There is an opportunity to extend Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) relationship commitment
and trust model into the social marketing domain to improve our understanding of how to
establish, develop and maintain partnerships when dealing with complex exchange
activities. Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) model is one of the best-known relationships marketing
theories guiding the development of long term cooperative behaviours in the commercial
context (Figure 1). Trust and relationship commitment were conceptualised as being central
constructs in the seminal Morgan and Hunt’s relational model (Morgan and Hunt, 1994).
They hypothesize that key mediating variables (antecedents and outcomes) have a positive
or negative impact on the central constructs and this conceptualisation can help select
partners and evaluate partnership performance.
This model represented a paradigm shift within traditional marketing theory. It marked
a transition from a transactional perspective to a relational network paradigm that
attributes interrelationships and cooperation as key to competing in hyper-competitive

Figure 1.
Morgan and Hunt’s
(KMV) model of
relationship
JSOCM marketplaces (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). This relationship marketing orientation moves
12,1 beyond the selling of core products to understanding the value of interactions, relationships
and networks (Gummesson, 1994). As discussed, a similar transformation is underway
within social marketing, moving from traditionally restricted exchange orientations to a
complex one to address the multifaceted systemic issues that are currently facing our
societies. Taking any of the 17 SDGs as an example; #1 no poverty, #2 zero hunger, #4
54 quality education, #14 life below water, it becomes clear that these issues transcend
societies, borders and marketing systems. No one organisation can successfully address
these issues thereby networks, interactions and relationships become critical for success.
Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) model has been tested in many different contexts and settings
including the non-profit sector (MacMillan et al., 2005). For the first time, it is extended into
the social marketing domain. The remainder of this paper will discuss this process. Key
constructs of social marketing partnerships will be identified and operationalised using
social marketing literature, a longitudinal case study analysis and expert in-depth
interviews. The relationships between constructs is subsequently hypothesized and
empirically tested with social marketing experts. This paper will conclude with a discussion
on how this model can assist the UN to meet SDG targets in the future.

Extending Morgan and Hunt’s relational model into social marketing

Using Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) approach for guidance, a rigorous mixed method process
was undertaken to extend and empirically test Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) model into the
social marketing domain. The first step, a critical review of the social marketing literature,
identified if the key constructs validated in the commercial context existed in a social
marketing domain. The critical review mapped the theoretical and conceptual evolution of
partnerships since the conception of social marketing. Constructs that support successful
social marketing partnership development were identified including shared interest/value,
sharing of resources (tangible and intangible), formal agreement, prioritisation of partners,
trust and commitment. A disconnect between the application of social marketing
partnerships and its theoretical development was also illustrated (Duane and Domegan,
2019).
An explanatory case study was undertaken to build the hypothesized model and pre-test
the social marketing constructs (Hunt, 2010a, 2010b). Case study analysis allowed for the
examination of the constructs of social marketing partnerships in a real life context prior to
model testing (Platt, 2006). The case study also operationalised construct definitions and
supported scale development. Data for the case study was collected across two and a half
years of the development of a workplace social marketing initiative funded by a government
agency. Unlike the critical review, this process allowed for the examination of the
relationships between constructs. This process assisted with predicting and explaining how
partnership relationships manifest before determining a theory (Sutton and Staw, 1995). The
case study design also supported the intersubjective reliability of key constructs by helping
to establish operational definitions. The final key social marketing partnership constructs
were then modelled as key mediating variables and research hypotheses.
Finally, the model was empirically tested through an online quantitative survey with
behavioural change experts. Social marketing is a small but growing community. Experts
whose organisations had engaged in partnership activities and whose work engaged with
five of the eight benchmark criteria were invited to undertake the survey. Experts were
invited to respond to the survey as representatives of their organisation. The survey was
distributed online through social marketing networks. The next section discusses the
operationalised definitions for the social marketing partnership constructs and presents the Social
hypothesized social marketing partnership model. marketing
partnership
Social marketing partnership key mediating variables
Trust and relationship commitment
model
As the role of trust and commitment have been justified, the discussion will focus on the
operationalised definition for these constructs. Morgan and Hunt (1994) conceptualised trust 55
as “when one party has confidence in an exchange partner’s reliability and integrity”
(Morgan and Hunt, 1994, p. 23). This definition of trust was too commercially orientated and
did not reflect the value orientation of trust within social marketing. MacMillan et al. (2005)
believed that trust was defined through the sub-constructs reliability, dependability and
faith (MacMillan et al., 2005). These attributes are also supported in the social marketing
domain. The case analysis identified that the concept of trust was associated with
characteristics such as reliability and predictability. When the trust was eroded, the
commitment levels within the partnership were questioned; if the trust was high the
perceived level of commitment was as well.
Commitment manifests over time in the presence of trust. Morgan and Hunt define
relationship commitment as “an exchange partner believing that an ongoing relationship
with another is so important as to warrant maximum efforts at maintaining it; that is, the
committed party believes the relationship is worth working on to ensure that it endures
indefinitely” (Morgan and Hunt, 1994, p. 23). This definition was reflective of how
relationship commitment was perceived within social marketing, and therefore, accepted.

Antecedents of commitment and trust

In the social marketing model, there are only three antecedent variables; mutual benefits,
shared values and communication. Opportunistic behaviour and relationship termination
costs were not supported in the literature and so are not discussed within. Relationship
benefit was modified to become mutual benefits.
Mutual benefit. Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) economic dependence construct (relationship
benefits), which measures the switching costs of partners was not supported by the social
marketing literature. MacMillan et al. (2005) also rejected relationship benefits replacing it
with nonmaterial benefits. Within the social marketing context, nonmaterial benefits is also
deemed unsuitable. Nonmaterial benefits does not account for the tangible and intangible
exchanges that manifest through multifaceted social marketing partnerships. Therefore, the
construct was modified to become a mutual benefit. Mutual benefit is an important
construct within social marketing relational exchanges because of the non-profit nature of
activities and delay in behavioural delay outcomes (Hastings and Saren, 2003). The type of
knowledge transfer that Andreasen (2001) introduces is identified to be reciprocal, meaning
that it penetrates deep within the relationship. Therefore, mutual benefit is operationalised
as reciprocity and complementary resources. This definition is supported in the wider
marketing literature whereby organisations achieve added value within cooperative
relationships by eliminating deficiencies in their capabilities by the sharing of resources to
achieve their organisational goals (Lambe et al., 2002). Due to the non-profit nature of social
marketing, stakeholders might not have all the resources and capabilities to catalyse
change, through mutual benefit activities are stronger as resource deficits are reduced. This
type of sharing of resources only positively manifests when the organisation is committed to
the relationship and can benefit from it. For example, the partnership assists in meeting
goals within the social change market place. This was reinforced within the case study as
every partner benefited either tangibly or intangible from the partnership. When partners
JSOCM failed to benefit from the partnership, their commitment decreased. Complementary
12,1 resources are identified as an appropriate means of measuring this construct as it captured
both tangible and intangible benefits. Complementary resources are defined as an
organisation’s ability to eliminate deficiencies in their capabilities by the sharing of
resources to achieve their organisational goals (Lambe et al., 2002):

H1. There is a positive relationship between mutual benefit and commitment.

56
Shared values. Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) definition of shared values is accepted, and
therefore, conceptualised as “the extent to which partners have beliefs in common about
what behaviours, goals and policies are important or unimportant, appropriate or
inappropriate and right or wrong” (Morgan and Hunt, 1994 p. 25). This is the only
antecedent that is directly connected to both commitment and trust. Shared values is
identified as one of the most essential elements for social marketing partnerships to achieve
high impact (Crutchfield and Mc Leod Grant, 2008). The sharing of values positively equates
to goal convergence, which is directly related to the presence of trust (Legarde et al., 2005).
Similarly, the presence of shared values is a precursor of commitment as it reduces the
presence of tension, which erodes trust, and therefore, has an impact on commitment. This
assertion was further emphasised within the case study. When goal convergence and shared
values existed, partners adopted a similar approach to problem-solving. This had a positive
impact on both trust and commitment:

H2. There is a positive relationship between shared values and relationship

commitment.
H3. There is a positive relationship between shared values and trust.

Communication
Morgan and Hunt conceptualised communication using Anderson and Narus’s (1990)
definition, “the formal, as well as informal sharing of meaningful and timely information
between firms” (Anderson and Narus, 1990, p. 44). MacMillan et al. (2005) argued that
Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) items did not appraise communication as a two-way process.
Within social marketing, communication often encompasses both communications across
and between levels of the partnership, and therefore, reaffirming it as a two-way process.
MacMillan et al. (2005, p. 816) extended their interpretation of communication to include
“informing, listening and staff interactions” reflecting the two-way approach to
communication within funder relationships. These facets of communication were not
supported within the social marketing partnership context. Communication has a positive
relationship with trust, however; poor communication within partnerships unnecessarily
diminishes the level of trust within a partnership. Trust is enhanced when, for example, the
expectations, roles and responsibilities are explicitly stated (Legarde et al., 2005).
Stakeholders within a social marketing partnership may have different perspectives of an
issue and communication is key to understanding these perspectives when developing
collective responses (Wymer, 2021). The case study supported the identification of
communication as a powerful construct, which has a positive relationship with trust. When
partners communicated poorly, trust was diminished. Frequency and formality of
communications in the early stages of the partnership increased levels of trust. The type
of communication also depended on the maturity of the relationship. In response to
diminished levels of trust, effective communication was also used to rebuild the relationship.
Therefore, communication is operationalised as information sharing, quality and participation Social
as defined by Mohr and Spekman (1994): marketing
H4. There is a positive relationship between communication and trust. partnership
model
Outcome of commitment and trust
Three outcome variables were included; expectation of continuance, cooperation and 57
tension. Propensity to leave was replaced as an outcome variable by expectations of
continuance or motivation and functional conflict was modified to become tension.
Acquiescence and uncertainty were not supported within the social marketing literature.

Expectation of continuance (motivation)

Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) construct opportunistic behaviour was not supported due to the
non-monetary nature of social marketing relationships. Instead, continuity of expectations
or motivation was identified as an outcome of commitment. Continuity of expectations
encompassed motivation to continue the relationship for the sustainability of long-term
partnerships. Motivation in a social marketing partnership is related to self-interest in the
endeavour, which turns short term relationships to long-term partnerships and is, therefore,
directly related to commitment. The case study suggested that expectations of continuance
was positively associated with relationship commitment and referred to the likelihood
partners would continue the relationship in the future:

H5. There is a positive relationship between relationship commitment and expectation

of continuance.

Cooperation
Morgan and Hunt (1994) suggest that cooperation is a positive outcome of both commitment
and trust. Cooperation is symbolised by the sharing of tangible and intangible resources and
is identified as a direct positive outcome of commitment and trusting relationships.
Cooperation manifests when parties work together to achieve mutual goals (Anderson and
Narus, 1990; Morgan and Hunt, 1994). In social marketing, this perspective encompasses
knowledge-sharing, value adding expertise and expectations of brand leveraging (Lee et al.,
2005). Within the case study, high levels of commitment and trust resulted in more proactive
cooperation between partners. The sharing of tangible and intangible resources was seen as
symbols of positive cooperative behaviours:

H6. There is a positive relationship between relationship commitment and cooperation.

H7. There is a positive relationship between trust and cooperation.

Tension
Conflict as measured by Morgan and Hunt (1994) was represented as a negative outcome of
trust. The conflict has not emerged as a key characteristic in the social marketing literature.
However, tension did manifest leading to the modification of this construct. Negative
behaviours on the part of any member of the partnership could have a negative impact on
the behavioural change strategy (Bhattacharya and Bell, 1999). Negativity manifests in
social marketing relationships as tension, which directly erodes the level of trust within the
relationship (Thomas, 2008). Within the case study, tension arose when partners were
JSOCM perceived as unreliable or unpredictable. Communication could be used to reduce levels of
12,1 tension, however, only when the trust was perceived to be high:

H8. There is a negative relationship between trust and tension.

Figure 2 presents the hypothesized social marketing partnerships measurement model.

58 Model testing
Survey development
Self-reported measures were used and each item captured the domain of each construct
(Churchill, 1979). The authors followed Beraden et al. (2011) scale selection criteria. Three
scales were adopted from Morgan and Hunt (1994) and two from MacMillan et al.’s (2005)
extension of their model into the non-profit context. The remainder were adapted from
marketing literature. The supplementary file includes a copy of the full scales used, sources
and the reported validity and reliability measures. All chosen scales were continuous to
fulfill the requirements of AMOS (Byrne, 2001).
Construct validity was enhanced as each scale was comprising multiple items
(Baumgartner and Homburg, 1996; Hair et al., 2006). Dimensionality of the scales were
assessed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) where a large number of items were
included. Unidimensional constructs were aggregated to form composites and analysed as a
single indicator (Baumgartner and Homburg, 1996). Table 1 summarises the construct and
reported validity and reliability measures.
Prior to the launch of the survey, eight social marketing experts, three academic and
five social marketing practitioners, were invited to pre-test the survey. Dillman’s cognitive
interviewing technique (face-to-face) or Dillman’s retrospective technique (online) were
adopted to ensure face and construct validity. Experts were requested to read aloud
the survey and express their views on the survey as they completed it (Dillman, 2000). The
relevance, understanding and order of scales were also discussed. All experts held
management positions and had worked on major social marketing campaigns in Ireland or
the UK. Two statisticians were also invited to assess the scales from a methodological and
analytical perspective. Minor amendments were made to the terminology used in the
screening questions and a definition of social marketing partnerships was included at the

Figure 2.
Proposed key
mediating variable
model of social
marketing
partnerships
Construct Source Reported validity and reliability measures

Trust (reflective) Macmillan, Money et al. (2005) Cronbach’s alpha all measures above 0.7
Fornell and Larcker reliability = 0.87
AVE = 0.53
Commitment (reflective) Morgan and Hunt (1994) Reliability = 0.895 a = 0.895 VEE = 0.626 = 0.736
Mutual benefit (reflective) Lambe et al. (2002) a = 0.74
Shared value (reflective) Macmillan et al. (2005) Fornell and Larcker reliability = 0.84
AVE = 0.64
Communication (formative) Mohr and Spekman (1994) Coefficient alpha: 0.84
Participation Mohr and Spekman (1994) Coefficient alpha: 0.68
Information sharing: Mohr, Fisher et al. (1996) Coefficient alpha: 0.86
Formality:
Continuity of expectations (reflective) (Aulakh et al., 1996) a = 0.83
Cooperation (formative) Morgan and Hunt (1994) a = 0.89, as well as adequate content, convergent and criterion validation
Tension (formative) Morgan and Hunt (1994) a = 0.89, as well as adequate content, convergent and criterion validation
Conflict handling Selne (1998) The coefficient alphas for the three multi-item scales are all high, indicating reliable
measures

Summary of
model

Table 1.
marketing
Social

source
constructs and
59
partnership
JSOCM beginning of the survey. Furthermore, the instructions for the survey were modified to
12,1 ensure that participants answered the questions in respect to the one partner they interacted
with the most.
All the survey participants stated that they had participated in behavioural change
partnerships in the past five years. They were subsequently asked a series of questions
relating to their organisation’s level of participation, knowledge, involvement and maturity
60 of this behavioural change partnership.
Data analysis. To confirm the validity of the proposed social marketing partnership
model, the internal logic of the research hypothesis were scrutinised (Hunt, 2010b). A two-
step approach to structural equation modelling was adopted allowing the researcher to
make “meaningful inferences about the theoretical constructs and their interrelations”
(Anderson and Gerbing, 1988, p. 411). Firstly, EFA was conducted.
Exploratory factor analysis. EFA defined the dimensions of the data and determined the
degree to which each variable was explained by the underlying dimension (Ghauri and
Gronhaug, 2010). EFA created summated scales as a data reduction technique (Hair et al.,
2006). A maximum likelihood technique was used to assess the reflective items (relationship
commitment, trust, mutual benefit, shared value and expectation of continuance). A
principle components technique was used to interpret the dimensionality of the formative
item scales (cooperation, communication and tension). It was also used to determine, which
item or items contributed the most information to each component and resulted in the
reduction of the number of items into fewer principle components (Hair et al., 2006). When
assessing formative or reflective item scales, a loading of 0.4 was acceptable (ibid).
Confirmatory factor analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis tested the measurement
model and assessed how well the measured items represented the constructs and the
relationship or correlations between them (Hair et al., 2006). Accurate specification was a
core requirement prior to the analysis of the structural model (Jarvis et al., 2003; Anderson
and Gerbing, 1988). AMOS version 18 was chosen to commute the results. Seven guided the
assessment of univariate normality. A critical ratio value of >5 was indicative of non-
normally distributed data. Mahalanobis d-squared test was undertaken to detect univariate
and multivariate outliers. Outliers were present when the scores from the Likert scales were
different from the other respondents.
Model fit indices. After the model was specified the goodness of fit was assessed (Hu and
Bentler, 1999). There is little consensus of how to choose the most appropriate goodness of
fit statistics (Byrne, 2010; Hooper et al., 2010). Goodness of fit indices, which were used to
evaluate the model included; x2 (>0.05), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA
(<0.05), Goodness of fit, Adjusted goodness of fit, Tucker lewis index (all values close to 1)
and Comparative fit index (values close to 0.9).
The measurement model: reliability and validity. Coefficient alpha assessed reliability
(Ping, 2004) and convergence, the measure of reliability for this estimate is 0.7 or higher
(Hair et al., 2006). Construct validity considers the factor loadings and can be measured by
an evaluation of maximum likelihood estimates. Statistically significant factor loadings and
standardised loading estimates were accepted if 0.5 or higher and ideally 0.7 or higher (Hair
et al., 2006; Shook et al., 2004; Fornell and Larcker, 1981). In total, 70% was the upper limit
for the reliability of a construct whilst variance-extracted measures should equal or exceed
50% (Hair et al., 2006).
The variance extracted percentages for any two constructs was compared with the
squared estimates between them identifying that the construct adequately explains its item
measures.
Findings Social
Participant characteristics marketing
In total, 90 participants initiated the survey of which 36 participants were excluded from
analysis as surveys were incomplete (n = 17) or participants did not fulfil inclusion criteria
partnership
(n = 19). Data from 54 surveys were analysed. The majority of participants worked in the model
Republic of Ireland (n = 20) or UK (n = 24). In total, 49 participants worked with
organisations who had implemented behavioural change strategies for three of more years.
A profile of the survey participant characteristics is provided in Table 2. 61
Participants were asked to identify the behavioural change area in which they worked. A
summary of the areas in which partnerships were being formed is provided in Figure 3. The
majority of participants were working on public health issues.

Characteristic Frequency (n)

Participated in social marketing partnership activities in the past five years All
Level of knowledge of partnership Very knowledgeable = 21
Knowledgeable = 28
Not knowledgeable = 4
Neutral = 1
Maturity of partnership Very mature = 9
Mature = 29
Somewhat mature = 12
Immature = 3
Very immature = 1
Involvement Highly involved = 26
Involved = 20
Involved to a degree = 7
Not at all = 1 Table 2.
Received formal training in social marketing? Yes 54% Summary of
No 43% participant
Undisclosed 3% characteristics

Figure 3.
Summary of social
marketing issues
JSOCM Exploratory factor analysis
12,1 Three constructs had multidimensional factors (trust, communication and tension), the
remainder were unidimensional loading with one score. Additional labels were assigned to
the multidimensional constructs. Table 3 provides a summary.

Trust
62 The trust reflexive item scale loaded on two factors, which were subsequently relabelled. All
factor loadings for the trust had a significance level above 60.5 with the exception of one. It
was not deemed necessary to delete this item from the scale.
Three trust items loaded to Factor 1, which was relabelled as reliability. The item that
loaded the strongest (0.999) assessed the future of partnerships in times of uncertainty. The
other two items measured the dependability and credibility of the partner. Two additional
item scales loaded to a second factor labelled as predictability.

Communication
In total, 14 items within the communication scale loaded significantly across three
components (expectations (comm_1), information sharing (comm_2) and type of information
(comm_3)).

Cooperation
In total, 17 items in the cooperation scale loaded on 4 principle components. In total, 15 of the
items were loaded on component one, one item loaded on component 3 and one item on
component 4. Only one component was shown to represent cooperation and remained
labelled as cooperation.

Tension
The 16 tension items loaded across two components relabelled as “causes of tension” and
“tension handling”. All the statements that loaded on “causes of tension” were all highly
significant above 0.6 with the exception of branding, which was still significant at 0.555.
The remainder of statements loaded on “tension handling”.
Measurement model. Figure 4 illustrates the measurement model. Resulting from the
EFA the model contained 25 variables (15 endogenous and 10 exogenous) and 11

Construct Technique adopted No. of factors Loaded with Label

Relationship Maximum likelihood 1 RC_FS

commitment
Trust Maximum likelihood 2 Tr_1 ! Reliability
Tr_2 ! Predictability
Mutual benefit Maximum likelihood 1 MB_FS
Shared values Maximum likelihood 1 SV_FS
Communication Principle component 4 Comm_1 ! Expectations
Comm_2 ! Information sharing
Comm_3 ! Type of information
Table 3.
Expectation of Maximum likelihood 2 Mov_FS
Summary of factor continuance
loadings and Cooperation Principle component 1 Coop_1
components with Tension Principle component 3 Ten_1 ! Strategic direction
labels Ten_2, ! Tension handling
 Social
marketing
partnership
model

63

Figure 4.
The measurement
model

unobservable, which were specified. These unobserved variables account for information
that is not contained in the model and are labelled from e1 – e11. To differentiate between
the unidimensional and multidimensional variables, the factors or summated scales are
presented separately within the model. For example, the multidimensional latent variable
trust is represented as Trusts 1 and 2.

Confirmatory factor analysis

No item was shown to be substantially kurtomic. Mutual benefit exceeded 7 with a measure
of 7.7682. However, this was not considered to be extreme (Byrne, 2001). The Mahalanobis
d-squared test showed minimal evidence of serious multivariate outliers, meaning the
scores within the items scales remained similar.

Goodness of fit
The chi-square goodness of fit (139.21) does not approximate the degrees of freedom (36);
indicating an inadequate model fit. CFI (0.36) is low and far away from 0.95, suggesting that
significant amounts of variance remain to be explained (Bagozzi and Foxall, 1996).
Similarly, the TIL (0.178) is not greater than 0.95 as required. The RMSEA is below the
recommended 0.05 (0.23), which is indicative of a good model fit, however, the other
goodness of fit indices do not support the specification of this model.
The data does not reasonably fit with the model, and therefore, requires re-specification.
Before the model was re-specified the maximum likelihood loadings were assessed for model
fit. The crucial ratio value was greater than 5 (6.47). Therefore, caution must be taken when
interpreting the maximum likelihood distribution (Bentler and Yuan, 1999).
The maximum likelihood regression weights presented in Table 2 suggest that 6 of 29
proposed relationships in the measurement model are statistically significant. One more is
significant at the 10% level (1.69), which is acceptable given the small sample size. These
relationships have been highlighted in bold. Statistical significance was assessed with a
critical ratio greater than 1.96 and a P-value less than 0.1.
JSOCM Model re-specification
12,1 The decisions to implement the prescribed modifications were based on statistical analysis
and underlying theory. Modification indices (MI) guided the re-specification process as large
MI’s (>10) argue for cross-loadings and error covariance’s. However, changes were only
made if they were supported by theory. Table 5 summarises the re-specification process.
Five modifications were implemented.
64 The path diagram for the final re-specified model is shown in Figure 5. The first re-
specification introduced a direct path from comm_1 (expectations) to cooperation. This path
was not hypothesized as trust was thought to be a mediating variable for cooperation. As a
result of the EFA, expectations became one dimension of communication. When
expectations are not met, trust diminishes, which results in diminished cooperation.
Cooperative behaviours call for an interdependence between parties that is ultimately
aligned with the management of expectations, through a willingness to share tangible and
intangible resources. With careful communication of expectations between partners, the
cooperative behaviours should be apparent, and therefore, diminishes the need for a direct
path between trust. Therefore, this modification was accepted. This modification improved
fit by reducing the chi-square from 139.22 to 99.61 bringing it closer to the degrees of
freedom (df = 36). There was also an improvement within the other goodness of fit statistics
particularly the CFI.
A direct path from shared values to cooperation was created. Within the literature, the
concept of shared values was emphasised. Organisations whose goals converged or shared
similar values had a pre-established level of trust, for example, Legarde, Doner et al. (2005)
suggested that similar entities such as non government organisation have a greater goal
convergence. These shared values, therefore, would be linked with a willingness to share
resources. This path also had a positive effect on all the goodness of fit statistics.
The inclusion of direct paths between comm_1 (expectations) and cooperation; and
shared values and cooperation, were the only two modifications that had the power to
produce a significant effect on the model fit. As shown in Table 4, three additional

Figure 5.
Re-specified social
marketing
partnership model
Components Estimate S.E. C.R. P
Social
marketing
Tr_1 <— SV_FS 0.0586 0.1527 0.3835 0.7014 partnership
Tr_2 <— SV_FS 0.1431 0.1296 1.1039 0.2696
Tr_1 <— Comm_1 0.0140 0.1507 0.0927 0.9262 model
Tr_2 <— Comm_1 0.5675 0.1279 4.4360 ***
Tr_1 <— Comm_2 0.0979 0.1371 0.7135 0.4755
Tr_2 <— Comm_2 0.0708 0.1164 0.6078 0.5433 65
Tr_1 <— Comm_3 0.0142 0.1379 0.1026 0.9183
Tr_2 <— Comm_3 0.1203 0.1171 1.0275 0.3042
RC_FS <— MB_FS 0.0694 0.1305 0.5314 0.5952
RC_FS <— Tr_1 0.0050 0.1186 0.0422 0.9663
RC_FS <— Tr_2 0.2046 0.1210 1.6916 0.0907
RC_FS <— SV_FS 0.3247 0.1268 2.5604 0.0105
Coop_1 <— RC_FS 0.1232 0.1311 0.9400 0.3472
Coop_1 <— Tr_1 0.1243 0.1200 1.0357 0.3003
Coop_1 <— Tr_2 0.4328 0.1237 3.4977 ***
Table 4.
Ten_2 <— Tr_1 0.0320 0.1323 0.2417 0.8090
Ten_1 <— Tr_1 0.0805 0.1271 0.6336 0.5263 Maximum likelihood
Ten_2 <— Tr_2 0.2688 0.1323 2.0310 0.0423 loadings for the
Ten_1 <— Tr_2 0.3731 0.1271 2.9356 0.0033 proposed
Mov_FS <— RC_FS 0.3427 0.1109 3.0914 0.0020 measurement model

modifications were implemented. By correlating the variances that were not tested within
the model, the fit of the model improved, however, the changes were not as great as the first
two modifications. Other modifications between variances were suggested however, they
were not supported by theory, and therefore, were not implemented.
An assessment of the fit of the re-specified model can be better understood by comparing
the fit indices results between the proposed (Figure 3) and the re-specified model (Figure 5).
The re-specified model suggests that there is a better fit as the chi-square and the degrees of
freedom are much closer to each other indicating a better fitting model. This is also
supported when comparing the other goodness of fit indices (Table 6). The CFI (0.86), which
is independent of sample size is closer to 0.9, TLI is also closer to 1 and the lower RMSEA all
corroborate a better model fit in the re-specified model. The CFI result also supports the

Changes made from the previous test Chi-square DF P-value CFI TLI RMSEA

Proposed model 139.22 36 0 0.36 0.178 0.23 (low 0.19–0.27)

Modification 1 99.61 36 0 0.6 0.24 0.19
Add Comm_1 (expectations) – Coop_1 (low 0.14–0.23)
Modification 2 74.60 34 0.001 0.75 0.51 0.15 (lo 0.10–0.2)
Add SV_FS – Coop_1
Modification 3 67.26 33 0.0004 0.79 0.57 0.14 (lo 0.0914–0.19)
Add e9 – e1
Modification 4 62.44 32 0.001 0.81 0.61 0.134 (lo 0.835–0.183)
Add e9 – e7
Modification 5 52.94 31 0.0083 0.86 0.71 0.1156 (lo 0.06–0.17) Table 5.
Add e2 – e11 Summary of re-
Re-specified model 52.94 31 0.0083 0.86 0.71 0.1156 (lo 0.06–0.17) specification process
JSOCM decision not to further modify the model as measures greater than 0.9 may result in over-
12,1 fitting (Bagozzi and Foxall, 1996).
The regression weights (Table 6) also suggest an improvement in the fit of the re-
specified model with 10 out of 31 relationships shown to be statistically significant. The
previous regression weights (Table 4) supported 6 out of 21 relationships. The 10 additional
relationships manifested from the modifications described earlier.
66
Discussion
Three research hypotheses were supported (H2, H6 and H7), one was partially supported
(H8) and four were not supported (H1, H3–H5) (Table 7). Some of these findings are
discussed below:

H2. There is a positive relationship between shared values and relationship

commitment – supported.
H3. There is a positive relationship between shared values and trust – unsupported.
Because of the non-profit nature of social marketing, shared values was identified as a core
component of longer-term partnerships (Niblett, 2005; Donovan and Henley, 2010). The
synergy between shared values and commitment ensures that the partnerships are high
impact (Weinreich, 1999, 2011; Crutchfield and Mc Leod Grant, 2008). A recent periodisation
of social marketing partnerships identified shared value as a core characteristic of social
marketing partnerships, which transcended the eras (Duane and Domegan, 2019). The re-
specified model did not support the positive relationship between shared values and trust
(reliability and predictability). This suggests that trust may be implicit between

Estimate S.E. C.R. P

Tr_1 <— SV_FS 0.0193 0.1406 0.1371 0.8909

Tr_2 <— SV_FS 0.1431 0.1296 1.1039 0.2696
Tr_1 <— Comm_1 0.0954 0.1379 0.6917 0.4891
Tr_2 <— Comm_1 0.5675 0.1279 4.4360
Tr_1 <— Comm_2 0.0787 0.1253 0.6282 0.5299
Tr_2 <— Comm_2 0.0708 0.1164 0.6078 0.5433
Tr_1 <— Comm_3 0.0675 0.1261 0.5354 0.5923
Tr_2 <— Comm_3 0.1203 0.1171 1.0275 0.3042
RC_FS <— MB_FS 0.0348 0.1210 0.2876 0.7736
RC_FS <— Tr_1 0.0270 0.1165 0.2320 0.8165
RC_FS <— Tr_2 0.1634 0.1213 1.3469 0.1780
RC_FS <— SV_FS 0.2942 0.1183 2.4866 0.0129
Coop_1 <— RC_FS 0.1646 0.0756 2.1767 0.0295
Coop_1 <— Tr_1 0.1478 0.0643 2.2994 0.0215
Coop_1 <— Tr_2 0.1758 0.0767 2.2904 0.0220
Ten_2 <— Tr_1 0.0320 0.1292 0.2476 0.8044
Ten_1 <— Tr_1 0.0805 0.1241 0.6489 0.5164
Ten_2 <— Tr_2 0.2688 0.1325 2.0276 0.0426
Ten_1 <— Tr_2 0.3731 0.1273 2.9303 0.0034
Table 6. Mov_FS <— RC_FS 0.3198 0.1009 3.1694 0.0015
Re-specified model Coop_1 <— Comm_1 0.5247 0.0799 6.5678 ***
regression weights Coop_1 <— SV_FS 0.4442 0.0733 6.0617 ***
Research hypotheses Supported/unsupported
Social
marketing
H1 There is a positive relationship between mutual benefits and relationship Unsupported partnership
commitment
H2 There is a positive relationship between shared values and relationship Supported model
commitment
H3 There is a positive relationship between shared values and trust Unsupported
H4 There is a positive relationship between communication and trust Partially supported 67
H5 There is a positive relationship between relationship commitment and Unsupported
expectations of continuance
H6 There is a positive relationship between relationship commitment and Supported
cooperation
H7 There is a positive relationship between trust and cooperation Supported Table 7.
H8 There is a negative relationship between trust and tension Partially supported Research hypotheses

organisations who have shared values, and therefore, trust does not act as a mediating
variable as goals converge (Legarde et al., 2005; Himmelman, 2001; Hastings, 2003).
Likewise, a direct path was drawn between shared values and cooperation within the re-
specified model – a relationship that had not been hypothesized. This relationship exhibited
the second highest critical ratio. Once again, the presence of goal convergence may suggest
that trust is implicit, and therefore, not a mediating variable (Legarde et al., 2005). This
would support the rational to bypass trust as a mediating variable and accept the direct path
between shared values and cooperation.
Two other relationships related to cooperation were also supported in the model, H6 and H7:

H6. There is a positive relationship between relationship commitment and cooperation.

H7. There is a positive relationship between trust and cooperation.
The hypothesized relationship between trust and tension was partially supported within the
re-specified model:

H8. There is a negative relationship between trust and tension.

Following the EFA both trust and tension were shown to have two-factor loadings/principle
components. These factor loadings were labelled as reliability (trust_1) and predictability
(trust 2) and tension (tension_1) and tension handling (tension_2). The re-specified model
showed that the relationship between reliability (trust_1), tension and tension handling was
not supported. The relationship between predictability (trust_2) tension and tension
handling was supported. This suggests that predictability reduces the development within
partnership relationships. Consequently, with less predictable partners there is a greater
requirement for conflict handling:

H4. There is a positive relationship between communication and trust.

Trust, measured as reliability and predictability was hypothesized to have a positive
relationship with communication measured as expectations, information sharing and
type of information. This hypothesis was partially supported. The data suggests that
there is a positive relationship between predictability and expectations. Within the social
marketing literature, the need to manage the expectations of the partners is paramount
(Legarde et al., 2005).
JSOCM The relationship between the facets of trust (reliability) and communication (information
12,1 sharing and information type) were not supported. This could be related to the partner
prioritising the communications. Within the social marketing literature, Himmelman (2001)
indicated that information sharing was one of the first points on their partnership
continuum. As the majority of participants in the survey stated the behavioural change
partnership they were thinking of was mature or very mature, the lack of significance of
68 information sharing could be attributed to the fact that their relationship had moved beyond
this point.
Associated with this issue, one of the newly specified direct paths suggests there is a
positive relationship between the communication of expectation and cooperation. This direct
path was identified as most significant in the model. Communication was hypothesized to be
mediated through trust. However, more specifically, when referring to the communication of
expectations, trust as a mediating variable may not be needed. The scales that contributed
to the communication of expectations were associated with formal written agreements and
the explicit articulation of the expectations of the parties involved. When the roles and
responsibilities are clearly defined trust may not be needed as a mediating factor. Within the
case study, written agreements were not deemed as necessary between partners who
already had a pre-existing relationship. However, when the large financial investment was
required a formal written agreement was deemed essential. As previously stated,
cooperation is related to the interdependence between parties, which is aligned with the
management of expectations, through a willingness to share tangible and intangible
resources. This finding was supported in the literature through Legarde et al.’s (2005)
taxonomy.
H1 and H5 were unsupported. The first was the relationship between mutual benefits
and relationship commitment. The second stated there is a positive relationship between
relationship commitment and expectations of continuance:

H1. There is a positive relationship between mutual benefits and relationship

commitment.
This hypotheses was unsupported, perhaps, because social marketing focusses on the
benefits of society as opposed to the partner involved. Reflecting on the characteristics of
social marketing as outlined by Brennan et al. (2016), the non-profit motive, high
involvement decision-making and the complexity of the social issues we seek to address, the
exchange must take place to motivate the partnership to continue. Although this hypothesis
was rejected, the mutual benefit should undergo further testing particularly in relation to
public-private partnerships, which was outside the boundaries of the research. The
importance of different types of partnerships within the SDGs (#17) also suggests this
hypothesis should undergo further testing.

Conclusion
Every country on every continent is experiencing complex, local-to-global economic, social
and environmental issues. Explicitly recognising the links between our economy, our
environment and our health the UN’s 17 SDGs declare cross-sectoral partnerships to be the
key to responding to and resolving systemic challenges. Like partnerships for the goals, a
shared vision and goals that places social good, people and the planet at the centre are
fundamental to social marketing activities. For social marketing at the frontiers of social,
transformation and systemic change, the real strength of partnership thinking and this
model lies not in the once off co-operation activities for a campaign, but in the multi-tier,
multi-stakeholder relationships ebbing and flowing around shared values, mutual benefit, Social
communication, trust and commitment for a sustainable future for all. marketing
This research directly responds to the UNs need for further research to support the
development of transformational partnerships so that change activities can be scaled up and
partnership
accelerated. The process underpinning the development of a social marketing partnership model
model was presented. This research makes 4 contributions, which are discussed below, with
suggestions for further research.
1. The operationalising of social marketing partnership constructs, which can be used to 69
support the partnership selection process.
Previous research suggested there was a disconnect between the theory and practice of
social marketing partnerships. Partnerships is a nebulous term used within social
marketing, which has suffered from definitional ambiguity. Characteristics of social
marketing partnerships have been used to assess why partnerships have been successful or
not, however, these characteristics have not previously been operationalised. The
operationalising of social marketing construct definitions could provide clarity in relation to
the partnership selection process.
2. The development of social marketing partnership scales, which could be used to
evaluate existing multi-stakeholder partnership relationships and guide their long term
implementation.
The newly developed social marketing partnership scales were used to test the
proposed social marketing partnership model, however, in practice, these could also be
used to help evaluate social marketing partnerships across different points in time. For
the first time, social marketing partnership scales have been developed and tested within
the domain. On a practical level using these scales to evaluate partnerships could guide
decision-making and strategy formation in relation to whether to continue or terminate
partnership arrangements or to search for additional partners to reduce resource and
competency deficits.
3. Morgan and Hunt’s Relationship and Commitment model (1994) was extended and
tested within the social marketing domain.
Morgan and Hunt’s (1994) model initially developed in the commercial marketing sector
is one of the best-known relationship marketing theories guiding the development of long
term cooperative behaviours. This model was developed in response to a paradigm shift
towards relational network approaches to compete in competitive marketplaces. Social
marketing is going through a similar shift, now embracing complex exchanges so change
agents can compete against problematic behaviours over time. Trust and commitment are
central constructs in this regard. Figure 6 illustrates the new social marketing partnership
model. With five modifications, the original hypothesized social marketing partnership
model was shown to have a better fit. Two new paths that were not previously hypothesized
had the highest statistical significance. These two paths were:

the direct relationship between shared values and cooperation; and

the relationship between the communication of expectations and cooperation.

Whilst the rigorous multi-method model building process suggests that the constructs
hypothesized do exist, a cautious approach must be undertaken when discussing the
strength of the interrelationships between constructs because of a small sample size.
However, the model testing process also suggests that the operationalisation of the social
marketing partnership model is feasible and possible parameter estimates from what is
taken as the most theoretically consistent statistical model for data of this type. Using the
current parameters from this and similar research, future researchers can now consider the
JSOCM
12,1

70

Figure 6.
Social marketing
partnership model

application of Monte Carlo simulations to further assess the current theory as expounded.
This can be done by taking the current parameter estimates and drawing a series of
repeated samples to evaluate the type of samples that would be required to further test the
theory. The current work now provides us with a strategy, akin to that used in obtaining
sample power calculations, but in the current case to further test the effectiveness and
correctness of the proposed model (Muthén and Muthén, 2002). It is likely that with a small
social marketing community there is always going to be dealing with small sample sizes in
this type of research, so a crucial factor in this context will be the psychometric properties of
the measures and the strength of the relationship between the measures. In the current
analysis, we can see that the psychometric properties of the measures, based on this and
other research have been shown to be good; the concern then is with the strength of the
relationships between the measures and in this context we have provided approximate
estimates that can be further tested and within the context of a testable theory.
4. Strengthening the implementation of partnership relationships.
The aim of SDG #17 is to “strengthen the means and implementation and revitalise the
global partnership for sustainable development” (UN Sustainable Development Goals, 2021).
The findings of this research align with the vision for SDG #17 and make the development
of a “partnership-enabling ecosystem” more realistic by identifying and testing the
relationships between core characteristics of behavioural and social change partnerships.
This research has shown the important role of trust, commitment, shared values and
cooperation when addressing behavioural issues. In particular, this research has identified
the active ingredients for effective partnerships. This knowledge can support capacity and
skill building between stakeholders, partners and wider networks fostering more strategic
collective action. The model could be used as a framework that can guide the initiation and
evaluation of partnership relationships. This is essential when trying to nurture sustainable
partnerships and nurture them in the long term as social marketers will have a better
understanding of how to establish, develop and maintain partnerships.

Future research
This model should be further tested in both developed and developing economies to
identify if key social marketing constructs exist in different contexts. This research was
also conducted with experts in behavioural change, other types of stakeholders, such as Social
those in the public-private sector, should be invited to participate in further iterations of marketing
this research to determine if they construct identified transfer to, for example, the
partnership
commercial setting.
This research adopted a cross-sectional perspective, the presence of time was determined model
as a catalyst for strengthening trust and relationship commitment. There would be merit to
testing this model with partnerships that are at different stages of development, initiation vs
71
long-term partnerships.
As partnerships evolve over time or not, relationships may grow and deepen as
stakeholders move from working together on a campaign to another intervention. New
opportunities for alliances and collaboration are constantly emerging. Innovations in
technologies, such as participatory, stakeholder and network software, fuel greater
communication and information flow to say nothing of the shifts in mutual values,
such as climate action and healthy environments are bringing. Understanding the
early formation and ongoing development of social marketing partnerships in light of
the ubiquity of change is critical if social marketing is to deliver on the UN’s SDG #17,
multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development. This conceptualisation
would assist in guiding practitioners on how to initiate and sustain partnerships
over time.

References
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a
review and recommended Two-Step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3,
pp. 411-423.
Anderson, J.C. and Narus, J.A. (1990), “A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working
partnerships”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, p. 44.
Andreasen, A.R. (2001), “Intersector transfer of marketing knowledge”, In Boom, P. and Gundlach, G.
(Eds), Handbook of Marketing and Society, Sage Publications, CA.
Aulakh, P.S., Kotabe, M. and Sahay, A. (1996), “Trust and performance in Cross-Border marketing
partnerships: a behavioral approach”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 27 No. 5,
pp. 1005-1032.
Bagozzi, R., P. (1975), “Marketing as exchange”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. pp32-39.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Foxall, G.R. (1996), “Construct validation of a measure of Adaptive-Innovative
cognitive styles in consumption”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3,
pp. 201-213.
Baloch, M.S., Taj, S., Kiazai, N. and Arshad, T. (2020), “Resistance, resisting and resisters: the case of a
social marketing partnership in Balochistan”, Journal of Education and Humanities Research,
University of Balochistan, Quetta-Pakistan, pp. 13-39.
Baumgartner, H. and Homburg, C. (1996), “Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing
and consumer research: a review”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 139-161.
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G. and Haws, K.L. (2011), “Handbook of marketing scales”, Multi-item
Measures for Marketing and Consumer Behavior Research, Sage Publications.
Bentler, P.M. and Yuan, K.H. (1999), “Structural equation modeling with small samples: Test statistics”,
Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 181-197.
Bhattacharya, C.B. and Bell, P.D. (1999), “Care’s experiences with corporate alliances”, Social Marketing
Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 10-12.
JSOCM Biroscak, B.J., Schneider, T., Panzera, A.D., Bryant, C.A., McDermott, R.J., Mayer, A.B., Khaliq, M.,
Lindenberger, J., Courtney, A.H. and Swanson, M.A. (2014), “Applying systems science to
12,1 evaluate a community-based social marketing innovation: a case study”, Social Marketing
Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 247-267.
Brennan, L., Previte, J. and Fry, M.L. (2016), “Social marketing’s consumer myopia: Applying a
behavioural ecological model to address wicked problems”, Journal of Social Marketing, Vol. 6
No. 3, pp. 219-239.
72
Byrne, B.M. (2001), “Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative
approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument”, International Journal
of Testing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 55-86.
Byrne, B.M. (2010), Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS - Basic Concepts, Applications and
Programming, Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, London.
Choi, C., Eldomiaty, T. and Kim, S. (2007), “Consumer trust, social marketing and ethics of welfare
exchange”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 74 No. 1, pp. 17-23.
Churchill, G.A. Jr (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 64-73.
Crutchfield, L.R. and Mc Leod Grant, H. (2008), Forces for Good: The Six Practices of High - Impact Non-
Profits, John Wiley and Sons, San Francisco.
Dillman, D.A. (2000), Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method, John Wiley and Sons.
Domegan, C. (2021), “Social marketing and behavioural change in a systems setting”, Current Opinion
in Environmental Science and Health, Vol. 23, p. 100275.
Domegan, C., McHugh, P., Devaney, M., Duane, S., Hogan, M., Broome, B.J., Layton, R.A., Joyce, J.,
Mazzonetto, M. and Piwowarczyk, J. (2016), “Systems-thinking social marketing: conceptual
extensions and empirical investigations”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 32 Nos 11/12,
pp. 1123-1144.
Domegan, C., McHugh, P., Flaherty, T. and Duane, S. (2019), “A dynamic stakeholders’
framework in a marketing systems setting”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 39 No. 2,
pp. 136-150.
Donovan, R. and Henley, N. (2010), Principles and Practice of Social Marketing: An International
Perspective, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Duane, S. and Domegan, C. (2019), “Social marketing partnerships: Evolution, scope and substance”,
Marketing Theory, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 169-193.
Duane, S., Domegan, C., McHugh, P. and Devaney, M. (2016), “From restricted to complex exchange and
beyond: social marketing’s change agenda”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 32 Nos 9/
10, pp. 856-876.
Eagle, L., Hay, R. and Farr, M. (2016), “Harnessing the science of social marketing and
behaviour change for improved water quality in the GBR: background review of the
literature”.
Flaherty, T., Domegan, C., Duane, S., Brychkov, D. and Anand, M. (2020), “Systems social marketing
and macro-social marketing: a systematic review”, Social Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 146-166.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 39-50.
Ghauri, P. and Gronhaug, K. (2010), Research Methods in Business Studies Essex, Pearson Education
Limited.
Gordon, R. (2013), “Unlocking the potential of upstream social marketing”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 47 No. 9, pp. 1525-1547.
Gummesson, E. (1994), “Making relationship marketing operational”, International Journal of Service Social
Industry Management, Vol. 5 No. 5, pp. 5-20.
marketing
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariant Data Analysis,
Pearson Prentice Hall. partnership
Hastings, G. (2003), “Relational paradigms in social marketing”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 23 model
No. 1, pp. 6-15.
Hastings, G. and Saren, M. (2003), “The critical contribution of social marketing - Theory and practice”,
Marketing Theory, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 305-322.
73
Himmelman, A.T. (2001), “On coalitions and transformation of power relations: Collaborative
betterment and collaborative empowerment”, American Journal of Community Psychology,
Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 277-284.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J. and Mullen, M.R. (2010), “Structural equation modelling: Guidelines
for determining model fit”, Electronic Journal of Business Research, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 53-60.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria Versus”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6
No. 1, pp. 1-55.
Hunt, S.D. (2010a), On the Morphology of Theory. Marketing Theory: Foundations, Controversy,
Strategy, Resource-Advantage Theory, M.E. Sharpe, London.
Hunt, S.D. (2010b), Theory: Issues and Aspects. Marketing Theory: Foundations, Controversy, Strategy,
Resource Advantage Theory, M.E. Sharpe, London.
Jarvis, C.B., Mackenzie, S.B. and Podsakoff, P.M. (2003), “A critical review of construct indicators and
measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research”, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 199-218.
Johansson, C., Bedggood, R., Farquharson, K. and Perenyi, A. (2018), “Shared leadership as a vehicle to
healthy service eco-systems: practical or fanciful?”, Journal of Social Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 159-181.
Kennedy, A.M. (2016), “Macro-social marketing”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 36 No. 3,
pp. 354-365.
Lambe, C.J., Spekman, R.E. and Hunt, S.D. (2002), “Alliance competence, resources, and alliance success:
conceptualization, measurement, and initial test”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 141-158.
Lee, N., Achermann, K., Ehrumann, R. and Mintz, J. (2005), “The challenges and rewards of partnering
with the private sector to achieve social marketing objectives”, Social Marketing Quarterly,
Vol. 11 No. 3-4, pp. 51-59.
Lee, N.R. (2020), Social Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 3-13.
Lefebvre, R.C. (2012), “Transformative social marketing: co-creating the social marketing discipline and
Brand”, Journal of Social Marketing, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 118-129.
Legarde, F., Doner, L., Donovan, R.J., Charney, S. and Griser, M. (2005), “Partnerships from a
downstream perspective: the role strategic alliances play in implementing social marketing
programmes”, Social Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 3-4, pp. 38-45.
MacMillan, K., Money, K., Money, A. and Downing, S. (2005), “Relationship marketing in the not-for-
profit sector: an extension and application of the commitment–trust theory”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 58 No. 6, pp. 806-818.
Mohr, J. and Spekman, R. (1994), “Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes,
communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 135-152.
JSOCM Mohr, J.J., Fisher, R.J. and Nevin, J.R. (1996), “Collaborative communication in interfirm
relationships: moderating effects of integration and control”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60
12,1 No. 3, pp. 103-115.
Morgan, R.M. and Hunt, S.D. (1994), “The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing”, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 20-38.
Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (2002), “How to use a monte carlo study to decide on sample size and
determine power”, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 9 No. 4,
74 pp. 599-620.
Niblett, G.R. (2005), “Stretching the limits of social marketing partnerships, upstream and downstream:
Setting the context for the 10th innovations in social marketing conference”, Social Marketing
Quarterly, Vol. 11 No. 3-4, pp. 9-15.
Ping, J.R.A. (2004), “On assuring valid measures for theoretical models using survey data”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 125-141.
Platt, J. (2006), What Can Case Studies Do? Case Study Research, Sage, London.
Shook, C., Ketchen, D.J., Hult, T.M. and Kacmar, K.M. (2004), “Research notes and commentaries: an
assessment of the use of structural equation modeling in strategic management research”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 397-404.
Singer, B. and Kayson, S. (2004), “Partnerships, alliances, and stakeholder communication”, Social
Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 67-71.
Sutton, R.I. and Staw, B.M. (1995), “What theory is not”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 40 No. 3,
pp. 371-384.
Tapp, A.R., Brophy, R., Carausan, M., Carruthers, J., Peattie, S., Revill, S., Chamberlain, M., Lee, N.,
Sherif, S., Beall, T. and Morgan, M. (2013), Consensus Definition of Social Marketing.
Thomas, J. (2008), “Happily ever after. . .? partnerships in social marketing”, Social Marketing
Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 72-75.
Truong, V.D. (2017), “Government-led macro-social marketing programs in vietnam:
Outcomes, challenges, and implications”, Journal of Macromarketing, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 409-425.
Truong, V.D. and Dietrich, T. (2018), “Master’s thesis research in social marketing (1971-2015)”, Journal
of Social Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 58-98.
Truong, V.D., Saunders, S.G. and Dong, X.D. (2019), “Systems social marketing: a critical appraisal”,
Journal of Social Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 180-203.
UN Sustainable Development Goals (2021), “Revitalize the global partnership for sustainable
development [online]. UN sustainable development goals”, available at: https://sdg-tracker.org/
global-partnerships (accessed 22 March 2021).
United Nations (2019), “Sustainable development goals”, United Nations, available at: www.un.org/
sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/ (accessed 7 November 2019).
United Nations (2020), The SDG Partnership Guidebook: A Practical Guide to Building
High Impact Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships for the Sustainable Development Goals,
United Nations.
Weinreich, N.K. (1999), Hands-On Social Marketing- A Step-by-Step Guide, Page Publications Inc,
London.
Weinreich, N.K. (2011), Hands on Social Marketing- A Step by Step, SAGE Publications Inc,
London.
Wymer, W. (2021), “Addressing complex social problems with a multi-environmental stakeholder
coalition”, International Review on Public and Non-Profit Marketing, Vol. 18, pp. 1-16.
Zürcher, C. (2018), “A theory of democratisation through peace-building”, Conflict, Security and
Development, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 283-299.
Further reading Social
Bearden, W.O., Netemeyer, R.G. and Haws, K.L. et al. (2011), Handbook of Marketing Scales: Multi-Item marketing
Measures for Marketing and Consumer Behaviour Research, Sage, London.
partnership
Selnes, F. (1998), “Antecedents and consequences of trust and satisfaction in buyer-seller relationships”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Nos 3/4, pp. 305-322. model
Tapp, A., Carausan, M.R.B., Carruthers, J., Peattie, S., Revill, S., Chamberlain, M., Lee, N., Sherif, S.,
Morgan, T.B., Lellig, C., Suggs, S. and French, J. (2013), “The iSMA, ESMA and AASM
consensus definition of social marketing. iSMA: iSMA, ESMA and AASM”.
75

Corresponding author
Sinead Duane can be contacted at: sinead.duane@nuigalway.ie

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com