Scholarlink

<p>The adoption of the 2030 Agenda marked a global commitment to address interconnected challenges through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) – involving public, private, and civil society actors – have been widely promoted as vital instruments for achieving the SDGs due to their potential for pooling diverse resources and fostering cross-sector collaboration. However, empirical evidence of their effectiveness remains mixed. This study investigates whether MSPs are more synergistic and transformative compared to single-sector partnerships (SSPs), focusing on their integration of economic, environmental, and social dimensions, and their contributions to norm, regulatory, and behavioral change. Using a matched case selection design, we compare MSPs and SSPs registered on the Global Climate Action Portal (GCAP), analyzing their visions, outputs, and outcomes across different thematic areas: sustainable urban mobility, climate-focused finance, energy efficiency and sustainable land use. Findings indicate that differences in synergistic and transformative capacity are more strongly influenced by thematic area than by partnership type. While MSPs occasionally exhibit broader transformative capacity, SSPs – both public and private – also demonstrate significant normative outputs and normative and behavioral outcomes. Notably, integration of all three sustainability pillars is more apparent in stated visions than in realized outputs or outcomes. These findings challenge assumptions about the inherent superiority of MSPs, and underscore the importance of context and thematic focus in shaping partnership performance. By comparing MSPs and SSPs directly, and by evaluating both outputs and outcomes, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of what makes partnerships effective in advancing sustainable development.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Assessing transformative and synergistic capacity in cooperative climate initiatives: A comparative analysis of multi-stakeholder and single-sector partnerships

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月4日

查看全文
  • Matilda Miljand,
  • Maximilian S. T. Wanner

摘要

The adoption of the 2030 Agenda marked a global commitment to address interconnected challenges through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSPs) – involving public, private, and civil society actors – have been widely promoted as vital instruments for achieving the SDGs due to their potential for pooling diverse resources and fostering cross-sector collaboration. However, empirical evidence of their effectiveness remains mixed. This study investigates whether MSPs are more synergistic and transformative compared to single-sector partnerships (SSPs), focusing on their integration of economic, environmental, and social dimensions, and their contributions to norm, regulatory, and behavioral change. Using a matched case selection design, we compare MSPs and SSPs registered on the Global Climate Action Portal (GCAP), analyzing their visions, outputs, and outcomes across different thematic areas: sustainable urban mobility, climate-focused finance, energy efficiency and sustainable land use. Findings indicate that differences in synergistic and transformative capacity are more strongly influenced by thematic area than by partnership type. While MSPs occasionally exhibit broader transformative capacity, SSPs – both public and private – also demonstrate significant normative outputs and normative and behavioral outcomes. Notably, integration of all three sustainability pillars is more apparent in stated visions than in realized outputs or outcomes. These findings challenge assumptions about the inherent superiority of MSPs, and underscore the importance of context and thematic focus in shaping partnership performance. By comparing MSPs and SSPs directly, and by evaluating both outputs and outcomes, this study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of what makes partnerships effective in advancing sustainable development.