Perspectives on corporate partnerships

Perspectives on corporate
partnerships for
development
Andrew Britton
March 2015

Perspectives on corporate partnerships for development
1
Contents
Executive summary..............................................................................................................................................2
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................4
Defining development partnerships......................................................................................................................5
Motivations for partnership .................................................................................................................................6
Financial scale and internal visibility ....................................................................................................................8
Relationship dynamics.......................................................................................................................................10
Common frustrations and challenges .................................................................................................................14
Future outlook and good practice insights..........................................................................................................16
References ........................................................................................................................................................18
Acknowledgements
The author would like to sincerely thank the individuals from the following organisations who participated in this
research study for their generous and insightful inputs:
BG Group
British American Tobacco
Cargill
Coca Cola
Concern
Earthwatch
Emerge Poverty Free
HSBC
IKEA
Monsoon
Self Help Africa
Tesco
UK Department for International Development
WaterAid
World Vision
WWF

2
Executive summary
There is much interest in the potential for partnerships between business, non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
and government aid donors to address development challenges in impoverished countries. As a relatively recent
approach to international development, there remains a lack of understanding about the motivations for
corporates to enter into partnership projects, or about the dynamics of relationships within these partnerships.
This research study aims to help address this and, by doing so, contribute towards more effective working
relationships between the different stakeholders involved in the design and management of development
partnership projects.
Development partnerships take many different forms and vary significantly in scale
There is no such thing as a ‘typical’ partnership project. Partnership projects include global multi-stakeholder
initiatives seeking to address challenging cross-border issues, predominately financial support to development
NGOs, and project-based partnerships where corporates work collaboratively with their partners to design and
deliver the project. Some corporate partnerships have a similar level of annual funding per project to that
provided by major development agencies such as the UK’s Department for International Development or the EU’s
EuropeAID. However there is also a huge range in the scale of corporate funding provided to partnership projects,
from a few thousand to several million dollars per year, depending upon the nature of the partnership project.
Corporates primarily seek partnerships to help address technically challenging issues or to build relationships with
stakeholders who are affected by the company’s operations
Regardless of the type of partnership project, for corporates the motivations for participation are usually the
same; to leverage the skills, resources and relationships of external organisations to tackle social, economic or
environmental issues that impact the corporate’s business activities. Brand considerations – from a marketing
perspective – are not important to many corporates.
Partnership projects often have a high visibility with senior corporate leaders
With the leadership of many multinational corporates increasingly interested in the broader societal impacts of
their business beyond financial returns, partnership projects often capture the attention of senior corporate
leaders – particularly when the projects are seeking to address issues that have implications for longer term
commercial strategy. This can provide significant benefits for internal stakeholder management within corporates,
and for the external profile and publicity of the project. However, it can also increase the pressure on corporate
managers of partnership projects to be able to demonstrate the benefits that the project has delivered.
For corporates, ensuring that a partnership project is appropriately scoped and designed is central to securing
internal support
Internal support is easier to secure when the parts of the business that are impacted by the project can see that it
provides a pragmatic response to a business-relevant challenge. The source of funding for a partnership project is
often a key issue. Corporate participation in a development partnership project is often led by its sustainability
department. However most corporate sustainability departments have limited ‘stand-alone’ budgets and deliver
sustainability initiatives by drawing in funding from other parts of the business that are impacted by the initiative.
This can also apply to development partnership projects; further reinforcing the need for partnership projects to
have a strong commercial business case. Some corporates use their internal corporate foundations to help
overcome potential financing issues arising from internal budgetary constraints.
Corporates and NGOs can have differing views on their respective strengths in delivering development partnership
projects
Many corporates believe that their in-house personnel often have technical subject-matter expertise that is
comparable to that offered by their NGO partners, and that this internal knowledge can usefully inform the design
and management of partnership projects. NGOs do not always share this view. Similarly, corporates often feel that

3
their project management capabilities are more advanced than that of their NGO partners, who sometimes
struggle to deliver the project management discipline the corporate expects. NGOs, on the other hand, may often
not recognise that their corporate partner has concerns in this area. Such issues are often at the heart of ‘culture
clash’ challenges which can emerge in development partnerships.
Successful partnership requires strong relationships – but relationship building does not always receive the
investment that is needed
Key to any successful partnership is strong relationships. This is widely recognised by corporates, NGOs and donors.
Nonetheless, there are two common pitfalls that frequently restrain relationship building, particularly in new
partnerships. One is not allocating sufficient time to allow relationships to develop prior to commencing project
delivery activities. The other is delegating primary relationship management responsibilities to relatively junior
personnel without sufficient backup from senior managers.
Corporates recognise the many benefits that are to be gained by working with NGOs and donors, but also have
some common frustrations
The most common frustration that corporates expressed in relation to NGOs is the reluctance of international
NGOs in particular to collaborate with their peers. The areas of greatest frustration with respect to working with
government donors were the bureaucratic and administrative hurdles created by government procurement and
project management processes, and the slow pace of decision making.
Prospective partners to corporates need to refine their value proposition
Corporates are deluged by requests from NGOs to enter into partnership projects or to provide funding for a
project. NGOs who wish to partner with corporates will only succeed in doing so if the value that the corporate
gains from the partnership is clearly defined. An NGO’s value proposition is usually strongest when it is focused on
the technical expertise that the NGO can bring to a challenge the corporate is facing, or on the relationships that
the NGO has and can build upon with external stakeholders that will help support the corporate’s social license to
operate.
Internal staff reticence about partnering with corporates remains a significant challenge in the development
community
NGOs and donors face their own internal challenges when seeking to build partnerships with corporates. In
particular, many professionals in the development community remain wary of partnership with corporates. NGOs
and donors wishing to expand their engagement with corporates need to ensure that sufficient efforts are made
to engage with and gain the support of their staff, particularly at a country-level.
Development partnerships will become increasingly commonplace – but the pace of growth in partnering is
uncertain
Some commentators argue that the rate of growth in the number of development partnerships over the next few
years will be dramatic. However there are a number of reasons to believe that, whilst development partnerships
will become increasingly commonplace, the rate of growth may be more conservative. Corporates tend to enter
into long term relationships with partner organisations, thus limiting the potential for new partnerships with the
same corporate. There is also the fact that for the number of development partnerships to grow, partnerships will
need to be formed with corporates who are less advanced in their management of sustainability issues than the
‘sustainability leaders’ who currently dominate corporate participation in partnerships. Engaging with such
corporates is likely to be more challenging for NGOs and donors than it has been to-date with the sustainability
leaders.
Although some challenges remain, this study provides further evidence that partnerships are an important means
of developing solutions to many of the social, economic and environmental challenges that developing countries
face. It also provides some good practice insights for improving the relationship dynamics of organisations
working together in development partnerships.

4
Introduction
The potential for business to drive sustainable socio-economic development is now recognised by development
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and government aid donors, who are increasingly collaborating with
multinational corporations (corporates) to deliver projects that aim to address social, economic or environmental
challenges in developing countries. The importance of such partnerships to the international development
community is likely to be further reinforced through specific objectives in the UN’s Sustainable Development
Goals, set to be agreed in September 2015.
Some of the rhetoric on the potential for development partnerships is quite strong, with some commentators
talking about “a new era defined by partnership”.1 Despite this, partnerships between corporates and development
organisations are marred with misconceptions that can limit the sustainability and impact of such collaborations.2
There are growing numbers of initiatives seeking to improve the collective understanding of partnerships amongst
the organisations and individuals involved in international development, some examples include:
 Devex Impact: A collaboration between the media platform Devex and the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID).
 The Partnering Initiative: A non-profit organisation focused on promoting cross-sectoral collaboration for
development.
 Corporate-NGO Partnerships Barometer: An annual survey by the consultancy C&E Advisory.
However, the dynamics of partnerships between corporates, NGOs and donors are complex. In particular, few
studies have sought to explore the experience of entering into development partnerships from the perspective of
corporates. This report aims to help address this and, by doing so, contribute towards more effective working
relationships between the different stakeholders involved in the design and management of development
partnership projects.
Research methodology and scope
The research for this study involved structured, confidential, interviews with 15 leading companies and NGOs, and
one government donor agency. Interviews were undertaken between November 2014 and March 2015 with
personnel in each organisation who have management responsibility for partnership projects or initiatives.
Interviewees included sustainability directors and managers in global corporations, chief executives of NGOs,
senior civil servants, and corporate engagement managers in NGOs.
The main focus of the research questions was on development partnership projects where – as part of core
business activities - corporate personnel are actively working with NGO or donor partners to deliver projects in
developing countries that aim to provide social, economic or environmental benefits. The activities of corporate
foundations were not a focus of the research, except in those instances where corporate foundations supported
projects that had linkages to the core business.
The sample size of interviewees may be relatively small, but the insights gained are rich. Research data presented
in this report are intended to be representative rather than statistically significant.

5
Defining development partnerships
Development partnerships take many different forms
Partnerships between corporates, NGOs and donors can take a range of different forms. For this research, three
distinct types of partnership project were identified:
 Global multi-stakeholder initiative
These were defined as initiatives that involved multiple corporates and NGOs, and potentially also donors,
working together on specific issues that are large-scale in their nature and require multi-stakeholder
collaboration to address. As examples, some of the global multi-stakeholder initiatives which interviewees
participated in included the Better Cotton Initiative, the CEO Water Mandate, the Extractive Industries
Transparency Initiative and the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil. Corporate participation in such
initiatives typically involved some level of funding together with some level of time commitment.
 Financial support
This was defined as the provision of philanthropic financial support to an NGO working on issues relevant to
business risks or impacts. Financial support projects may be financed by corporate foundations or by
businesses directly, but in either case corporate personnel would have little involvement in the delivery of
the project activities beyond the initial scoping and the provision of funding.
 Project-based partnership
Project-based partnerships – the main focus of this study – were defined as projects when corporates and
NGOs and/or donors would work collaboratively to design and deliver projects that are intended to achieve
socio-economic development or environmental protection outcomes. Corporate participation in these
projects would involve both financial support and the active involvement of corporate personnel throughout
the project lifecycle.
Most of the corporates interviewed for this study participate in all three types of partnership project. Interviewees
noted huge variation between different projects in terms of the financial investment and staff time required
across different partnership projects. This was particularly true with respect to global multi-stakeholder initiatives,
which ranged from initiatives requiring minimal corporate funding and attendance at a few meetings per year,
through to initiatives that were catalysts for strategic change programmes within corporates requiring significant
personnel resources, senior management time, and funding commitments measured in multiple millions of dollars.

6
Motivations for partnership
Corporates primarily seek partnerships to help address technically challenging issues or to build
relationships with stakeholders who are affected by the company’s operations
The two most important motivators for corporates to enter into development partnership projects are to (a) gain
access to technical skills, resources or inputs that can help address issues that the business faces, and (b) to build
relationships with key stakeholders such as local communities or national governments that help support and
facilitate business operations - often referred to as the ‘social license to operate’. This is illustrated by Figure 1.
Figure 1: Motivations for corporates to enter into partnership projects with NGOs and donors
All but one of the corporate interviewees stated that gaining access to the technical expertise of development
professionals working for NGOs and donors was a key motivating factor for entering into partnership projects. As
Figure 1 illustrates, technical inputs are particularly important as a driver for participation in multi-stakeholder
initiatives, which are usually set up to tackle deep-rooted or large-scale issues that organisations – be they
corporates, NGOs or donors – cannot address on their own. Similarly, of the motivations for entering into project-
based partnership projects, 75% of respondents stated that the technical competencies that NGOs and donors can
bring were an important motivating factor.
The social license to operate can be a critical business issue for many companies operating in developing
countries, particular in the extractives and agricultural sectors. For example, academic studies have identified
several instances where project delays as a result of conflicts with local communities cost mining projects around
US$20 million per week as a result of delays to production.3 For corporates, working in partnership with
organisations that have credibility with and the support of local communities can deliver clear business benefits
by developing and maintaining the social license to operate. Figure 1 shows that there is relatively little distinction
between the three different types of partnership projects suggesting that, in the right circumstances, all three
types of partnership project can deliver value to corporates by helping to build relationships and enhance the
social license to operate.
Philanthropic partnership projects might not actively involve corporates in the delivery of the project but they are
still expected to deliver business value. For 75% of corporate interviewees the social license to operate and the
desire to motivate their employers provided the primary business drivers for philanthropic partnership. One of the
NGO interviewees who ran an employee-focused, philanthropic partnership programme for a major corporate
stated that the corporate’s internal staff satisfaction surveys had found that employees who participated in the
partnership programme were 20% more satisfied with their roles than those employees in similar roles who did
not participate in the programme. Interestingly, for 50% of the corporate interviewees, business-relevant technical
inputs from NGOs were also an important motivating factor for philanthropic projects even though the corporates
themselves do not directly participate in such projects.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Technical (inputs
relevant to business
challenges)
Build relationships
(social license to
operate)
Motivate employees Enhance brand
(marketing)
%ofcorporaterespondents
(Intervieweesidentifiedallmotivationsthat
applied)
Global multi-
stakeholder
initiatives
Financial
(philanthropic)
support
Project-based
partnership

7
A recent report on corporate-NGO partnerships stated that, for corporates, enhancing reputation was the main
driver for partnerships.4 The term ‘reputation’ can encompass many different aspects of the relationship between a
company and its stakeholders. Social license to operate is fundamentally about reputation. However, interviewees
for this survey were very clear that marketing and brand considerations – which could also be considered part of
‘reputation’ – are not an important motivating factor when considering entering into development partnerships.
Indeed, several corporate interviewees remarked that multinational corporations usually have a stronger, more
publicly recognised brand than the NGO or donor they are partnering with and, therefore, it is the corporate that
has the most to lose if the partnership is unsuccessful.
Figure 2: Motivations for NGOs to enter into partnership projects with corporates
Figure 2 illustrates that for NGOs the primary motivator for entering into partnership projects with corporates is
to undertake projects that are relevant to the charity’s core mission. However, there was almost the same
emphasis given to the funding opportunities that corporate partnership can provide. NGO interviewees were keen
to stress that they would not undertake projects that were inconsistent with their charitable mission.
Nevertheless, for many NGOs, working with corporates is not seen as a strategic imperative to enable them to
fulfil their mission; rather it may be a more tactical decision that provides access to funding. For some NGOs th is
is starting to change, however, with several interviewees stating that they were starting to actively look for
potential synergies between corporate interests and their own priorities within the countries in which they
operate.
Addressing challenges
relevant to the charity's
core mission
48%
Requested to participate
by other parties
12%
Gain funding
40%

8
Financial scale and internal visibility
The scale of corporate financing for development partnership projects is approaching that of
government donor agencies
Figure 3: Typical financial investment by corporates to partnership projects, per project per year (US$)
The financial commitments that corporates make to partnership projects are not insignificant. Figure 3 illustrates
the typical financial commitments that corporates make to the three different categories of partnership projects
on an annual, per project basis. The majority of corporate interviewees funded philanthropic projects that each
received over US$1 million per year, and 60% had project-based partnerships that received a similar level of
funding. This is comparable, on an annual per-project basis, to the scale of grant funding provided to development
NGOs by government aid agencies. Several interviewees had philanthropic or project-based partnership projects
that each received between US$250,000 and US$1 million in corporate funding per year, and few corporates had
philanthropic or project-based partnership projects that had an annual funding commitment below US$250,000.
There was a wider range in the funding requirements of multi-stakeholder initiatives; those initiatives that were
focused on policy dialogue typically required fewer resources than those that were seeking to address issues ‘on
the ground’. Several NGO interviewees commented that their participation in multi-stakeholder partnership
initiatives was usually self-funded. Whilst they felt that the impact of their participation in such initiatives was
often high, and the initiatives themselves often very effective for driving change on challenging issues, it is very
difficult for NGOs to find organisations willing to finance their participation in such activities.
Partnership projects often have a high visibility with senior corporate leaders
The significant variations in the type and scale of partnership projects that corporates engage in mean that there
are also significant variations in how partnership projects are perceived and engaged with by the business.
Internal corporate culture is the biggest determining factor in whether involvement in partnership projects is the
preserve of a small team within a corporate, such as the corporate sustainability team, or something that gains
wider involvement and interest amongst senior management and different business functions. It is important to
note that many partnership projects are established to address very specific challenges and, as such, it is not
always appropriate to expect that a wide range of internal corporate stakeholders will be aware of or involved in
the project. Nonetheless, interviewees from corporates where sustainability issues have a high profile as strategic
priorities for the business tended to report higher levels of engagement than interviewees from corporates where
sustainability issues had a lower profile within the business.
Figure 4 illustrates the average levels of interest and engagement in partnership projects reported by corporate
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
>$1m $250k-1m $50-250k $10-50k <$10k
%ofcorporaterespondents
Global multi-
stakeholder
initiatives
Financial
(philanthropic)
support
Project-based
partnership

9
interviewees. Senior leaders were defined as executive management one layer below the board, and ‘staff’ referred
to the wider population of employees outside of senior management and the corporate sustainability team. The
comparatively high scores for senior leaders are indicative of the strategic importance of social and environmental
issues to many large corporates.
Figure 4: Interest and involvement of corporate personnel with partnership projects
(1) No interest/awareness, (2) Limited interest/awareness, (3) Moderate interest/limited participation, (4) Strong interest/some
participation, (5) Active interest/significant participation
Many of the corporate interviewees reported that senior leaders in their organisation, sometimes right up to
Chairman and Chief Executive level, took an active interest in their development partnership projects, for example
chairing relevant internal committees or representing the company in multi-stakeholder forums. As Figure 4
shows, interviewees reported that senior leaders were often particularly interested in philanthropic partnership
projects. The reason cited for this is that such projects often resonate with a sense of ‘wider purpose’ – the
broader contributions that business can make to society beyond commercial success. Project-based partnerships
were also often of significant interest, being more directly connected to day-to-day business activities than
philanthropic projects. Many corporate interviewees reported that engaging internal staff more broadly in
partnership projects was an on-going challenge though, as noted above, many development partnership projects
are focused on specific issues or geographies and therefore may be of limited relevance to corporate functions
that are not directly impacted by the project.
0
1
2
3
4
5
Senior leaders Staff
Levelofinterest/involvement
Global multi-
stakeholder
initiatives
Financial
(philanthropic)
support
Project-based
partnership

10
Relationship dynamics
For corporates, ensuring that a partnership project is appropriately scoped and designed is
central to securing internal support
Partnership projects can be a powerful mechanism for helping corporates to address social, economic and
environmental issues that impact the business. Internal support is easier to secure when the parts of the business
that are impacted by the project can see that the scope and design of a partnership project provides a pragmatic
response to a particular challenge that is appropriate to the needs of the business and its stakeholders.
Nonetheless, persuading stakeholders within the business that project-based partnerships are not charitable
donations was an on-going challenge noted by several corporate interviewees. However, it was notable that those
corporates with the most experience of partnering tended not to face this challenge; for companies like Cargill
partnership projects have become an accepted and widely deployed response to strategic business risks that the
company faces on issues such as potential supply shortages for key commodities within its supply chain. For
example, Cargill’s partnership projects to support smallholder farmers and their communities in countries such as
Ghana and Cameroon5 are a rational response to the strategic business risks created by poverty and declining
yields in cocoa producing regions.
Equally, there are many instances when a partnership project is not appropriate and corporates need to take
unilateral action on social, economic or environmental challenges that may be impacting short-medium term
commercial strategy or creating operational business risks. As Figure 5 illustrates, the majority of corporate
interviewees felt that partnership projects are not appropriate under these circumstances. Where there are issues
that directly impact short-medium term commercial strategy or create operational business risks, corporates will
usually have formal management controls and mechanisms for regular monitoring and reporting to provide senior
management with oversight of the issues. Such business processes often do not easily lend themselves to
integration with the activities of development NGOs or donors.
Figure 5: Corporate interviewees’ responses to the statement that partnership projects are not suitable as formal control
mechanisms for issues that directly impact short-medium term commercial strategy or risk management
Most of the corporates interviewed for this study had limited experience of working in partnership with donors.
Those that had experience in this area commented that working with government donors often introduces
political risk considerations to the company’s internal approval process for projects. This can mean that for certain
projects with donors the internal approval process for participation is more involved, requiring consultation with a
wider range of internal stakeholders than may be the case if partnering with an NGO. However, these factors are
by no means insurmountable challenges; most corporates who had partnered with government donors had done
so more than once and planned to continue doing so.
Disagree/Strongly disagree
12%
Neither
25%
Strongly agree/Agree
63%

11
Securing internal budget for the funding of partnership projects can sometimes be a
challenging process for corporate partnership managers
It is not always straightforward to determine how best to finance a development partnership project. For example,
funding might come from a corporate headquarters budget, the budget of operational business divisions, from a
corporate foundation, or some combination of different sources. A recent survey of corporate sustainability
executives by the research firm, Verdantix, found that many are significantly dependent upon other parts of their
business in order to finance sustainability programmes.6 This was certainly the case for several of the corporate
interviewees, and has important implications for potential partners to corporates as the importance of a strong
business case for partnership is further emphasised.
Significant numbers of major corporates have a charitable foundation that provides financial support to causes of
interest and relevance to the business and/or its employees. Some corporates are using their foundations to help
manage internal dynamics on how development partnership projects are financed. Whilst foundations are
charities in their own right and therefore cannot finance projects that directly provide commercial gain for the
corporate, they can fund projects which are seeking to address broader challenges that impact other stakeholders
as well as the corporate itself. For example, the Coca Cola Africa Foundation supports the Replenish Africa
Initiative (RAIN) which, amongst other things, invests in watershed protection across a number of African
countries7. Watershed protection is a strategic business issue for Coca Cola, but it is also a critical issue for many
other stakeholders not connected to Coca Cola’s business activities. Using foundations to fund longer-term
partnership projects can protect project funding from internal commercial pressures and provide a more stable,
longer term funding platform by removing the project’s financial requirements from the annual budgets of
business departments.
Corporates and NGOs can have differing views on their respective strengths in delivering
development partnership projects
Whilst there is agreement that partnerships should be genuine collaborations, there were some differences of
opinion between corporate and NGO interviewees on the roles that they should aim to take within partnership
projects. Figure 6 illustrates one area where some differences emerged, which was the extent to which corporates
may have technical expertise in-house that is comparable to that of NGOs.
Figure 6: Interviewees’ responses to the statement that the technical expertise that corporates bring to partnership projects is
comparable to that of NGOs
Many corporates have in-house sustainability teams staffed by highly qualified and experienced individuals who
may have deep technical expertise in the issues a partnership project is seeking to address. Some corporate
interviewees felt quite strongly that they had comparable technical expertise to NGOs who they may be
partnering with, but that NGOs did not recognise this or seek to involve them on technical issues. Clearly there are
exceptions; some NGOs recognise that other constraints, such as the availability of technical corporate personnel,
can be the main reason a delivery partner is needed. Nevertheless, as a means of building trust at the outset of a
new partnership it is important that neither party makes assumptions about the technical expertise of the other
party.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Corporates
NGOs Disagree/Strongly disagree
Neither

12
Differences also emerged amongst interviewees on the extent to which project management capabilities varied
between corporates and NGOs. This is illustrated by Figure 7, which shows that the majority of corporate
interviewees felt that they had better in-house project management capabilities than NGOs and, therefore, the
involvement of corporate project management capabilities to partnerships improves, or could improve, project
delivery. NGO interviewees were less inclined to agree that corporates tended to have stronger project
management capabilities.
Figure 7: Interviewees’ responses to the statement that corporates typically have better project management capabilities than
our partners and therefore improve project delivery
The differences between corporate and NGO opinions illustrated in Figure 7 point towards an issue that many
interviewees mentioned as one of the key challenges in development partnerships: differences of organisational
culture. Corporate interviewees in particular often felt that NGOs, particularly those who are relatively
inexperienced at partnering with corporates, struggled to meet their corporate partner’s expectations for quality
management through the project programme. This is illustrated by Figure 8, which suggests a perception gap may
exist between what corporates expect in terms of quality management and what NGOs feel that they are
delivering. Only one of the corporate interviewees had no concerns about the abilities of their NGO partners to
meet their quality management expectations, whereas a majority of NGO interviewees felt that their quality
management was not an issue for their corporate partners.
Figure 8: Interviewees’ responses to the statement that NGOs often struggle to meet the expectations of corporate partners
with regards to quality management
Figures 7 and 8 show that how partnership projects are managed and delivered can be a potential source of
tension in a corporate/NGO partnering relationship. However, corporate expectations of the project delivery
process for development partnerships will often differ from the expectations that corporate project owners may
have for internal or commercial consultancy projects. This is illustrated by Figure 9. Corporate interviewees stated
that this difference in expectations was partly a recognition that NGO partners may not be familiar with the
corporate’s expectations but, moreover, was an acknowledgement that very often partnership projects are focused
on challenges that may be complex and multifaceted, requiring flexibility on how the project is implemented.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Corporates
NGOs Disagree/Strongly disagree
Neither
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Corporates
NGOs
Disagree/Strongly disagree
Neither

13
Figure 9: Corporate interviewees’ responses to the statement that partnership projects are set less demanding project and
performance management standards compared to internal projects or projects delivered by commercial consultants
Successful partnership requires strong relationships – but relationship building does not always
receive the investment that is needed
Relationships are probably the most critical factor in determining whether partnerships between corporates, NGOs
and donors are successful. All interviewees were unanimously agreed on this point. To help facilitate relationship
building many organisations involved in development partnership projects have started nominating relationship
managers to act as ‘single points of contact’ for their organisation’s involvement in a partnership project. For
example, DFID has assigned a number of personnel with the responsibility to build relationships with certain
corporates with whom DFID is collaborating or exploring potential opportunities for collaboration.
Two common challenges with relationship building that are equally applicable to corporates, NGOs and donors,
emerged from the interviews. One is that relationship building takes time, particularly when the parties involved
have not worked together before. Many interviewees commented that often, in the process of setting up
partnership projects, insufficient time is invested in this. The general consensus amongst interviewees was that in
setting up a new partnership project, between 6 to 12 months should be allocated to relationship building and
planning prior to commencing any delivery activities.
The second challenge is that the individuals who are assigned responsibility for relationship building can often be
relatively junior. This has a two important implications; it means that the people responsible for relationship
building may have limited experience of how the different types of organisation in a partnership operate,
potentially impacting their ability to foresee potential challenges or ‘speak the language’ of the other parties. It
can also mean that internally within their own organisations, partnership relationship managers may struggle to
influence the decision-makers who ultimately determine how their organisation engages in a partnership project.
Many organisations involved, or intending to become involved, in development partnership projects should
consider how best to secure and utilise senior-level sponsorship within their own organisations in order to support
relationship-building with other stakeholders in the partnership.
Disagree/Strongly
disagree
37%
63%

14
Common frustrations and challenges
Corporates recognise the many benefits that are to be gained by working with NGOs and
donors, but also have some common frustrations
There are some common frustrations that corporates have in relation to development partnerships. With respect to
working with NGOs, the area of greatest frustration to corporate interviewees was the perceived inability of many
international NGOs to work collaboratively with other international NGOs. A survey undertaken by The Partnering
Initiative five years ago noted the same challenge8. Whilst international NGOs will frequently work with local NGO
partners to deliver projects, peer-to-peer collaboration at a project level is rare. NGO interviewees acknowledged
that this was often a problem, and may partially stem from the restrictions that NGOs feel are placed upon them
by the rules on how NGOs utilise their financial resources. Nonetheless, if multi-stakeholder partnerships are to
become widely adopted for addressing development challenges then this is an area which NGOs will need to
address.
It is worth noting that corporates, too, whilst usually being willing to work with competitors on multi-stakeholder
partnership initiatives focused on large scale or sector-wide issues, often struggle to work together effectively at a
project level. All organisations involved in development partnerships, be they corporates, donors or NGOs, need to
improve on peer-to-peer collaboration.
The areas of greatest frustration from those corporate interviewees that had experience of working with
government donors were the bureaucratic and administrative hurdles created by government procurement and
project management processes, and the slow pace of decision making. One corporate interviewee who had
participated on a partnership project with a government donor stated that even though the project was a success
in terms of the results achieved, working with the donor was so difficult that it is highly unlikely the corporate
will partner with a government donor again. Other corporate interviewees were resigned to the challenges of
working with donors and factored this into their decision making about whether or not to enter particular
partnership projects depending on whether or not the potential benefits of the project outweighed the costs
created by the additional administration. A recent survey of corporates by Devex and Abt Associates found the
same complaints.9
Most corporate interviewees recognised that significant benefits could be gained through working with
government donors. However, partnership on a project is often not the preferred means of collaboration for
corporates; many corporates would rather utilise government donors’ influence and convening power, particularly
in developing countries where donors may often have significant influence with national governments.
Prospective partners to corporates need to refine their value proposition
Corporates are deluged by requests from NGOs to enter into partnership projects or provide funding for projects.
For some of the corporate interviewees, letters from NGOs with new requests were received on a weekly basis. The
overwhelming majority of requests that corporates receive in this way are rejected.
The key message from corporate interviewees for NGOs who are hoping to establish or expand partnerships with
corporates is that they need to very clearly articulate their value proposition: how the partnership that is being
proposed will support the business objectives of the corporate. NGOs can be particularly impactful when they
demonstrate that they understand particular challenges that the corporate may be facing and have ideas and
expertise that may help address some of those challenges. As this report has shown, an NGO’s value proposition is
usually strongest when it is focused on the technical expertise that the NGO can bring to a challenge the
corporate is facing, and on the relationships that the NGO has and can build upon with external stakeholders that
will help support the corporate’s social license to operate.
Clearly for some NGOs there may be a strong value proposition focused on areas other than technical expertise
and external stakeholder relationships. For Earthwatch, for example, the main value proposition for corporates
centres on the satisfaction that employees can gain through participation on an Earthwatch project. This may

15
then translate into business benefits for the corporate such as increased employee motivation and reduced staff
turnover.
The fundamental point remains the same, however; there must be a business benefit before a corporate will
consider a partnership project. When it comes to seeking corporate partnerships, NGOs need to recognise that
they are operating in a competitive marketplace where there are many different organisations vying for the same,
finite, corporate resources.
An example of an area that is often overlooked by NGOs themselves in terms of their value proposition for
corporates is their knowledge and networks ‘on the ground’ in developing countries. Many development NGOs
have extensive networks of contacts and an in-depth understanding of current issues and socio-political dynamics
in the countries in which they operate. Such knowledge could often be extremely useful for corporates that are
operating or considering expansion into the same geographies. However, at present few NGOs are seeking to
capitalise on their knowledge when presenting their value propositions, which tend instead to be focused on
‘products’ rather than ‘insights’.
Internal staff reticence about partnering with corporates remains a significant challenge in the
development community
For international NGOs, and for donors such as DFID, initiatives to engage with corporates are usually led by head
office teams. However, much of the organisational decision-making with regards to ‘on the ground’ project
priorities is driven by in-country personnel who are often somewhat detached from the corporate engagement
activities of head office personnel. Moreover, many interviewees commented that many people working within the
development community have only ever worked for NGOs or aid agencies so don’t understand the corporate
‘world’. Many development professionals are sceptical about the motives of big multinational businesses in
particular.
Historically, the development organisations with the most to say about corporates and international development
have tended to be campaigning organisations drawing attention to the negative social and environmental impacts
of businesses. This is changing; progressive NGOs have now been working with corporates for many years and
there are various prominent development community forums, such as Devex, that are actively promoting a
positive narrative about the benefits of partnership with corporates.
Nonetheless, at a grassroots level many in the development community remain wary of partnership with
corporates. This issue was also noted by the 2010 survey undertaken by The Partnering Initiative10. Therefore NGOs
and donors wishing to expand their engagement with corporates need to ensure that sufficient efforts are made
to engage with and gain the support of their staff, particularly at a country-level.

16
Future outlook and good practice insights
Development partnerships will become more commonplace – but the pace of growth in
partnering is uncertain
As a means of tackling social, economic and environmental issues, all interviewees unanimously agreed that
partnerships between corporates, NGOs and donors are here to stay and are only likely to become more
commonplace in the future. However, partnering is not the solution to every challenge and the pace growth in the
establishment of new development partnerships is uncertain. Some commentators argue that partnerships will
grow dramatically,11 but there are a number of reasons to believe that the rate of growth may be more
conservative:
 Corporates tend to prefer entering into longer-term commitments with partner organisations, due to the
time it takes to build effective relationships and the additional administrative effort that working in
partnership often requires compared to working independently. Consequently many companies that are
currently working with development partners have entered into multi-year agreements and therefore may
not be interested or have the available resources to enter into new partnerships with different partners.
 Corporate sustainability functions, which are the most common functions within corporates to initiate and
manage partnership projects, don’t usually have particularly large ‘standalone’ budgets or personnel
resources when compared to other corporate functions. As the management of social, economic and
environmental issues becomes increasingly embedded in core business activities, the delivery of corporate
sustainability initiatives is increasingly reliant upon the resources of other business functions and operational
teams. For development partnership projects to become more commonplace, NGOs and donors will need to
substantially improve their ability to engage with business in terms that resonate with business personnel
outside of corporate sustainability functions; interviews for this report have found that most NGOs and
donors have some way to go in this regard.
 Most of the corporates that currently work in partnership projects are widely recognised as sustainability
leaders within their sectors. As many of the sustainability leaders have already made long-term commitments
to partner organisations and are unlikely to experience substantial increases in their budgets for
sustainability initiatives, growth in development partnerships will increasingly require NGOs and donors to
engage with corporates that may not be as advanced on sustainability issues as the recognised sustainability
leaders. Engaging with such corporates is likely to be more challenging for NGOs and donors than it has been
to-date with the sustainability leaders.
 As discussed in this report, internal staff reticence about partnering with corporates remains a significant
challenge for many NGO and donor organisations. Whilst clearly there are organisations where this is less of
a challenge, continued efforts will be needed to build a more positive narrative within the development
community about partnering with corporates and enable more partnership opportunities to be identified and
developed.
Most partnership projects are between corporates and NGOs and/or donors. Another form of development
partnering which has potential for future growth are partnerships between NGOs and sustainability consulting
firms to deliver projects for corporate clients. NGOs have been working with development consultancies to deliver
donor-funded projects for many years, but the majority of development consultancies have limited experience of
working with corporates. Sustainability consultancies, on the other hand, tend to primarily serve corporate clients
but often have limited experience of working in partnership with NGOs.
Increasingly, however, there are examples of NGOs partnering with sustainability consultancies to deliver social
impact or community-focused projects. This can be particularly useful as a means of bringing the development
and business benefits of partnership to smaller projects for which a business case for the staff time and financial
resource investments of a conventional corporate/NGO partnership is harder to justify. Partnerships with
consulting firms can also help smaller NGOs without the corporate engagement resources of larger NGOs to

17
participate in partnership projects with major corporates. For example, one of the smaller NGOs interviewed for
this study had worked as part of a consortium of organisations led by an international sustainability consultancy
delivering a major social impact assessment project for a global mining company.
Good practice insights for successful partnering
There is a growing body of literature providing advice for organisations entering into development partnerships.
The research for this study identified some further recommendations for activities that help develop and advance
successful approaches to partnering:
 When setting up a new partnership project, a feasibility and planning stage of around 6-12 months should
be included before the project is publicly launched. The purpose of this feasibility and planning stage is to
allow relationships to develop, the detailed scope of the project to be established and the different roles and
responsibilities of the parties within the partnership to be agreed. Undertaking this feasibility and planning
activity prior to publicly launching the partnership is important because it allows all parties to plan and
collaborate without the expectations of their various stakeholders to be demonstrating progress and results
from the partnership. Corporates will need to be prepared to adequately fund this activity as their NGO
partners will be unable to undertake any work on the project without the funding to do so.
 All parties involved in a partnership project should assign a single-point-of-contact in order to facilitate
relationship management. Mechanisms to enable the nominated contact to draw upon senior management
within their own organisation should be established.
 Corporates should not overlook the value of the support they can provide to NGOs outside of financing and
delivering development partnership projects. Several of the corporates interviewed in this study had used
their human resources, IT and finance teams to provide coaching and support to their NGO partners. In
addition to helping improve the NGO’s operations this also was a useful means of engaging corporate
functions in the partnership that would not normally be involved. Some corporates have also allowed their
NGO partners to use their office facilities to host off-site events for the NGO’s staff.
 Where appropriate, corporates should support their NGO partners in finding alternative sources of funding
for a project once the corporate’s involvement has come to an end. Jointly approaching potential new
corporate funders substantially enhances the impact and credibility of the NGO and greatly improves the
likelihood of securing new sources of funding for the project.
 When undertaking the contextual analysis that informs priorities and programme objectives ‘on the ground’,
development NGOs should also consider systematically assessing what private sector interests in that
particular country might be relevant to the issues or challenges that the NGO is seeking to address. Building
this analysis from the ‘ground-up’ helps identify areas of shared value – where charitable mission may be
aligned to corporate strategy. It may also help prevent country teams feeling that corporate partnership
initiatives are pushed down from headquarters.

18
References
1
Devex and Abt Associates (2015) Collaboration post-2015: Where can partnerships take development? Available
at: https://pages.devex.com/where-can-partnerships-take-development.html (accessed March 2015)
2
Ocampo (2015) Partnerships in development: Breaking down myths.
Available at: https://www.devex.com/news/partnerships-in-development-breaking-down-myths-85168
(accessed March 2015)
3
Franks et al (2014) Conflict translates environmental and social risk into business costs, Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol.111, no.21
4
C&E Advisory (2014) Corporate-NGO Partnerships Barometer 2014
5
Cargill Cocoa Promise: http://www.cargillcocoachocolate.com/sustainable-cocoa/index.htm (accessed March
2015)
6
Verdantix (2014) Global Survey 2014: Sustainability Budgets And Priorities
7
Global Environment and Technology Foundation: http://www.getf.org/our-projects-partnerships/rain/
(accessed March 2015)
8
The Partnering Initiative and SOS Kinderdorpen (2010) Changing trends in business-NGO partnerships: A
Netherlands perspective
9
Devex and Abt Associates (2014) Partnerships for Development: In-depth Interviews with Sustainability
Executives
10
ibid
11
ibid

Perspectives on corporate partnerships

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (18)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (14)

Ähnlich wie Perspectives on corporate partnerships

Ähnlich wie Perspectives on corporate partnerships (20)

Perspectives on corporate partnerships