Assessing transformative and synergistic capacity in cooperative climate initiatives

A comparative analysis of multi-stakeholder and single-sector partnerships

Datos Bibliográficos

ID17792113
AutoresMatilda Miljand (0000-0002-6902-6415, Stockholm University, autor de correspondencia), Maximilian S T Wanner (0000-0003-4299-283X, Stockholm University)
Año2026
Fecha de publicación2026-05-04
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaInternational Environmental Agreements Politics Law and Economics (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1567-9764 • E-ISSN: 1573-1553
EditorialSpringer Science+Business Media (PUBLISHER • DE)
DOI10.1007/s10784-026-09721-4
OpenAlexW7160092966
IdiomaEN
Referencias citadas65

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

Civil society · General partnership · Normative · Sustainability · Sustainable development · Thematic analysis · Transformative learning · Vision · Community Development and Social Impact · Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting · Sustainability and Climate Change Governance