Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships for Climate Compatible Development projects

(1)

Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships for

Climate Compatible Development

projects

Evidence from Ghana and Mozambique

Mariska Bijsterbosch

Joint Master’s Degree in International Humanitarian Action

July 2018

Supervisors:

dr. B.J.W. Pennink, University of Groningen

dr. L. Lofquist, Uppsala Universitet

(2)

2

Abstract

Since the adoption of the 1998 Kyoto Protocol, discussion on climate change has been dominating political debate. How leaders should turn the tables on global warming without standing in the way of economic growth and social development remains a complex issue. In this light, the model of Climate Compatible Development (CCD) is proposed as an integrative approach to sustainable development. The model suggests combining development strategies with climate mitigation and climate adaptation for the purpose of delivering triple wins. This dissertation explores the role of multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSP) in implementing CCD projects. It examines in particular the ability of such partnerships to co-create triple wins for climate mitigation, climate adaptation and development. We construct a three-pillar conceptual framework for the evaluation of MSPs in CCD projects and employ this to analyse two cases of partnerships in the agricultural sector of Ghana and Mozambique. Drawing on the data from these cases, this research shows the possibility for MSPs to co-create concurrent wins in linked sectors within the development-environment nexus. However, results suggest that both partnerships were unable to employ to full potential of the CCD model, primarily due to the mismatch between the local need for short term solutions and the model providing results on the long run. For this reason, this dissertation questions whether the strict requirement of the model can be met in the short run. Additionally, results show that successful implementation of the model is most likely conditional to its context and dependent on the partners’ ability to jointly overcome such difficulties. In this light, it is argued that for the purpose of evaluating the role of MSPs in CCD projects, it is important to consider all phases of the partnering process.

Keywords

Climate Compatible Development, Multi-stakeholder partnerships, triple wins, shared value creation, sustainability

(3)

3

Chapter 6. Analysis 6.1. Introduction………72 6.2. Sub-question 1………....72 6.3. Sub-question 2………73 6.4 Sub-question 3………74 6.5 Conclusion………...76 Chapter 7. Discussion 7.1. Introduction……….77 7.2. Sub-question 1………...………77 7.3. Sub-question 2………...78 7.4 Sub-question 3………79 7.5 Research question………81 Chapter 8 Conclusion 8.1. Conclusion……….…….84

8.2. Limitations and recommendations for future research……….…..85

Chapter 9. Bibliography 9.1. References………...86

(5)

5

A. Examples of stakeholder-specific rationale for engaging in MSPs……….98

B. A three-pillar conceptual framework………...99

C. Stakeholder mapping of MSP for FMNR in Ghana………...100

D. Role division of MSP for FMNR in Ghana………...101

E. External output assessment of MSP for FMNR in Ghana………...102

F. Internal output assessment of MSP for FMNR in Ghana………...103

G. Stakeholder mapping of MSP for SCC project in Mozambique………...104

H. Benefit sharing through MCLT in relation to other entities………..105

I. Role division of MSP for SCC in Mozambique………..106

J. External output assessment of MSP for the SCC project………107

K. Internal output assessment of MSP for the SCC project………...108

(6)

6

Abbreviations

AECL Envirotrade Sofala Limitada

ANCP Australian Aid – NGO Cooperation Program CA Community Association

CCBA Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance CCD Climate Compatible Development

CDKN Climate and Development Knowledge Network CfRN Coalition for Rainforest Nations

CODAC Community Development and Advocacy Centre CSO Civil Society Organisation

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility CVC Collaborative Value Creation EC European Commission ECCM Edinburgh Centre for Carbon EML Envirotrade Mozambique Limitada EU European Union

FMNR Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration FORIG Forestry Research Institute of Ghana HDI Human Development Index

ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre

ICSC International Civil Society Centre ISD Information Service Department

ITUC International Trade Union Confederation

JDSD Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development MCLT Mozambique Carbon Livelihoods Trust

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MinFAOG Ministry of Food and Agriculture of Ghana MONAR Movement for Natural Regeneration MSP Multi-stakeholder Partnership

NAPA National Adaptation Programme of Action NDMO National Disaster Management Organisation NFS National Fire Service

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation ODI Overseas Development Institute

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PES Payments for Ecosystem Services

PPP Private-Public Partnerships

REDD Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation SCC Sofala Community Project

SDG Sustainable Development Goals SROI Social Return on Investment

(7)

7

TDA Talensi District Assembly TOC Theory of Change

TOR Terms of Reference

UN GA United Nations General Assembly UN United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Programme WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development WV World Vision

WVG World Vision Ghana WWF World Wildlife Fund

(8)

8

Chapter 1: Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships and Climate

Compatible Development

1.1 Introduction

This dissertation explores the role of multi-stakeholder partnerships in Climate Compatible Development (CCD) projects. It examines the ability of such partnerships to co-create triple wins for climate mitigation, climate adaptation and development. In 2002, many world leaders representing several sectors came together in Johannesburg at the World Summit on Sustainable Development to discuss sustainable growth. The Summit recognized three areas that pose the greatest challenges for our future, namely social development, economic growth and equity and conserving natural resources and the environment (UN, 2002a). As the Johannesburg Declaration on Sustainable Development poses, these key areas possess overarching objectives that should be combined in a common path towards sustainable development (UN, 2002b). This emphasis on sustainable growth as the key for safeguarding the planet for future generations, was also the central feature of the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference in Paris. That sustainability can only be achieved by identifying these so-called synergies between sectors, was summarized into a few words by Sharan Burrow, General Secretary of the ITUC, stating that ‘there are no jobs on a dead planet’ (The Climate Group, 2015). As sustainable development calls for activities in multiple sectors, the promotion of effective cross-sectoral partnerships has been put high upon the global agenda. Indeed, during the UN Summit of 2016 it was recognized that the encouragement and strengthening of multi-stakeholder partnerships as the 17th goal was required to help achieve the other SDGs (UN, 2016). These multi-stakeholder partnerships, or MSP, are not a new concept to the academic world. In business management literature, collaborations for innovations between the government, the private sector and non-governmental organisations or knowledge institutes are covered with the concept of Triple Helix (see figure 1). In essence the Triple Helix is a theoretical model for innovation through the interaction between different entities. Through collaboration, actors evolve by taking up some characteristics or activities from the other actor. This interaction gives them a so-called ‘hybrid’ feature, which can lead to the generation of knowledge and innovation, as indicated at the centre of the model (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000).

(9)

9

Figure 1. The Triple Helix Model of University-Industry-Government Relations (Source: Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000)

Indeed, MSPs have been recognized by various literature schools as holding the potential to exchange knowledge, expertise, resources and attain desirable outcomes that each individual actor would not have been able to achieve on its own (Pinkse & Kolk, 2012; Bäckstrand, 2006, Kronsell & Khah, 2010; Selsky & Parker 2005; Austin & Seitanidi, 2011; Linton, 2005). As a way for world leaders to tackle environmental challenges while enhancing social and economic development, Mitchell & Maxwell (2010) introduced the model of Climate Compatible Development. CCD is posed as an integrated approach that combines development pathways with climate mitigation and adaptation strategies in order to make effective use of the potential synergies that exist in these fields. Sharing a comparative lay-out to the Triple Helix-model the approach is suggested is to result in triple wins, meaning that it could create innovative values for all three pathways by acting at the centre of the model (Mitchell & Maxwell, 2010; Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000). While cross-sectoral partnerships in the wider field of environmental-development studies are thoroughly researched, the role of MSPs in delivering effective CCD outcomes has received little academic attention to date (Dye et al., 2013; Ficklin et al., 2017). Moreover, as CCD is a relatively new concept, academic debate has posed critical questions on several aspects of the CCD model and its employment by MSP. Addressing some of these prominent issues below, this dissertation explores the role of multi-stakeholder partnerships (MSP) formed for the implementation of CCD projects. It examines in particular the ability of such partnerships to co-create triple wins by combining pathways of climate

(10)

10

adaptation, climate mitigation and development. To evaluate the emergence, functioning and effectiveness of such partnerships, we enhance a conceptual framework that focusses on key concepts of MSPs and the CCD model. This research will build upon and add to existing theories on the evaluation of MSPs in three research streams, namely the input-, process- and output-related methods of evaluation. These perspectives will help us to develop a conceptual framework on how partnerships can develop, how different partners interact and how they have the potential to create shared values. Following, this conceptual framework shall serve as a directive to our analysis of two cases of partnerships for CCD projects in Ghana and Mozambique. This analysis shall help us to consider the framework in more detail and, where needed, make suggests for its adaptation to empirical results. Evidence from the cases shall be used to construct an answer to our research questions.

The first chapter of the thesis will focus on providing context for its research. It will elaborate on the evolvement of sustainable growth in the development-environment nexus, its cross-sectoral character and the role of MSPs. Moreover, it will outline the essence of the CCD framework and discuss some of the critical issues regarding MSPs and the CCD model in academic literature. This will be followed by the construction of the research questions and objectives that drive this dissertation. Lastly, the chapter will illustrate the structure of this research and account for the research design that was chosen.

1.2 Background: the nexus of development and climate change

Since the adoption of the 1998 Kyoto Protocol, discussion on climate change has been dominating political debate. With 192 parties to the Protocol there exists the broad consensus that global warming is predominately caused by humans through the emission of carbon dioxide and that it has a detrimental effect upon our environment (UN, 1998). How world leaders should turn the tables on climate change without standing in the way of economic growth and social development remains a complex issue. This collision between the three key areas in policy and practice seems to be most prominent by what Grubb, Vrolijk & Brack have identified as the ‘the right to development’ of developing countries (1999). This is best described as the clash between the need of developing countries for energy services to bring about economic growth and social development, and the global agenda to bring down emissions to mitigate climate change. Citing the industrial revolution that brought about economic prosperity in the West, developing countries seem unwilling as well as lacking the capabilities to give priority to the reduction of emissions (Ecoequity, 2008). According to the World Bank’s evaluation on the

(11)

11

global progress towards meeting the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, around 10.7 percent of the world’s population still lives in extreme poverty (2018). It also estimates that the consequences of climate change, such as natural disasters and other climate-related hazards, will have the greatest impact on low-income countries (World Bank, 2018). This illustrates what we could call the spiral of unsustainable development, which suggests that pollution from the economic sector works counterproductive in the long run. Growth in the economic sector aims at lifting people out of poverty. Environmental pathways focus on mitigating or adapting to the detrimental effects of climate changes. When employing polluting techniques to enhance the economic sector, in the long run this will push people back into poverty and social degradation as climate change disproportionally affects the poorest (World Bank, 2010). Recognizing this clash of methods between the three sectors, has created a window of opportunity for researchers and policy makers to consider new manners to pursue economic and social growth without causing environmental degradation. Indeed, the need for transformative methods and profound integration of pathways is also internationally recognized with the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), describing them as:

‘integrated, indivisible and a balance between the three dimensions of sustainable development: the economic, social and environmental’ (UN, 2016a, p.1).

The overarching ‘zero-zero’ objective, zero poverty and zero net emissions, addresses the roots of the spiral of unsustainable development and implies the necessity for large scale transformation towards sustainable development. To be able to achieve this, effective participation of all actors across all sectors involved is essential (UN, 2016a). Researchers from various schools have described positive gains as the main incentive that dictates the willingness of actors to engage in multi-stakeholder partnerships. These positive outcomes are what in business-related studies is referred to as the creation of shared value (Austin & Seitadini, 2012), or what Maxwell addresses in the CCD model as triple wins (2015). However, such terms do not go unchallenged by critical literature in terms of association, application and meaning. Apart from debate over conceptual issues that the terminology generates, the wins may also result in indistinctness in a more practical sense (Ficklin et al., 2017). After all, especially within the scope of sustainable development, expected wins in the long term may not be as evident to every actor. In particular, strategies in relation to the prevention of environmental change show little to no immediate results. Logging, for example, will in the long run lead to a reduction in the biodiversity or create environmental hazards such as mudslides. If a collective pathway

(12)

12

costs an actor more than it produces effective wins in the short term, it becomes harder to catalyse their engagement in alternative strategies even if they may benefit from it in the long run (Hale & Mauzerall, 2004). While the adoption of the SDGs and the WSSD generates momentum to bring about sectoral transformation and form MSPs in a pathway towards sustainable development, it is unlikely that such change will occur without some losses. Questions related to the degree and form of these trade-offs and how they will affect MSPs and their deliverables, lay at the centre of political debate on how to bring about sustainable development (Hale & Mauzerall, 2004).

1.3. Multi-stakeholder partnerships

As collaborative activities across sectors have become more frequent over the past decennia, the concept of partnerships has been subject of competing definitions (Selsky & Parker, 2005; Sloan & Oliver, 2013).

Public-private partnerships

One type of partnership that is discussed thoroughly in academic literature is the ‘classic’ notion of private- public partnerships (PPP). This is understood as collaborative activities between the government and private agents, often for the purpose of delivering public goods that the public actor fails to deliver by itself (Skelcher, 2005). Reasoning behind is that for the two sectors to partner with each other the outcome is not a zero-sum game, meaning that both actors gain beneficial outcomes from the partnership (Osborne, 2000). The development of such a partnership is in academic literature often discussed in the light of the economic theory of Collective Action. This theory assumes that actors are rational beings and act out of self-interest. Collective action in this light becomes possible if the self-interest of the two actors reflects a common goal, but has an associated cost for each individual actor which results in both actors being better off collaborating (Olson, 1965). Some critical notes on this portrayal of partnerships comes from scholars arguing that this conceptual understanding fails to address the issue of power inequalities between partners and neglects the role of the civil society in multi-sectoral partners (Contu & Girei, 2014; Osborne, 2000) Moreover, defining partnerships in this sense implies a passive element in the relationship between actors, as it characterizes merely the transfer of a task, resource or risk from one actor to another rather than sharing an activity or co-creating a value (Lewis, 2001). With the adoption of the 2002 JDSD and the 2015 SDGs it was explicitly recognized that partnerships between different actors are essential on the path to sustainable development (JDSD, 2002; UN, 2016b). As the pursuit for sustainable

(13)

13

development inherently connects economic prosperity to progress in the environmental and social sphere involving multiple actors, this suggests that sustainability cannot be achieved without shared risk or joint action of partners from different sectors (van Huijstee et al., 2007). Therefore, understanding MSPs as the transfer of a responsibility from one actor involved to the other seems inconsistent with the pursuit of sustainable development.

Type II Partnerships

The introduction of the so-called Type II partnerships during the WSSD confirmed the link between sustainable development and sectoral spill-overs (van Huijstee et al., 2007). The notion of Type II partnerships holds a more decentralised and participatory approach to collaborative activities for sustainability. The definition recognizes MSP as including various actors (CSOs or NGOs, private sector, local communities and the public sector) and different levels of operation (local, national and international) for sustainable growth. A set of seven criteria, the Bali Principles, was drawn up to guide the structure and direction of the Type II partnerships. These included requirements for these partnerships such as the need to be based upon shared responsibility, to exist from any combination of partners, to be on voluntary basis and to be aimed at achieving the MDGs (Hens & Nath, 2003). While this type of partnerships was considered to be transformative and beneficial to the implementation of sustainable pathways, critics questioned the governance and accountability of this partnership (Hens & Nath, 2005). NGOs worried that the Type II partnerships would be used as a front by governmental institutions to evade their obligations to the MDGs and lack sufficient monitoring and evaluation mechanisms (Hens & Nath, 2003). Reviewing the effectiveness of Type II partnerships that were installed after the WSSD, the ICSC found that 64 percent of the 330 partnerships that were assessed showed no activities or its output did not correspond with its function (ICSC, 2014). According to the report, an explanation for this limited success can primarily be found in the institutional design of the partnerships. The Type II framework receives critical remarks for relying too much on the assumption that actors would self-organise its structure and for neglecting the role of the private sector and partners in civil society (ICSC, 2014; Abbott, 2012). The structure of the Type II partnerships would lead to imbalances of power between actors due to inequalities of resources that actors bring into the partnership (Hale & Mauzerall, 2004).

(14)

14

Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships

A popular understanding of MSPs that comes close to effectively addressing the conceptual problems of the definitions discussed above, is the UN approach on MSPs as mentioned in the A/RES/70/224 resolution (ODI, 2003).

‘(…) partnerships are voluntary and collaborative relationships between various parties, both public and non-public, in which all participants agree to work together to achieve a common purpose or undertake a specific task and, as mutually agreed, to share risks and responsibilities, resources and benefits.’ (UN, 2016b, p. 7)

Drawing on this definition and the discussion above, this study will understand MSPs in the wording of the UN with the following additions. Contrary to the Type II partnerships and UN definition which suggests any combination of partners, this dissertation will explicitly differentiate three main actors for MSPs: public, private and civil society, including non-profit. These three actors take up a prominent role in our definition, due to the widespread recognition of their value in addressing cross-sectoral issues within the development-environment nexus (Austin, 2000; ODI, 2003; Selsky & Parker, 2005; Sloan & Oliver, 2013; Wood et al., 1997; Armistead et al., 2007). While adopting a similar format of three sector like the Triple Helix model, our definition does not address academic institutions as separate partner but rather belonging to our civil society category (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000).While we do not deny the importance of knowledge institutes in innovation building and economic development, their presence in MSPs for CCD projects remains rather slim and we will therefore not analyse it as a separate category (Dyer et al., 2013; Bickersteth et al., 2017). For private entities, academic research on partnerships in the field of development and climate change is often limited to interaction between the government and society. However, the potential value of private entities participating in this field is widely recognized (Pinkse & Kolk, 2012; UN, 2014; Dodds, 2015; Abbott, 2012). Hence, for the purpose of this dissertation only partnerships that include multiple partners, with a minimum of one actor from each sector (public-private-civil society), will be evaluated as MSPs for the CCD model. Moreover, in accordance with the definition provided by the UN, this thesis will understand the nature of MSPs to have an active element in the sense that actors share rather than simply transfer risks, responsibilities, resources and benefits within the collaboration (ODI, 2003). This relates to the idea of shared internal value creation, meaning that this type of collaboration can lead to positive outcomes for more than one partner that would not have been obtained without the partnership (Austin & Seitadini, 2012). The

(15)

15

concept of internal value creation we then understand as the partners jointly achieving positive outcomes that are placed in the centre of the Triple Helix, where the three sectors overlap (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000). Placing this within the context of the CCD model and its triple sector wins, an active and shared element between the partners is crucial to reach its potential output (ODI, 2003; Mitchell & Maxwell, 2010). In the subsequent chapter we will discuss these concepts in relation to the CCD model in more detail.

1.4. Discussing a model for Climate Compatible Development

Due to growing attention of spill-overs from environmental threats onto the development sector, Mitchell & Maxwell introduced in 2010 the concept of Climate Compatible Development (CCD). It is defined as;

‘development that minimizes the harm caused by climate impacts while maximising the many human development opportunities presented by a low emissions, more resilient, future’ (Mitchell & Maxwell, 2010, p.1).

The CCD framework adopts an integrative approach of three strategies, namely climate mitigation, climate adaptation and development pathways. Mitigation to climate change is commonly understood as limiting environmental change, for example by reducing the emission of greenhouse gases. This differs from climate adaptation as this is focused on methods to cope with, control or make use of the effects of environmental change (Mitchell & Maxwell, 2010). While in early environmental literature these two strategies were viewed as separate due to their ‘timescale mismatch’, it is now often argued that this gap requires an integrated approach of the two in order to supplement one another (Suckall et al., 2013). Negative side effects of climate strategies to the development sector can be, for example, the rising costs of transport due to the demand to cleaner fuels or a ban on technology with a high carbon fuel resource base. Such issues require policymakers to seek different forms of development pathways to harmonize this sector with climate strategies (Mitchell & Maxwell, 2010). One way of investing in development while simultaneously adopting climate strategies is leapfrogging, meaning redirecting investments in the development sector from inefficient industries into enhanced and sustainable technologies. An example of this would be to invest in mobile phone networks instead of demanding landline infrastructures (Kreft et al., 2010). For the combination of the three CCD pathways an example could be the introduction of a cash-for-work programme using climate-neutral technology focused on the enhancement of climate resilience within local

(16)

16

populations (Mitchell & Maxwell, 2010). Similar to what we have seen in the Triple Helix model, the shared value of combining these strategies is illustrated at the centre of the CCD model where the strategies overlap (see figure 2). At the interface of the three pathways, is where the potential for triple wins is situated (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000; Mitchell & Maxwell, 2010).

Figure 2. Climate Compatible Development (Source: Mitchell & Maxwell, 2010, p.2)

CCD poses the idea that growth can be achieved in a cost-effective, integrated and comprehensive manner. In suggesting the possibility of triple wins in a sustainable way, the CCD framework has pulled on scholars and policy makers across different fields (Wood et al., 2017). However, due to its recent introduction academic research and empirical evidence for the framework remains slim and critical questions are raised (Tompkins et al., 2013; Dyer, Stringer & Dougill, 2012; Dyer et al., 2013). We will discuss some of these critical perspectives on the CCD model that demand further research, as context to our own research.

Forming multi-stakeholder partnerships for CCD

As the concept of shared value suggests, the CCD model requires the partnering of important stakeholders from the three pathways. Following the reasoning of the Triple Helix model, interaction of the three units of the model (climate mitigation, climate adaptation and development) is what makes innovation possible (Etzkowitz & Leydesdorff, 2000). One of the requirements of establishing such partnerships for the CCD model is transformation. In order for the relevant sectors and their stakeholders to be able to move away from their traditional roles and ‘business as usual’, transformation in practices and the way they interact is a necessity.

(17)

17

Moreover, capacity building between the different actors (public, private and non-profit sector) for the employment of CCD, needs cross-sectoral resource exchange such as finance, technology and knowledge sharing (Bickersteth et al., 2017). While Mitchell & Maxwell have stressed the importance of including all affected stakeholders to deliver CCD, evaluation of the model’s first years has pointed out difficulties in the formation of MSPs (Kaur & Ayers, 2010). Guidelines on how build MSPs for CCD and how to bring about such transformation remains scarce (Kaur & Ayers, 2010; Dyer et al., 2012) Moreover, there is a need to create a better understanding of how one can establish effective resource management and how stakeholders could attract potential partners (Stringer et al., 2013; Ficklin et al., 2018; Dyer et al., 2013).

Critical perspective Source

Stakeholder attraction Dyer et al., 2013

Resource management Stringer et al., 2013; Dyer et al., 2013 Transformation for MSP Ficklin et al., 2018

Partnership governance for CCD

Another requirement for CCD to reach its full potential is related to the governance of the MSP. It is suggested that for MSPs to be able to deliver long-term and large-scale change in terms of CCD, governance structures for the sake of integrated planning and partner interaction should be set up (Bickersteth et al., 2017). One way to do this is to carry out initial planetary tasks such as effective resource management, project planning, monitoring and the establishment of an institutional design (Bickersteth et al., 2017). Facilitating MSPs governance will help to improve the sense of ownership of stakeholders over the chosen strategy and their level of commitment (Bickersteth et al., 2017). Studies of partnerships in the wider field of environmental governance are numerous, but few of them have focused on the role of MSPs in cross-sectoral climate projects (Dyer et al., 2013). For the CCD model, evaluation of its first years has pointed out several difficulties in the partnering process. Prominent issues concern the interaction of partners and the institutionalisation of the partnership. MSPs for CCD projects often fail to set up meaningful decision-making structures and communication channels between partners and external stakeholders, resulting in short-term engagement and ineffective collaborations (Kaur & Ayers, 2010; Stringer et al., 2013; Dyer et al., 2013).

(18)

18

Establishing an institutional design Kaur & Ayers, 2010; Stringer et al., 2013 Governance of the partnerships Stringer et al., 2013; Dyer et al., 2013 Interaction between partners and external

stakeholders

Kaur & Ayers, 2010

A model for triple wins

The CCD model suggests that there is the possibility for MSPs to create triple wins by combining three pathways, climate mitigation, climate adaptation, development. With this, the proposed CCD framework takes on a broader approach towards sustainability in the development sector. In the face of the SDGs and the ‘zero-zero’ objective of zero net emissions and zero poverty, the CCD model suggests being capable of delivering exactly that: the enhancement of mitigation and climate adaptation, while simultaneously supporting the eradication of poverty (Bickersteth et al., 2017). For the achievement of CCD, Mitchell & Maxwell have proposed a minimum requirement in terms of the MSPs output. This requirement holds for the three sectors that a win for one of the sectors should at minimum not harm another sector (Bickersteth et al., 2017). General criticism of the potential deliverables of the CCD model evolves around the feasibility of triple wins and its conceptual outline, arguing that existing evidence of CCD deliverables neglects the issue of trade-offs. Such flexible understanding of the triple wins idea inherently seems to imply that these wins will exist for all actors involved and, more importantly, will be recognized as such (Ficklin et al., 2018; Suckall et al., 2014). The critical work of Ficklin and others question what is understood as a win in regard to its timespan, sphere of influence and its costs (Ficklin et al., 2018). When researchers do not consider the possible ‘losers’ of CCD projects, its empirical evidence presents a misleading picture of its successes. Evidence that straightens this imbalance and takes into account the full range of the project’s deliverables is essential for the CCD framework to evolve (Wood et al., 2017). Moreover, in assessing triple wins there is a need for conceptual clarification in order for researchers and policy makers to make sense of its value and its impact on stakeholders (Ficklin et al., 2018).

(19)

19

Conceptual issues Ficklin et al., 2018

Feasibility triple wins Ficklin et al., 2018; Suckall et al., 2014 Neglection of trade-offs Tompkins et al., 2013; Ficklin et al., 2018;

Wood et al., 2017

Impact and attribution of deliverables Dyer et al., 2013; Ficklin et al., 2018; Suckall et al., 2014

1.5. Research questions & objectives

The preceding sections have outlined the context of sustainable development and illustrated the main considerations for CCD model and its relation to MSPs. The discussion of critical literature will serve as the foundation and main justification for this research. Guided by the demand for additional evidence and deeper knowledge on the CCD framework, the focus of this dissertation is twofold: the role of MSPs in CCD projects and their ability to deliver triple wins. The research question that determines the course of this study is:

To what extent do multi-stakeholder partnerships for climate compatible development projects result in effective co-creation of triple wins?

To be able to provide a thorough answer for this research question, this dissertation has adopted three sub-questions related to the critical perspectives discussed in the preceding section:

• What factors contribute to the evolvement of multi-stakeholder partnerships for climate compatible development projects?

• How and to what extent does each individual partner contribute to the partnership for climate compatible development projects?

• What deliverables are generated by multi-stakeholder partnerships in climate compatible development projects and how can they be explained?

These sub-questions address several key concepts in existing literature within the context of CCD and MSPs, which will lay the foundation for the conceptual framework of this study. The

(20)

20

first question relates to the type of actors, the motives, the resources and purpose of MSPs. The following question is connected to the institutional design of MSPs, its governance and maintenance and the inclusion of local communities. With the final query there will be looked at wins and trade-offs for the CCD model, the partners themselves and their attribution in terms of value creation. Together they will establish a framework for evaluating the role of MSPs in CCD projects, which serves one of the objectives of this research. Additional research objectives are to address prominent discussion and knowledge gaps in existing literature, to add to the evidence of MSPs assessments for the CCD model and to construct suggestions for possible future research.

It is important to note that while Maxwell & Mitchell press the issue of gender equality in planning CCD projects, this shall not explicitly be addressed in this study. Although this dissertation recognizes the relevance of overcoming the gender gap and aspiring gender equality in all phases of the project cycle, its implications are beyond the scope of this research (Bickersteth et al., 2017).

1.6 Research design

The aim of the research is to explore the context in which MSPs are formed and what variables influences the collaboration process and its outcomes. This demands an explanatory approach to the research data, rather than controlling or testing it (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Hence, this dissertation has adopted a qualitative approach through the design of a comparative case study. Case studies typically involve an in-depth study of a certain phenomenon under specific circumstances or context. As Yin explains, research questions that concern operational links or contextual conditions ought to be studied over time, which is best served through a case study (2014). As this dissertation studies a specific context, namely CCD projects, the cases are similar and thus analysis will be conducted cross-cases. Such an approach requires a profound theoretical framework in order for the researcher to be able to analysis deviating or different patterns across cases (Yin, 2014). Hence, the first part of the research will entail an interpretive analysis of concepts in existing literature through concept mapping, which will lay the foundation for the theoretical framework. This framework will form a conceptual guide for the research’s data selection and its analysis (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Then, this study will look into two MSPs for CCD projects: the FMNR partnership in Ghana and the SCC partnership in Mozambique. The two cases will be studied and compared by means of content analysis of secondary data, such as stakeholder workshops notes, projects report and peer reviewed articles.

(21)

21

Academic articles on research methods often underline the advantages of complementing secondary documents with primary sources (Bowen, 2009; Mills, Bonner & Francis). However, collecting primary data is beyond the scope of this research due to the timespan of the project and budget restrictions. This does not imply that secondary data sources go without value when conducting qualitative research. Bowen himself outlines the advantages of using the systematic review of such sources when analysing a specific context to discover conditional circumstances (Bowen, 2009; Yin, 2014). Guided by the theoretical framework the analytical data from the cases will then be compared on a cross-case base, which will conclude the multiple case study and serve as a point of departure in addressing the research question of this dissertation.

1.7. Structure

This research is subdivided in eight chapters that together form an integral project. The following chapter will outline the methodology and research design of this dissertation. It will contain a literature review, which will be used to develop the conceptual framework and the analytical approach. The conceptual model contains three pillars of key concepts that will be worked out and used to describe the cases. In the following four chapters the framework will be applied to two cases in Ghana and Mozambique to evaluate the role of MSPs in CCD projects and how the shared value process is part of this, guided by the three sub questions of this dissertation. It will be analysed how and under what circumstances these partnerships are formed, how they are governed, what deliverables result from such collaborations and who is affected by them. Moreover, it will be assessed what trade-offs result from MSPs and how they relate to the possibility of triple wins. The seventh chapter will, guided by the sub-questions, analyse and compare the results of each of the cases in order to consider conditions for MSPs in CCD projects. This will then serve as the foundation for answering the research question and addressing the previously outlined discussion and critical perspectives on the CCD model. Lastly, our final chapter will construct a conclusion to this research, considering the limitations of this study, and construct several recommendations for future research.

(22)

22

Chapter 2: Methodology

2.1. Introduction

This chapter will explain the methodology and research approach of this dissertation. It will start with outlining existing schools on MSPs and the key concepts they relate to these partnerships. Existing literature is categorized into three streams and its concepts are subdivided into a three-pillar framework. This will guide the development of an analytical framework for evaluation of our cases in the following chapters. Next, this chapter will justify the qualitative research design of this study and explain its relevance in regard to the research objectives. This is followed by an explanation of the comparative case study design and the selection criteria of the case studies. Lastly, the possible limitations of this study will be discussed.

2.2. Literature review

There exists a large diversity in literature and approaches to MSPs and their impact. Nevertheless, through assessment of existing literature one can distinguish three methods of partnership evaluation, namely by its input, its process or its output (Selsky & Parker, 2005; van Huijstee et al., 2007; Lowndes & Skelcher, 1998; ODI, 2003). As MSPs are typically described as multi-causal and complex in nature and context, scholars have found it difficult to identify an effective method of evaluation. The first stream focuses on the input side of MSPs in the sense that it evaluates partnerships within their context, motives or resources that support their establishment (Martey et al., 2014). Another field assesses MSPs by the way they are institutionalized, their governance and their maintenance (Lowndes & Schelcher, 1998). This can be referred to as evaluation of partnerships through its process. Lastly, there is a group academics that review MSPs through their output in which they consider its deliverables, their attributability and their impact (Clarke & Macdonald, 2016). The separate evolvement of these streams of literature has resulted in several methodological and conceptual challenges such as the definition of wins, the attribution of project deliverables to specific partners or how one can observe the context that breeds partnership (Tulder et al., 2015). A consecutive argument of these differentiating approaches is that the evaluation of MSPs can be enhanced through a conceptual framework that combines important categories of analysis. By combining methods of evaluation instead of treating them separately, one can monitor factors throughout the life-cycle of partnerships and possibly discover causal linkages that overlap in different stages of the process. As a result, this research embraces a three-pillar model, as illustrated in figure 3, that includes the three prominent approaches to the evaluation of MSPs.

(23)

23

Following, the methods of evaluation will be discussed by their categorization into the pillars, considering related existing academic research and prominent concepts. This discussion shall lay the foundation for the establishment of a comprehensive conceptual framework that includes several parameters for the evaluation of MSPs in the context of CCD projects.

2.2.1. Input- related methods of evaluation

Stakeholders

As we discussed in the previous chapter, there exists a large debate on the definition of MSPs in the academic world. Following this discussion, we have adopted our own definition of MSPs, which draws upon the definition of the UN (2016a). We have added the element of active participation, meaning that actors share rather than simply transfer risks, tasks, responsibilities of resources (ODI, 2003). Moreover, for the purpose of this research we explicitly understand MSPs as alliances between stakeholders of the public, private and non-profit sector (UN GA, 2016). While employing a classification for the type of actors involved, the number of participants is not fixed. Typically, in MSPs stakeholders are encouraged to participate in finding a solution by sharing knowledge, expertise or resources (Clarke & Macdonald, 2016). In academic literature MSPs are widely recognized as an effective way of collectively overcoming an issue or achieving a synergistic goal that one actor could not have accomplished by itself (Sloan & Oliver, 2013; Abbott, 2012; Newborne & Caplan, 2006).

Rationale

The idea of sharing a purpose, however, does not imply that the motive for a stakeholder to engage in the partnership is the same for all stakeholders involved (Austin, 2000a). Opportunities presented by the partnership may differ for each of the actors and thus the rationale for stakeholders to engage in a collaboration should be recognized as being partner-specific. It is an important tool of evaluation to identify the interests and goals of each of the stakeholders in the partnership. This helps the researcher to gain a better understanding of the circumstances under which partnerships are formed and what influences their evolvement (Abbott, 2012; Tulder et al., 2015). Actor-specific studies have identified various drivers for

(24)

24

actors to involve in multi-stakeholder partnerships. A review of literature from the three main schools, business management, public sector and civil society, has provided several examples of such drivers as is illustrated in table 1. Literature that takes on a public perspective often makes a case for the development of MSPs by the government’s duty to provide public goods. Public management scholars reason that when the sector by itself is not sufficiently equipped to meet with the numerous public needs, collaborations with the private and non-profit sector can help governments to provide affordable public goods (ODI, 2003; Bickersteth et al., 2017). For example, companies could possess expertise or technology that a government is lacking (Dyer et al., 2013). Scholars also mention the role of accountability in the public sector, which means there is a need for public entities to hold public support. This makes them sensitive to public pressure and lobbying of actors from other sectors. Hence, forming partnerships with businesses or NGOs could serve as a tool for governments to create support for its policies (Bickersteth et al., 2017). In business literature, it is argued that the rationale for private entities to engage in MSPs is to be found in commercial opportunity and the improvement of competitiveness (Weber, 2008). A concept that is often brought into context with this reasoning is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). CSR is defined by the European Commission as:

‘the responsibility of enterprises for their impact on society’ (EC, 2011, p.6).

As a management strategy it advocates the need to integrate social and environmental interests into business operations in order for companies to achieve sustainable value chains. By

(25)

25

collaborating with other actors, such as NGOs and governments, to comply with CSR strategies, companies can find value creation potentials such as improvement of their reputation, the discovery of new markets or the attraction of new consumers (Lodsgärd & Aagaard, 2017; Weber, 2008; Austin & Seitanidi). Civil management-oriented literature often relates the engagement of NGOs in MSPs to the opportunity of extending their influence. Elements that NGOs could seek to access through MSPs vary from government policies, or corporate activities to agenda-setting in international platforms (Lewis, 2001). Next to the hope to enlarge their influence in a decision-making context, NGOs might also seek to hold other actors accountable for their activities (Lewis, 2001). Another prominent argument that is mentioned in civil management research is the struggle of non-profit entities with the shortage of resources or financing. Such deficiencies can be complemented by collaborating with actors that have access to abundant resources (Lyra et al., 2016). While it can be useful to distinguish such separate motives and roles for different actors, it is important to note that categorization should not rule out the possibility of another actor adopting similar motives. Performance enhancement, for example, is mentioned in several academic articles as a rationale for actors from all sectors to become involved in MSPs (Homburg & Bornemann, 2013).

Resources

The motives of actors to engage in MSPs are closely related to its resource exchange. As MSPs are formed to create valuable outcomes or wins, the contributions to MSPs are important to consider. As Pera and others note, exploring the linkages between motives and resources is fundamental for a researcher to form a constructive image of the partnerships’ potential to lead to value co-creation (2016; Lodsgärd & Aargaard, 2017). The leading perspective to the concept of resources is invested in the stakeholder theory as the resource-based view. This theory poses that resources can be distinguished as intangible resources and tangible resources (Clarke & Macdonald, 2016; Lowndes & Skelcher, 1998). For MSPs it is argued that as intangible resources, such as specific knowledge, are typically more complex for individual actors to replicate by themselves, as they are constructed in a specific social environment. Hence, the resource-based theory posits these resources to be more valuable within partnerships (Clarke & Macdonald, 2016). Another categorization that can be found in partnership literature is that resources are either generic or organization-specific. Generic resources are explained as means that any actor can possess, such as money or a positive reputation. The latter category indicates resources that are more complex and exclusive, for example knowledge or capabilities (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012). While there exist various conceptions of how partnership resources can be

(26)

26

categorized, most of them concur on two important notions. One can identify a hierarchy in resources to the extent that some resources are more difficult to acquire than others, which often makes them more valuable to actors. Resources that are deemed more valuable hold a bigger potential to co-create values when shared in partnership (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012; Clarke & Macdonald, 2016; Lodsgärd & Aagaard, 2017; Pera et al., 2016; Selsky & Parker, 2005; Hahn & Gold, 2014; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978).

Purpose

The last concept that is often found in input-evaluation methods is the purpose to which the partnership arises. As MSPs are recognized to overcome an issue or achieve goal that one actor could not have reached by itself, the intended output or purpose is an essential concept in the assessment of MSPs. Indeed, Tulder argues that evaluating the success of MSPs is often found difficult due to its dependence on the context and the lack of indicators. One methodological solution to this problem could be the comparison of MSPs deliverables to the purpose and mission of partners (Tulder et al., 2015). It is argued that the creation of value or the achievement of wins can be conceived as a set of objectives, which can be derived of the partnerships’ mission (Hahn & Gold, 2014). The mission of a partnership is often linked to a social issue that participants agreed upon addressing together. In its turn, the mission of a partnership forms the base for the intended output. Hence, identifying the intended output of the partnership, should begin with finding the issue that is to be addressed (Austin & Seitanidi, 2014). However, not all MSPs are driven by an issue that needs to be solved. Marquez and others have found that some MSPs are shaped by opportunity rather than a problem (2016). As a result, they make a distinction in purpose between partnerships that are problem-driven and partnerships that are opportunity-driven. Often partnerships that are reactive to an issue tend to last longer, while collaborations addressing an opportunity are considered to be temporary (Marquez et al., 2016). In this view, the notion of context does not refer to the societal environment on a macro level, such as globalization, in which MSPs occur. Rather it defines the context by the issue or opportunity that unites participants in common mission and intended output (Huijstee et al., 2007). However, it is important consider that most scholars agree upon the notion that the effective contribution of MSPs highly depends upon their societal context as well. For example, a MSP that might be effective on a regional level could function poorly on a national or international level (Tulder et al., 2015; Veraart et al., 2014; Arts, 2002). Consequently, when employing input-related methods of evaluation, one should consider

(27)

27

whether the purpose of the MSP unifies the partners as well as whether this purpose fits its external context.

2.2.2. Process- related methods of evaluation

A second group of assessment methods focusses on measurement through process factors. The main concepts that are administered in such an approach are the institutionalization of MSPs, their governance, their maintenance and whether or not they are inclusive in nature (Lowndes & Schelcher, 1998).

Institutional design

As discussed in the preceding chapter, the influx of partnerships that are constituted in the light of the SDGs has led to the realization that there is an urgent need for transformative structures. Maxwell & Mitchell too have accentuated the importance of institutionalizing MSPs for CCD projects to enhance implementation (Bickersteth, 2017). Similarly, Keohane and Victor reason that MSPs for issue-specific problems, like sustainable growth, have distinctive features that require the instalment of appropriate institutions (2011). Understanding the formation of such structures is important to be able to identify difficulties with implementation during the value creation process (Seitanidi & Crane, 2009). Institutionalizing partnerships can bring several advantages such as the enhancement of stakeholder participation, more effective cooperation and strategy development and the strengthening of the partnerships’ foundation (Huijstee et al., 2007). While most scholars agree that partnerships need to create structures that support the implementation and enhancement of a specific policy, this does not mean that all MSPs adopt the same organizational structure (Huijstee, 2007; Abbott, 2012; Bäckstrand, 2006). As a result, the exact institutional design of MSPs and its formation process remains conflicted in partnership literature. Businesses, government institutions and NGOs typically have different organizational designs, which makes their concatenation in an umbrella structure challenging (Hahn & Gold, 2014). A joint institutional design can serve three functions in relation to external actors; the institution can support existing structures, it can replace existing structures or it can be an improvement to existing structures (Visseren – Hamakers et al., 2012). It can be noted that, while the institutionalization of partnerships can improve their effectiveness, duplicating institutions can have the opposite result. This highlights the importance of partners exploring the wider governance context of the partnership, to set up structures that are complementary to existing structures (Pattberg & Widerberg, 2016). Institutional structures that MSPs employ can range from formal to rather informal structures, such as interactive platforms,

(28)

28

stakeholder meetings, workshops, advisory councils, headquarters, monitoring mechanisms or reporting systems (Huijstee et al., 2007; Selsky & Parker, 2005). However, the structural design that is formed is for the greater part dependent on the partners’ interests. The common interests of partners guide their preference for its institutional design and the level of institutionalization (Austin & Seitanidi, 2012b; Keohane & Victor, 2011). Abbott adds to this the role of power as the decisive factor, describing the process of institutionalization as a bargaining game in which partnering entities seek control of regulatory space (2012). The institutional formation process of MSPs is completed when its structures are accepted by partner organisations and their constituents and are adopted in the structure of the participants’ organizations (Seitanidi & Austin, 2012b).

Governance

Closely related to the institutional design is the concept of governance as a tool of evaluation for MSPs. Where the institutional design of MSPs refers to the establishment of rules and structures, the governance of MSPs can be understood as the level of compliance with the institutional design internally. Effective self- management by partners is in this context crucial in order to overcome institutional complexities and improve the implementation process (Nel, 2017). The new governance theory deems the self- management of institutional structures to be beneficial, as it transfers a part of the decision-making from generic institutions to specific actors that are best able to exercise them (Abbott, 2012). However, performing self-management and role attribution within the institutional design of MSPs can be challenging. Often actors, in particular NGOs, fear the loss of control over decisions or perceive little opportunity to participate (Contu & Girei, 2014; Teegen et al., 2004). Compliance with the institutional design is strongly linked to the actors’ perception of legitimacy. When actors perceive a rule or decision-making process as legitimate, one can expect them to comply with the set structure. Legitimacy in this context is constructed from two sources; whether the rules are predictable and whether the rules result in collective problem solving (Bäckstrand et al., 2006). Non-compliance of partners with the set institutional design by a leading actor can in its turn lead to fragmentation within MSPs. This can result in conflicting objectives, inefficient functioning or early termination of the partnership (Pattberg & Widerberg, 2016). To guide institutional and problem-solving choices in MSPs, existing literature mentions the use of meta-governance as a management approach. Meta-meta-governance as way of governing MSPs without a leading partner, is based upon the social actors coordinating the decision-making process between rationality and communication (Kooiman & Jentoft, 2009). Making choices in this

(29)

29

context is often connected to what Habermas refers to as ‘communicative rationality’. This is understood as the search for consensus amongst different actors by critical consideration of arguments (Kooiman & Jentoft, 2009; Habermas, 1984). Indeed, various other scholars have agreed with and added to this argument by advocating good consultation, open participation and shared decision-making as fundamental to effective collaboration (Bickersteth et al., 2017; Austin, 2000; Pattberg & Widerberg, 2016; Kooiman & Jentoft, 2009).

Maintenance

Next to the internal governance of MSPs, external maintenance is an important factor that influences the functioning of partnerships. As MSPs are part of a wider social context, assuring its legitimacy towards external stakeholders and beneficiaries is crucial to its existence (Ficklin et al., 2017). Maintenance in this sense refers to the ability of the MSP to attain external support and acceptance for the partnership’s performance and output. Failing to meet expectations of actors outside of the MSP or a lack of connection to existing international policies can cause a lack of external support, which can undermine the survival of the partnership (Sloan & Oliver, 2013). To overcome this, it is suggested that monitoring, reporting and evaluation practices should be included in the partnership. Examples of such practices are annual reports, interim papers or websites. Pattberg & Widerberg argue in favour of employing monitor, reporting and evaluation methods for the sake of performance enhancement by introducing three main arguments: enabling organizational learning, enhancing transparency and improving accountability (2016). These three elements jointly form the base for external partnership maintenance and strengthen a sense of legitimacy within a wider context. Monitoring, reporting and evaluation methods differ per partnership in form and shape. One of the main issues with monitoring systems employed by MSPs is their objectivity. Beisheim and Liese have found that when MSPs utilise monitoring systems they often lack independence, which can affect the objectivity of the evaluation (2014). Moreover, the monitoring and evaluation of the MPSs performance is regularly secluded from public access. Sufficient transparency towards the external stakeholders and beneficiaries is considered by existing literature to be a condition for support from actors from outside the MSPs (Bäckstrand, 2006). In order for MSPs to gain external support they need to achieve a certain level of compliance with international norms and representativeness of external actors’ interests. Without transparency of the partnership’s performance towards its external environment it can result in ‘conflictive fragmentation’, meaning that the partnership can duplicate or contradict the objectives of other actors (Biermann et al., 2010). Transparency, in this sense, will help to fit the partnership into its wider

(30)

30

social context. Next to this, widespread transparency is crucial in order to raise trust between the partners, the beneficiaries and external stakeholders. The enhancement of trust, in its turn, will conduce to the external maintenance of the MSP (Pattberg & Widerberg, 2016). Closely related to the concept of transparency is the role of accountability. While mutual accountability amongst participants improves legitimacy of the MSPs from within, accountability is also meaningful in relation to its outer context. Accountability within partnerships relates to the justification of decisions from participants towards each other, while external accountability implies the justification of decision-making towards beneficiaries and stakeholders that are affected by those decisions (Bäckstrand, 2006). Problems with external accountability in MSPs can often be related to the lack of a supranational authority. To counter this Bäckstrand, for example, suggests the possibility of adopting a horizontal accountability mechanism, rather than taking on a top-down approach (2006).

Inclusion

The last tool of evaluation in process- related literature is inclusion. With the adoption of the SDGs, debate has sprung on the role of regional and local actors in accomplishing these goals. While not explicitly mentioning local communities as partners in MSPs, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development does emphasize the importance of involving all actors in the implementing process (UN, 2016b). This is supported by a number of academic researches concluding that while local communities may not be perceived as full partner, researchers should acknowledge that the output of the MSPs in regional context partially depends on what and how intended values are delivered to beneficiaries. Therefore, the inclusion of local communities in the decision-making and implementation phase is an important factor for the continued existence of MSPs (Dyer et al., 2013). In this context, one could interpret the role of local communities as ‘hybrid’, resulting from their dual role as partner and beneficiary. Expanding the inclusive character of MSPs can improve the performance of the partnership in various ways. For example, including local communities can help to create a sense of ownership of the project and improve the MSPs’ legitimacy within a local context (Dyer et al., 2014). Moreover, including local actors in the collaboration can help to cover the knowledge gap that often exists with MSPs that operate in a local environment. In this way, the local implementation of international policy objectives can be realized (Dyer et al., 2013). However, existing MSPs for sustainable development often tend duplicate power relations of the North by adopting a top-down approach to the decision-making process and omit to ensure local participation in the process. Due to their voluntary character, MSPs in this context are directed

(31)

31

by supply rather than demand (Bäckstrand, 2006). In relation to MSPs that adopt the CCD approach, Mitchell and Maxwell too advocate the importance of having the right partners and stakeholders at the table during the decision-making process (Bickersteth et al., 2017). Whether a MSP can employ such a strategy of inclusion depends on the partners’ ability to identify and mobilize important stakeholders and beneficiaries (Waddell, 2001). When developing a relation with local communities it is not so much the choice of method that matters, as the management of the approach, the facilitation of the chosen method and transparency in regard to project objectives (Chess & Purcell, 1999). Examples of methods for inclusion are stakeholder workshops, working groups, open meeting sessions or advisory councils (Selsky & Parker, 2005).

2.2.3. Output-related methods of evaluation

The final group of assessment methods that one could employ is an output-oriented approach to the evaluation of MSPs. The main concepts in academic research using such an approach are the wins of MSPs, the trade-offs, external value creation and internal value creation (Clarke & Macdonald, 2016; Austin & Seitadini, 2011; Ficklin et al., 2018; Dyer et al., 2014)

Triple wins

As discussed in the preceding chapter, the basic premise for actors to enter into a MSP is the assumption that together they could attain desirables outcomes that one would not be able to achieve on its own (Austin & Seitadini, 2011; Bäckstrand, 2006). While the expected outcomes of such a partnership has been explored thoroughly in academic research, the analysis of actual outcomes continues to be a complex process (Tulder et al., 2015). Empirical issues that scholars writing about the evaluation of MSPs often encounter are methodological and conceptual difficulties. In an attempt to evaluate success in MSPs, existing literature has employed various terms such as wins, benefits or shared value (Mitchell & Maxwell, 2010; Austin & Seitadini, 2011; Bäckstrand, 2006). However, using these terms without a clear definition related to its context continues to be problematic in practice. It is suggested that when evaluating success in MSPs, one should start by establishing criteria that enclose the meaning and subsequently the evaluation of success (Dyer et al., 2014) This has lead scholars to make various distinctions between MSPs outcomes. One categorization of MSPs outcomes, for example, differentiates between short term outcomes and long-term outcomes (Gray & Stites, 2013). A more elaborate distinction that has received reasonable support in academic literature is the identification of ‘output’ as immediate results, ‘outcomes’ as intermediate results and ‘impacts’ as long-term

Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships for Climate Compatible Development projects