Cross-Sector Partnerships: Towards Strengthening their Social Effectiveness – Cross-PASSE

The Cross-PASSE project employed a multi-method qualitative research design, aligned with its work package structure, to explore the social effectiveness of cross-sector partnerships (CSPs) across different stages and dimensions.

WP2.1 used a qualitative meta-analysis to synthesize empirical insights into CSPs’ societal “dark side” effects. Drawing on 47 academic case studies published between 2000 and 2023, we followed a four-step process—extraction, coding, configurative analysis, and interpretation—to identify what types of harm occur, how they emerge through CSP mechanisms, and why they are enabled by internal antecedents. This approach allowed us to move beyond individual case insights and develop a structured, theory-informed understanding of CSPs’ unintended societal consequences.

WP2.2 complemented this with an in-depth case study of a North–South CSP between a European company and an international NGO in India. Based on 18 interviews, a focus group, field notes, and a wide range of visual and textual materials, the study traced how Eurocentric discourses and practices shaped the partnership. Using a post/decolonial lens, we reconstructed the CSP’s unfolding and identified how colonial patterns emerged, were sustained, and influenced both perceptions and outcomes.

WP3 adopted a longitudinal case study design to investigate how CSPs evolve to maintain societal relevance. We analyzed a long-standing humanitarian partnership between global logistics firms and humanitarian agencies and draw on 53 interviews and 105 documents covering the period 2008 to 2025. Using temporal bracketing and thematic coding, we identified three major transitions in the partnership’s evolution and the balancing practices used to navigate them.

WP4 focused on CSP closure through an in-depth case study of a global disease-eradication initiative nearing its termination phase. Using inductive process methods, we analyzed 256 documents, 82 videos, and 21 interviews to map the closure process, identify emerging challenges, and examine partner response strategies.

Together, these methods enabled a rich, multi-level exploration of CSPs’ social effectiveness—from unintended harm and colonial legacies to adaptive transitions and closure dynamics. The combination of meta-analysis, longitudinal tracking, and immersive fieldwork provided both breadth and depth, while also surfacing new theoretical and practical insights for future research.

The Cross-PASSE research has advanced our understanding of CSPs' social effectiveness by addressing three critical and underexplored dimensions: the dark side of CSPs, the evolution of corporate engagement, and the closure dynamics of partnerships.

In WP2.1, the qualitative meta-analysis revealed that CSPs can produce societal harm across three levels: direct harm to people and the planet, systemic harm to public and nonprofit institutions, and transformational harm that hinders long-term systemic change. The study identified three mechanisms through which these harms emerge—inaction, myopic focus, and technocratic interventions—and linked them to underlying partner- and structure-centric antecedents. Based on this analysis, the HIDE framework (Harm, Intervention, Dilemma, Ethical inquiry) was introduced to offer a structured approach to identifying and addressing these effects. These insights advance a critical intervention perspective that shifts the focus from CSP governance alone to a more integrated consideration of their societal interventions and consequences.

WP2.2 advanced this perspective through an in-depth case study, showing how Eurocentric discourses and practices—such as savior narratives, pre-defined activities, and the dismissal of local knowledge—mutually reinforced each other. These patterns, described as “colonial fingerprints,” were sustained by structural factors like geographical distance, NGO gatekeeping, and rigid corporate framing. By combining postcolonial and decolonial lenses, the study demonstrated how these dynamics prevented critical reflection and learning, ultimately limiting the potential for co-creation and sustainable impact.

WP3 explored how CSPs can evolve to maintain societal relevance over time. A longitudinal case study of a business-humanitarian partnership traced two key transitions: one toward a broader portfolio of interventions, and another toward more flexible collaboration forms. The study identified four balancing practices that helped partners navigate this change despite collaborative forces pulling toward stability. It also revealed how latent goal misalignments can fuel persistent change pressures, eventually requiring structural adaptations in the partnership model.

WP4 focused on the closure phase of CSPs and, using an in-depth case study, reconceptualized closure as an extended process involving goal completion, winding down, and asset transfer. The analysis highlighted how interdependencies that once enabled effectiveness can become liabilities during closure, and introduced the concept of end-stage tensions—conflicts between internal dynamics and external realities that must be managed to avoid undermining long-term outcomes.

Together, these work packages contribute to a more comprehensive, society-centric understanding of CSPs. They reveal not only where and why partnerships fall short, but also how they can evolve, adapt, and conclude in ways that sustain their intended impact.

This project has opened up a multi-dimensional research agenda for advancing the study and practice of CSPs. Each work package has generated specific avenues for further inquiry, while also contributing to broader, cross-cutting themes that merit sustained attention.

WP2.1 – Societal Dark Side of CSPs: Future research should empirically validate and refine the HIDE framework across diverse CSP contexts. Practical tools and indicators are needed for real-time evaluation and design. Studies could also examine how different types of harm interact and vary across societal domains and geographies.

WP2.2 – Colonial Fingerprints in CSPs: Comparative research across societal domains and regions can assess the broader relevance of colonial fingerprints. Future work could center local actors’ perspectives to understand how they experience or reshape Eurocentric dynamics. There is also scope to deepen the integration of post/decolonial theory into CSP research and training.

WP3 – Navigating Transitions in CSPs: Comparative case analysis can refine the process model and test the generalizability of balancing practices. Research should explore how various CSP types (e.g., short-term, emergent, crisis-driven) manage transitions. This opens a broader agenda on navigating paradoxes in collaboration, especially change–stability and goal alignment tensions.

WP4 – Managing CSP Closure: Research should investigate closure dynamics by comparing planned vs. unplanned terminations and their effects on outcomes, trust, and learning. The framework could be extended to explore how CSPs can be designed with closure in mind from the outset.

Cross-Cutting Research Opportunities

1. Society-Centric Focus: Shift from internal governance to societal consequences of CSPs, including unintended effects.

2. Integrating Critical and Processual Approaches: Combine theories of power and asymmetry with processual and paradox-informed perspectives to better understand CSP evolution.

3. Designing for Sustainability and Exit: Develop principles and tools for adaptable, responsibly concluding partnerships.

4. Engaged Scholarship: Co-produce knowledge with practitioners through collaborative research, applied outputs, and training tools.

Cross-sector partnerships (CSPs) have emerged as an important means to address pressing societal challenges: Based on the collaboration across business, public, and civil society sectors, CSPs are expected to enable greater social effectiveness (i.e. addressing the social challenge and fostering positive societal impact) than unilateral or intra-sector actions. While previous studies in management research have examined the challenge of aligning diverse partner interests and ways of working in CSPs, insights into their social effectiveness remain surprisingly scarce. Initial evidence however suggests that CSPs do not necessarily live up to their potential, such as by failing to deliver on their targeted goals or by provoking beneficiary dependence. Consequently, this project is organized around two key aims. First, it aims to systematically explore the social impact of CSPs. It will do this by uncovering underlying mechanisms and extent deficits in CSPs’ social effectiveness through a comprehensive, interdisciplinary literature review. Second, this project aims to push extant research frontiers by scrutinizing opportunities to strengthen CSPs’ social effectiveness and elucidate the theoretical and managerial implications on the basis of a comparative, multiple case study design. The empirical approach thereby focuses on two, so far insufficiently analyzed levers to strengthen CSPs’ social effectiveness: companies’ evolutions from business-centric to society-centric approaches in their CSP engagement and the importance of investigating CSP closure dynamics and strategies through which social effects are sustained or eventually undermined. By integrating these insights into multi-level process frameworks, this project establishes much-needed connections between the discourse on CSP management and research insights into the addressing of societal grand challenges. From a societal perspective the project insights will help managers anticipate the challenges of and opportunities for strengthening CSPs’ social impact and, as a result, use this type of sector-spanning collaboration more effectively. Overall, advancing the CSP discourse and encouraging a more comprehensive view on these partnerships’ social effectiveness is critical at a time where the international community strongly advocates CSPs as a pivotal tool for achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.