Bridge 5: Strengthening Cross-Sector Collaboration

Partnerships
123

“What do you think holds companies back from deeper, more meaningful collaboration with other businesses, foundations, civil society or government?”

  • Effort—this sort of real, serious collaboration requires much more investment (and potentially risk) alongside the higher rewards (ROI)

  • “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted," {William Bruce Cameron (NOT Albert Einstein)} rings true for this topic.

Like any deep, meaningful relationship-- individual or organisational-- requires a lot of work. Many individuals and organisations grow weary or were never fully committed to sustain the partnership/relationship and the work that entails.

124

I’ve seen several interconnected barriers hinder meaningful collaboration. One commonly acknowledged set relates to differences in language, values, and culture. Distinct sector worldviews—between companies, foundations, civil society, and government—can make alignment difficult unless there is deliberate effort early on to build shared language, trust, and purpose.

But beyond these interpersonal and cultural gaps, there are systemic issues that are just as critical—and often less discussed:

1. Organizational Silos and Structural Barriers
Businesses are often evaluated on quarterly outputs, brand wins, or short-term results, making it hard to invest in the slow, ambiguous process of systems change. Similarly, governments and public institutions operate within rigid bureaucratic cycles of funding and procurement that limit flexibility and responsiveness.

Additionally, internal organizational structures—such as legal constraints, procurement rules, and brand protection policies—often pull partners in divergent directions. Even with goodwill, these siloed incentives and institutional rhythms can create deep misalignment across sectors, making it difficult to pivot, seize collaborative opportunities, and sustain lasting partnerships.

2. Confusing Coordination with Co-Creation
Many partnerships stall because they confuse coordination—sharing updates and aligning deliverables—with real collaboration. Coordination keeps actors in parallel lanes. Co-creation asks partners to jointly define problems, stay open to emergent paths, and share ownership. That requires capabilities many organizations haven’t yet built: humility, trust, adaptive planning, and a willingness to work through complexity rather than around it.

3. Power Dynamics and Control
Even in well-intentioned partnerships, financial leverage or institutional hierarchy can create invisible dominance. This shapes tone, direction, and outcomes—often unconsciously. Real collaboration requires relinquishing some control, allowing others to lead, and creating space for discomfort. Without shared authorship, partnerships risk becoming extractive, transactional, or short-lived.

4. Underinvestment in the Middle
Too often, collaboration is treated as a kickoff meeting and a signed MOU. But the hardest and most meaningful work happens in the middle: evolving trust, navigating conflict, adapting plans, and sustaining mutual accountability. This phase demands time, emotional labor, and supporting infrastructure—but it’s where the true depth and durability of collaboration is built. Many efforts falter not from lack of intent, but from a failure to invest here.

These barriers aren’t just operational—they’re systemic and relational. The most transformative partnerships I’ve seen are rooted in shared intent and supported by adaptive structures. They begin early—with joint problem framing, trust-building, and clarity on incentives and roles—and they endure through sustained listening, mutual accountability, and iterative learning.

Real collaboration is not a quick fix. It’s a practice—one that requires designing for complexity, embracing discomfort, and committing to the long haul. Without that, even promising partnerships risk staying surface-level and short-lived.

125

What prevents collaborations which lead to scalable and replicable initiatives or more programmatic approaches which can drive systems-level change could be:

  1. Leaders who have a limited vision (i.e. focus on short-term outcomes, financial results, brand recognition impact only) and do not see how long-term partnerships create sustainable social impact
  2. Resource constraints - time, people, expertise, and money
  3. Investment in relationship building to find the right partners and collaborators

It’s important to consider what “meaningful” means in this context. Just because a project resulted in a one-time collaboration does not mean it wasn’t meaningful. Collaborators may have shifted their understanding and capabilities to address a particular issue. Knowledge may have been created which can be reused to scale-up an initiative in addition to improve similar future initiatives by replicating what worked or adopting a different approach.

126

Finding a clear business case and the space to pursue that in what are often high paced and tightly resourced organisations. Especially when other actors are not natural partners.

127

Many companies still treat collaboration as a PR exercise rather than a strategic necessity. From what I’ve seen in my work on remote readiness and cross-sector projects, the biggest blockers are misaligned incentives, short-term thinking, and fear of losing control. Organisations often silo themselves: protecting IP, guarding access, or waiting for perfect conditions - when real impact comes from transparency, shared risk, and a willingness to co-create even when agendas don’t fully align. The most meaningful collaborations I’ve seen start with trust and clarity, not polished partnerships. Take time on the alignment of values, which takes real honesty, and acceptance that different sectors come from very different places, but can still find common ground to work towards

128

Bringing government, growers and plant health industry to work for the growers, and sustainability.

129

I think many companies are caught in a bind about what their role is expected to be, particularly in the current moment.

First, let’s be honest: as much as many actors (funders and implementers) in the development space talked about corporate collaboration being more than writing a check, more often than not, they are approached by civil society groups asking about making a monetary contribution to a cause. Add to that the new pressure on companies to step in when government funding has been cut for development needs. Then couple that with the pressures being applied to companies by some consumers to take a stand here, but by other consumers to not be too vocal there. Add to that the new political situation they face to steer clear of a wide range of issues. It’s no wonder that many choose to stick to the simplest, least risky kinds of partnerships.

If consumers and civil society groups can work with companies to be good corporate citizens, pay their taxes, treat their workforce with respect, be responsible stewards of the environment, not engage in corruption, and the like, I think that gets us a fair distance there. I don’t think it’s exactly right to say that companies also need to fund development initiatives per se; rather, they can find ways to mobilize investment and natural business processes in a way that make a difference, such as by investing in clean energy, water, health and more, and providing good-paying jobs in developing contexts. In addition, there are a lot of smart people in this group (and others) who have been working on ways to unlock corporate value for good, whether through volunteerism, sharing expertise, investing in ethical supply chains, investing in transparency, greening their operations, and more.

2 Likes
130

I worked with Vodafone to develop a emergency referral and transportation for pregnant women and their newborns experiencing life threatening complications that used a digitial app and an electronic payment system to support payment of community drivers. Over 5 years they transported over 100,000 women and was fully owned and supported by the Tanzanian government

131

Interesting insight into the challenges of partnerships! “Losing control” - and deciding “who leads and who is responsible” - is critical to address and align before a project starts. There is a lot of time required during the planning and agreement stage required to avoid these challenges in co-creation and co-development.

1 Like
132

I think a lot of what holds both private companies and development actors back is the illusion of control. Both parties often try to manage complexity by narrowing scope, isolating partners, and tightly controlling outcomes to minimize perceived risks. But this mindset actually increases fragility and limits innovation.

What is needed is to see collaboration as a capability- a skill in navigating interdependence and complexity, not just a compliance checkbox or transactional exercise. That’s the systems leap- moving from managing isolated transactions to orchestrating dynamic, adaptive partnerships.

133

Agent Banking Impact Learning Report (ACDI/VOCA, March 2021)

Context:
This case study examines how agent banking—banking services delivered through local agents (mostly rural agro-input dealers) rather than traditional bank branches—expanded financial inclusion in rural Bangladesh. It was part of USAID’s Feed the Future Bangladesh Rice and Diversified Crops (RDC) Activity, implemented by ACDI/VOCA.

Key Objectives:

  • Increase rural households’ access to formal financial services.
  • Support smallholder farmers and agribusinesses with more convenient and affordable banking.
  • Strengthen the capacity of agent banking networks.

Approach:

  • Partnered with Bank Asia, a leading bank in agent banking.
  • Facilitated agent training, marketing support, and technology adoption.
  • Focused on gender inclusion, encouraging women’s participation as clients and agents.
  • Supported integration with digital payment platforms and agriculture value chains.

Results:

  • 234 agent banking outlets established.
  • Over 128,000 new accounts opened, including many by women and marginalized groups.
  • Significant increases in access to savings, credit, and government payments.
  • Enhanced trust and uptake of banking services in remote communities.

Challenges:

  • Low literacy and digital awareness among some clients.
  • Regulatory barriers to rapid agent expansion.
  • Need for ongoing agent training and client education.

Lessons Learned:

  • Agent banking can quickly scale inclusion when paired with targeted training and outreach.
  • Partnerships with strong financial institutions and technology providers are critical.
  • Gender-focused strategies improve outcomes for women.
134
  1. Resources and time. Strategy is set, KPIs are set. There isnt anyone whose job it is to work on meaningful collaboration. Its always added onto busy people’s schedules without the resources or the prioritisation to see it through. There are other factors and particularly the “unknowns” that make collaboration more risky. What will be the outcome? Will it be successful? Is there a risk it might damage reputation or highlight something negative? But at the heart of it, its leadership.
135

There is an African proverb: “If you want to go fast, go alone; If you want to go far, go together.”

But often partners don’t have the patience to go slow and take the time to make impact. And business is under the pressure to go fast and meet quarterly (if not monthly) goals.

This prevents long term relationships and the patience to build long term impact.

136

All parties need to have a clear understanding and value proposition for the partnership and expected outcomes. Partnerships take a lot of time, strong personal relationships, internal champions within each organization to sustain committment. Communication is criticial and needs to be regualry re-assessed.

137

Many companies still are considered as cash cows, mistrust. There is a presumption that companies know civil society. Some companies come at relationships looking for the bottom-line

138

Fear. The details of which is a bit complicated but entails the fear to loose control. In a swarmship context, this fear vanishes.

139

We have to stop thinking of collaboration as a one-off project and start treating it as critical infrastructure for impact. That shift requires three key investments:

1. Resourcing the Missing Middle
When collaborations fall short, it’s rarely because the ideas were weak—it’s because the connective tissue wasn’t there. The messy, ongoing work of trust-building, facilitation, conflict navigation, and joint learning is too often under-resourced or deprioritized. These aren’t “nice to haves”—they are what make partnerships resilient. Investing in this middle phase is what allows collaboration to deepen, adapt, and endure.

2. Embedding Flexibility
Systemic change is rarely linear. Collaborations often begin with energy and alignment and work well in the early stages—but they can unravel when conditions shift and there isn’t the flexibility to respond or the structure to sustain shared work. Effective partnerships build in ways to adapt as realities evolve—whether that’s political transition, climate disruption, or changing community priorities. Flexibility isn’t a luxury; it’s a prerequisite for relevance and longevity.

3. Centering Long-Term Stewardship
A question I return to often is: “Who’s holding this together when the funding and project support end?” If the answer is “an overstretched local leader,” “we’re still figuring that out,” or—worse—“we didn’t plan for that,” then sustainability is already in jeopardy. Enduring partnerships don’t wait until the final phase to think about ownership. They design for it early by co-creating roles, strengthening existing capacity, and ensuring that those sustaining the work long-term have the trust, authority, and resources to lead it. Stewardship isn’t a closing chapter—it’s a core design principle.

Lasting change requires us to structure for iteration, relationship, and real-time learning. Collaboration isn’t a moment—it’s a practice.

140

Question 1: One of the most powerful examples of cross-sector collaboration I’ve been part of was a multi-stakeholder initiative to accelerate access to a new dual HIV prevention/contraceptive product for adolescent girls and young women in sub-Saharan Africa. The collaboration brought together a global pharmaceutical company, a major donor agency, local ministries of health, and youth-led civil society organizations.
What made it work was that we established trust and a shared purpose to reimagine HIV prevention through the lens of agency and access. We embedded young women’s voices from the beginning not as token stakeholders, but as co-designers of research, rollout, and demand-generation strategies. The private sector brought technical innovation and manufacturing scale; the public sector helped with policy alignment and regulatory agility; civil society kept all of the stakeholders accountable and grounded in lived experience. This resulted in the branding, packaging and product design that reflected the preferences of young women, not just ideas in a lab. The alignment of incentives and accountability to end users with regular feedback loops was critical.

141

“How can partnerships move beyond short-term projects to create long-term systemic change?”
• Higher ambition and stronger leadership commitment to investment in something of higher value. Change the calculus – from “fast food/microwaved/take-away” to “slow cooked” approach— present and sell the value of bigger, longer-term investments. Consider the framing of “Cost of Ownership”. Be more like Warren Buffet and his investment strategy rather than Brad Katsuyama’s (Flash Boys—high-frequency trading) approach. Develop a very clear ROI for partners/stakeholders/participants.

142

A1: Among the more striking instances was a modest social enterprise that dared to bridge private capital, local government, and rural women’s cooperatives to build small-scale solar grids in off-grid villages. What made it work was the rare alchemy of aligned discomfort: the private investors needed credible social outcomes to justify patient capital; the local authorities needed modern energy to quiet restless electorates; and the women needed a spark—literal and figurative—to rewrite their household economies. The glue was a founder stubborn enough to drag each sector beyond polite promises and into co-ownership. Collaboration endures when all parties stand to lose something precious by walking away.

A2:The oldest barricade is fear dressed up as prudence—fear of dilution, of losing narrative control, of inviting strange bedfellows who might upend tidy spreadsheets. Entrepreneurs often mistake secrecy for strategy; corporations hoard processes that should be shared; civil society too often misreads profit as poison. The tragedy is that every sector claims to love the word ‘ecosystem’, yet few trust the unpredictable entanglement it demands. True alliances are messy: they demand the humility to be surprised, the courage to rewrite assumptions, and the tolerance to endure compromise. Most firms would rather stay clean and stagnant than muddy and transformed.

A3:To endure, partnerships must outgrow the vanity of pilots and the spectacle of launch events. The entrepreneur’s craft is to build flywheels, not fireworks—ventures whose logic multiplies without needing perpetual hand-holding. Cross-sector partnerships need the same backbone: embed new norms into supply chains, local laws, everyday habits—structures no single party can quietly dismantle when the spotlight fades. Think of a new standard for clean energy, a new market for surplus crops, a new way entire communities bank or learn. In the end, real change is rude: it outlives its architects. That is the highest compliment any partnership can earn.