Annex I

Conclusions of the European Project:
 “Not alone. A research on successful partnerships between private companies and citizens’ organisations in Europe”

The research conducted for this study allows us to put forward some general conclusive remarks. Naturally, these remarks can be applied only to the partnerships examined for this work and their reliability rests upon the value and limits of this research, as defined in the introductory part of this report.
The conclusions address the following five points: study of the partnerships, essential features of the 36 partnerships being analyzed, actors’ participation in the partnerships, role of the partnerships as a corporate social responsibility “technology”, elements of ambiguity and of risk which emerged from the analysis.
Study of the Partnerships
The partnerships proved to have a rich empirical content, which was hardly in correspondence with the modeling exercises that are usually carried out on this matter. An example of this is the negligible role that social and sustainability reports have had as accountability tools of partnerships. This research can, therefore, also have implications for developing further research activities on partnerships between citizens’ organizations and private companies. From this work it might be possible to bring a benefit for existing models as well, making them more realistic and effective.
With reference to the starting point of the research, the partnerships that were analyzed emerged as a phenomenon, which is clearly different from other forms of relations (such as dialogue and collaboration) between ACOs and private companies. The main difference resides in the fact that partnerships entail sharing resources and risks in carrying out programs and activities together. This was clearly pointed out by most of the key informants, who stated that it was thanks to partnerships that they were able to do something that they would not have been able to do on their own. The title of this report, “Not Alone”, reflects this very important result.
Moreover, the study of the 36 partnerships also revealed a number of significant difficulties and obstacles. The following two problems can be considered the most important ones.
The first problem concerned the existence of divergent perceptions and assessments of the facts between the two groups of actors, which meant that it was not easy to find out exactly what really happened.

This specific problem was handled by making it a matter for further research, highlighting the actors’ divergent or convergent information and visions, and then measuring their divergences. This type of focus allowed us to enrich the body of information gathered on the partnerships, and it could also represent a warning for practitioners and policy makers, when promoting or dealing with partnerships.
The second problem referred to the overlapping and confusion that existed between the projects or activities carried out by the partnerships and the partnerships themselves. In this case, as well, it was decided to make the problem visible, by gathering information both on the projects and on the partnerships, thus making it possible to conduct a separate analysis of the two elements. It must be pointed out, however, that the interviewees showed a sufficient degree of awareness of the difference, though some confusion occasionally emerged. In this case, also, the matter should be taken into account not only when studying, but also when planning and implementing partnerships.

Essentials of Partnerships
A number of significant and recurrent elements allow us to identify some characterizing (or structural) features of the 36 successful partnerships, which were examined. Let us summarize them in the following points:

1. At the core business. Partnerships are understood and managed as something that is related to the core business of the actors’ organizations and not as something marginal or of secondary importance. It means that partnerships seem to be perceived as something linked to the very identity of the actors, capable of adding or subtracting value to it. This is the reason why, in our opinion, the top management was fully involved, both in starting and in facilitating the partnership; the evaluation of the partnership was usually not assigned to external actors; there was a reluctance to expand the relationship to other actors (though this can happen).
2. Coming from previous relations. Partnerships were borne out of a framework of mutual knowledge that preceded the decision to partnering.
3. Not yet an ordinary activity. Partnerships were apparently not yet considered a normal and ordinary operational practice for the actors. This is indicated both by the prevailing use of ad hoc communication tools and by the incidence of internal problems.
4. Flexibility, formality and personal relations. Flexibility seemed to be the main management approach for the partnerships. It is linked to the prevailing formal technical and juridical tools, which confirm the strategic value that partnerships have. At the same time, however, communication and cultural processes, as well as personal relations, were also very important.
5. Trend towards equality. The partnerships were jointly designed and managed, thus guaranteeing equality between partners. ACOs had a leadership role in defining the priorities of the common activities.
6. Investment of human rather than financial resources. Partnerships seemed to require a significant investment, primarily (and in all cases) in human, rather than in financial resources. This kind of investment is, in a sense, much more strategic both for companies and citizens’ organizations.
7. Long-term, stable relationship. The partnerships tended to evolve into stable relationships, changing in actors and in activities rather than in structure and objectives. In other words, they overcame the actors’ individual identities, producing what can be defined as an “Alchemy Effect”.
8. Added value and incremental character. Most of the partnerships were recognized as capable of bringing value to the actors’ activity, image and identity, as well as generating unexpected results, with reference both to the partners and their activities. It can be stated that partnerships had an incremental character and, therefore, tend to grow thanks to their own development.

Actors of the partnership
Citizens’ organizations seemed to be more accustomed to partnering with companies, but were more cautious in deciding to partner with companies, than companies were with them: in other words, ACOs were more used to participating in partnerships, but not with companies. They seemed to be more satisfied by the partnering experience, probably because of their low level of expectations and initial concerns, such as loss of identity, risk of becoming dependent and divergence with company objectives.
Partners revealed different intentions and expectations, though within a framework of clear and common general aims. Companies tended to partner with the goal to put into practice their corporate social responsibility strategy and enhance their reputation, while citizens’ organizations were more focused on the possibility to increase their resources and achieve concrete results in the field they were engaged in. ACOs showed also a low awareness of what were the corporate social responsibility implications of the partnership.
As for the management of the partnership, ACOs tended to involve, in addition to its top management, their entire organization, while businesses preferred to primarily utilize specific units (such as communication).
During the partnership, a mutual learning process seemed to take place. It concerned management skills for ACOs and skills linked to the project for companies. As a result, both learned about each other’s differences in terms of culture, language, etc.
The research also seemed to confirm the marginal role played by second-degree structures, whether they be of companies or of citizens’ organizations. Again, it can be said that partnerships emerged as something too important to “be left” to anyone else.
Finally, government and public administration appeared to play a marginal role, one of financial support rather than of facilitation or enablement.

Partnerships as CSR “technologies”
At this point it would be appropriate to identify partnerships as specific “technologies” capable of contributing to the implementation of corporate social responsibility goals of both companies and their civic stakeholders.
From this point of view, partnerships emerged as instruments capable of linking companies and stakeholders in a framework of common rights and duties, powers and responsibilities, leadership and management roles. Partnerships can be viewed as experiences capable of generating a significant impact inside companies and on their reputation, and of enriching their identity as a result of implemented social objectives, thus increasing their value.
On the stakeholders’ side, as well, partnerships seemed to be tools which allowed them to enhance the awareness of their role and their ability to interact with companies, as well as improve their general attitude towards business by overcoming prejudices and “prevailing views” and constructively challenge companies to take corporate social responsibility seriously.

Ambiguities and risks
Last but not least, very little information was gathered about the possible conflicts within the actors’ organizations, as well as between them and outside the partnership themselves. Despite the fact that the partnerships had been selected on the basis of their success, key informants may have been somewhat reluctant on this point. If the information had been directly collected, it would have been possible to find out more on this matter, and maybe acquire some interesting data.
People interviewed stated that there was full equality between the partners. Apart from some exceptions, they recognized the existence of unbalanced responsibilities and powers only when ACOs had a major role in the implementation of common activities. Further situations of unequal division of power could have been verified only by conducting a more in depth research.
The situation which raised the greatest concern was, probably, the lack of involvement of the intended beneficiaries in the decision making process of the partnerships. Apart from specific cases (for example, a program on wildlife), the fact that most of the partnerships did not involve the beneficiaries of their activity in the decision making, or did it in a very limited manner, clearly had negative implications.
This is something that could, indeed, raise serious doubts about the alleged innovative character of partnerships. An explanation of this phenomenon could be that the presence of a citizen- based organization may have been considered by both partners as an indirect element of representation of the intended beneficiaries’ voice and needs. Whatever the reason, this element could be an indicator of the risk of partnerships turning out to be too self-serving.
The risk of a prevailing sense of self-sufficiency and, therefore, of a self-referential attitude of partnerships, has to be closely evaluated. Apparently it is risk which is intrinsic to the “core business” character of the partnerships which were examined for this study; therefore, something that cannot be avoided, but which has to be dealt with during the partnership activity.
It is, thus, something that the partnering actors, in particular, must carefully take into consideration, in order not to contradict the very reason why partnerships themselves are established and carried out.