Partnerships move from short-term to systemic impact when they’re built on shared purpose, not just shared projects. Lasting trust depends on relationships between the humans involved, and that needs work (and time) to build first.
In my work, especially around remote work infrastructure and digital inclusion, I’ve seen lasting change when partners invest in relationships, not just outcomes - embedding learning loops, staying flexible, and focusing on system-wide leverage points. Some sectors find it hard to be honestly transactional, or businesses feel they can’t be so openly… It also helps when someone plays the “bridge” role across sectors, translating needs (and sometimes literally translating), and aligning timelines/expectations. Long-term change needs continuity, but also the humility to adapt as the system shifts.
This is always going to be a difficult proposition because, as mentioned in my response to the second questions, companies are under such competing pressures. There is just going to be a natural tendency to advance short-term projects that are relatively easy to launch, describe, manage, sell to boards and shareholders, and engage staff. As alluded to in that second answer, I think some big keys are in their supply chains/sourcing, their operations, their investments, sales decisions, and the like. Companies exert a lot of influence on local ecosystems - whether that’s getting more women-owned firms as their suppliers and distributors, or treating their workers with dignity, or being good stewards of the planet. The idea is to work with companies - and their boards and shareholders - to transition to a thinking about long-run value creation and long-run protection of that value created. Longer-run thinking about natural resources, longer-run thinking about who tomorrow’s employees and consumers will be, longer-run thinking about corporate legacies, all of that can help to transition corporate behavior. But it needs to be framed in a way that companies see it as revenue enhancing in the long-run, not as a cost in the short-run.
There are a few common barriers that tend to get in the way:
Cumbersome Reporting and Compliance Requirements
Companies often face extensive, time-consuming compliance and reporting obligations when they engage with external partners—especially donors, government agencies, or large foundations. The paperwork and administrative burden can sap energy and resources, discouraging organizations from pursuing collaborations that might otherwise create significant impact.
Power Dynamics and Unequal Partnerships
In many cases, power dynamics skew heavily toward the donor or lead institution, who effectively sets the agenda and controls the decision-making. Rather than fostering a genuinely collaborative environment, this often turns partnerships into top-down arrangements. When companies feel they’re simply executing someone else’s priorities instead of co-creating solutions, their motivation to engage more deeply drops off.
Lack of Trust and Fear of Sharing Sensitive Information
Sharing information is critical for effective partnerships, but many businesses hesitate because they fear their proprietary knowledge, data, or intellectual property could be leaked or misused. Even with non-disclosure agreements, there’s often a perception that the risks outweigh the benefits, particularly when dealing with public or civil society organizations.
A Narrow Focus on Funding Rather Than Holistic Value
Finally, many partnerships are framed around transactional funding relationships rather than broader, more strategic collaborations. If companies only see a partner as a source of grants or donations, they’re less inclined to invest time building trust and exploring mutual benefits. What often works better is a more holistic approach—going beyond money to provide value-added services like market analysis, facilitation, capacity building, and networking support. This helps companies feel understood and supported, not just funded.
If you want real impact to last, the partnership itself has to be built to evolve.
That starts with co-ownership from the beginning, especially with those closest to the problem. When local actors are positioned as long-term co-architects, not just implementers, the solutions are more grounded and more resilient.
It also requires flexible capital, shared governance, and adaptive learning loops, the kind of infrastructure that lets a collaboration grow, shift, and respond over time. Too often we lock partnerships into rigid scopes and timelines, when what’s really needed is room to learn and iterate together.
And just like systems are made up of different nodes and functions, strong partnerships take a portfolio mindset, aligning different actors who bring different strengths to different parts of the ecosystem. The power comes not from uniformity, but from how those roles connect to something larger.
The partnerships I’ve seen endure don’t just manage tasks but they build alignment, trust, and capacity across the system. If your partnership can’t adapt, it won’t last. And if it’s not grounded in local leadership, it won’t scale.
We were involved in a cross sector partnership in an island nation with significant power imbalance among racial lines. To the extent the population discovered and operationalized their shared values and shared fate the societal assets developed out of that project endured. Supporting populations in identifying shared, urgent priorities and quantifying them (ie removing entrenched skepticism) and creating a tangible shared asset, like a volunteer capacity and matching service embeds mutual interests.
- Leadership, not just in words, but in backing this with resources, staff time and KPIs. Setting targets on social outcomes for example. Solutions are designed for the prioritised problems. However, to make something really work in the long term, it has to make money. It has to be commercially sustainable - so every collaboration needs to build a business case to justify its existence. I am a big fan of the book “Net Positive” which shared a lot of examples from Unilever and also other companies, on doing well by doing good. https://netpositive.world/
Rahul - good to come across you again! You may remember we were colleagues at WV for a while…hope all is well in the WV world.
Good Morning- Richard F. America - at Georgetown University School of Business- and - www.AMERICACONSULTING.net - - 1 703 437 7151- in Reston, Virginia, USA - - working with multinational corporations on community and local economic development, in emerging markets, - - with entrepreneurship focus - - especially in Africa - - The right kind of corporate philanthropy and social impact investing, can produce very large positive local results - -
Kayakayo, as a level-playing field for all actors from the soil to the spoon, to support a sustainable value-chain in agriculture and trade. kayakayo.eu.
How can partnerships move beyond short-term projects to create long-term systemic change?
From the Predistribution Initiative (PDI)'s perspective, we need to rethink how power, incentives, and decision-making are shared across sectors—especially with those traditionally excluded. At the moment, in a context of rising polarization and inequality, this means going outside echo-chambers and connecting across the political spectrum.
1. Deeply Understand the Context and Enabling Conditions
- You can’t engineer systemic change without a rich understanding of the local context, power dynamics, and constraints.
- This means:
- Mapping actors and incentives—who benefits and who loses if the system changes?
- Analyzing structural barriers (e.g., policies, cultural norms, resource flows).
- Assessing what the system is ready for: Is there political buy-in? Are there emerging champions?
- This understanding helps set realistic timeframes and design interventions that are more likely to stick.
2. Align Partners Around a Shared “North Star”
- Instead of treating each project as isolated, successful long-term efforts create a portfolio of complementary partnerships all aimed at a clear systemic outcome.
- What does this look like?
- Establishing a shared vision of success (e.g., ending child malnutrition in a region, transforming an entire supply chain to be net zero).
- Defining intermediate milestones that keep everyone engaged but still ladder up to the bigger goal.
- Embedding the long-term objectives into governance structures and partnership agreements so they survive leadership changes.
3. Build and Empower a Trusted Systems Facilitator
- In almost every successful systemic change effort, there’s an orchestrator—a backbone organization, systems integrator, or neutral facilitator—who does the following:
- Holds the collective ambition and reminds partners of it when short-term pressures mount.
- Coordinates activities across stakeholders so efforts are not duplicative.
- Facilitates learning and adaptation, because systems change is not linear.
- Manages trust and relationships—arguably the most important role.
- Without this function, partnerships tend to fragment back into siloed, transactional projects.
4. Blend Short-Term Wins with Long-Term Commitments
- Funders and companies often need to see results to justify continued investment. So:
- Design short-term pilots or proof points that can demonstrate feasibility.
- But ensure they are explicitly linked to the bigger systemic strategy—no orphan projects.
- Show how each pilot tests part of the systemic approach (e.g., validating an incentive mechanism or technology).
5. Invest in Adaptive Learning and Feedback Loops
- Systems change requires continuous sensing and course correction.
- Partnerships should:
- Set up mechanisms for real-time data collection and shared learning.
- Hold regular reflection sessions to reassess strategy.
- Be willing to revisit assumptions as conditions evolve.
6. Secure Sustainable Resources and Policy Alignment
- Short-term funding cycles are the bane of systemic efforts.
- Successful partnerships:
- Diversify funding sources (public, private, philanthropic).
- Work with policymakers to align regulations and incentives.
- Build local ownership so the change is sustained after initial funders exit.
Fundamental questions. Start with getting need alignment. This need alignment must be solidified with agreement on the humane/ethical thing to do. Then come all the outcome/output measurables which ask for flexibility in application/operation. Then you have the needed long-term meaningful impact. Yet, when a swarm has fulfilled its goal, it must be ready to morph.
· AllOn - https://www.all-on.com
· WASH - Sanitation, Local construction, Local community in Northern Mozambique
o Detailed understanding of the issues that community really face – well beyond the ESIA – e.g. literacy vs sanitation
o Strong local partners focused on local solutions (for example around WASH, financial training etc) – not just the best at responding to bids
o Focus on what really works for the community in the short term to address their priorities (e.g. child health, education for all, focusing on crops or natural resources that are already used), using the people who really make a difference (“change makers”)
o Open communications in complex and changing business projects, Government changes and Development Sector implementation
· Catalisa – https://catalisa.org
o Detailed market understanding based on field experience, not desktop studies
o Significant long-term financial commitments
o Focus, focus, focus - work with indicators, milestones and reviews
o Involving non-development expertise (lawyers, agribusiness) with more development-centred organisations (youth, community engagement, community health)
o Acceptance from government – and efforts to align with govt agendas
How can partnerships move beyond short-term projects to create long-term systemic change?
· Societies are always changing. But this change is only owned legitimately by communities and society. Businesses, corporations and NGOs can support change but should not try to create it.
· Partnerships need to be held accountable to this wider society – not just about Governments but also the mechanisms that really run communities
· Actions speak louder than words: Businesses need to act within partnerships in ways that support their claims of support for the places they work in and people they work with.
· Deliver on short term projects soonest
· Take time: Building shared vision is VERY slow, building trust is VERY slow - so LISTEN
· Building appropriate governance mechanisms essential – but build on what is there not create new
· Metrics…theoretical opportunity – not seen!
· Co-design does work, but it takes effort to link it with reality of politics, business budgets and NGO objectives
· Need capacity building on all sides (but most organisations do not recognise the need)
· System change is SLOW, NONLINEAR, and needs to ADAPT
· Involve SMEs, who are often left out of development conversations but employ most people
What holds companies back?
· Understanding the external operating environment needing different skills
o Locally: WASH NGO trained communities, helped set up very small-scale construction companies, but local government required further training on permitting and licencing to formalise these companies
o Regionally and Nationally: complex political pressures that change over time
· Different skills working together – lawyers, accountants, financial support teams, health, community experts…
· Time - Budget and timing pressures for large-scale projects* - staff incentivisation
· Different priorities at different stages of business operations
· Overall lack of trust in large companies (and vice versa) and very different objectives of the different actors*
Question 2 There is growing momentum—and even institutionalization—of meaningful collaboration in the health sector, especially when an industry’s brand is tied to its performance on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals. Commercial success and social impact are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the more a company engages local partners, consumers, and governments, the more likely its growth will be both profitable and sustainable.
Each sector brings its own culture, from timelines to language and success metrics, which is why “translators” and dedicated partnership builders are critical. There’s often a misalignment of incentives: corporations may prioritize speed and scale, while community organizations center inclusion and integrity. That’s why long-term partnerships require deliberate investment in relationship infrastructure, shared governance, co-created decisions, and mutual benefit.
While the private sector may feel frustrated by the pace or precision this approach demands, laying that groundwork often unlocks greater returns, both in impact and in profit, over the long term. Sharing the data and stories where commercial viability and social impact go hand-in hand would help to overcome this hesitation. Engaging the public to increase awareness and demand that the private sector take into account sustainability and access can also put pressure on companies to do the right thing, which is also the smart thing to do.
Question 3
Systemic change requires partnerships to shift from project-based thinking to ecosystem stewardship. That means not just solving a discrete problem, but investing in the conditions and infrastructure that allow solutions to sustain and evolve local capacity, policy change, financing models, and cultural norms.
Honing in on financing models, blended financing models may help spread the financial risk and help to balance power dynamics across stakeholders, leading to more balanced priorities. Flexible capital from philanthropy or government that allows for adaptation across longer-term funding cycles is also critical to moving beyond short-term projects.
I am overly excited that the today’s discussion was successful - despite the frustrations I got from my region which hindered my participation in our breakroom. Thumbs up to the organizers.
A2
- Misalignment on priorities. The cycles of operation and reporting for private sector is quarterly, annually, two years, five years which makes it challenging to commit to long-term investments.
Risk managements - most people want to invest where there is certainity and sometimes long-term impact require discovery
A3
- Political goodwill and vision setting by the government.
- Trust, having people at the centre
What an impressive discussion with so many contributors! My quick responses to add to the discussion:
- What’s a powerful example of cross-sector collaboration you’ve been part of or witnessed—and what made it work?
Most of my work has been in the private sector in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs) where I think cross-sector collaboration is essential for success, particularly when dealing with low-income customers/end-users who are the majority of the population in these countries. A good example of this is in my past role we worked with FMCG companies (e.g. Coca-Cola, Unilever) along with local and Multinational banks (e.g IFC) and foundations/non-profits (e.g. Mastercard Strive, Unilever’s Transform, World Bank’s CGAP) to roll out various initiative ranging from a consignment-based credit offering for micro-retailers to AI-based digital ordering for these small businesses.
- What do you think holds companies back from deeper, more meaningful collaboration with other businesses, foundations, civil society or government?
Alignment of interests is generally is key but also finding the right partners. In any sector the strength of the individual organization you partner with is key. Often people have a bad experience and then tend to use this to generalize the entire sector. Particularly in LMIC’s where I work and cross sectorial partners are key it’s essential to do ‘your homework’ and be intentional in your selection of partners based on mutual needs and interests. Too often I see companies who take a more opportunistic approach, partnering with the first NGO or organization that comes along without doing a full scoping of which organizations are in the space and who would be the ideal strategic partner.
- How can partnerships move beyond short-term projects to create long-term systemic change?
Part of this relates to the above, find the right partners, with aligned intentions and complimentary skills/expertise. This is not to say all partnerships need to be forever. Sometimes different partners are needed in the life of a company. For example, market entry may need a certain kind of partner to understand the local environment, get feedback from end-users etc. Later those needs or the emphasis may change. Further, as Prof Ted London emphasized in his Book ‘The Base-of-the Pyramid Promise’, we should not confuse projects with pilots. Pilots are key for testing new interventions, particularly the type of innovative interventions needed to bring systemic change. However, testing and experimenting inevitably involves risks and failures which are part of the learning process. By building in expectations for failures and safety nets to protect vulnerable stakeholders we can make such short-term pilots much more effective in testing new ideas and hypothesis that are the building blocks for long term systemic change. I think the Lean Start Up methodology that emerged in the high-tech/startup sector is a very useful tool for this that could be used more widely in the inclusive business space.