case study on achieving sustainable development goals

• Partnership
• The Network
• Secretariat
• Steering Committee
• International Cooperation
• Policies and Institutional Arrangements
• Asymmetries and Gaps
• Data and Statistics
• Modelling and Analytical Tools
• Means of Implementation
• Technological Areas and Innovative Systems
• Water, Energy and COVID-19
• Case Studies
• News and Events
• Publications

Itaipu’s 17 Case Studies Responding to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals

End Poverty In All Its Forms Everywhere

Download Case Study

End Hunger, Achieve Food Security And Promote Sustainable Agriculture

Ensure Healthy Lives And Promote Well-Being For All At All Ages

Ensure Inclusive And Equitable Quality Education And Promote Lifelong Learning Opportunities For All

Achieve Gender Equality And Empower All Women And Girls

Ensuring Availability And Sustainable Management Of Water And Sanitation

Ensuring Access To Affordable, Reliable, Sustainable And Modern Energy For All

Promote Sustained Inclusive And Sustainable Economic Growth, Full And Productive Employment And Decent Work For All

Build Resilient Infrastructure, Promote Inclusive And Sustainable Industrialization And Foster Innovation

Reduce Inequality Within And Among Countries

Make Cities And Human Settlements Inclusive, Safe, Resilient And Sustainable

Ensure Sustainable Consumption And Production Patterns

Take Urgent Action To Combat Climate Change And Its Impacts

Conserve And Sustainably Use The Oceans, Seas And Marine Resources

Protect, Restore And Promote Sustainable Use Of Terrestrial Ecosystems, Sustainably Manage Forests, Combat Desertification, Halt And Reverse Land Degradation And Halt Biodiversity Loss

Promote Peaceful And Inclusive Societies For Sustainable Development

Strenghten The Means Of Implementation And Revitalize The Global Partnership For Sustainable Development

Achieving Sustainable Development Goals: A Case Study of Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Limited

• Scientific Correspondence
• Published: 06 January 2024
• Volume 26 , pages 313–324, ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Priyanka Singh   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6585-4993 1 ,
• S. Solomon 2 ,
• Pankaj Rastogi 3 ,
• Kuldeep Kumar 3 &
• Govind P. Rao 4  

97 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Sugarcane-based agro-industry in India is spread over 5.2 million hectare and employs around 12 million people. It has immense potential to create shared value for the people, communities, businesses, economies, and ecosystems. This sector is instrumental in positively influencing a number of key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This study was performed at Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Limited (DBSIL), highlighting important SDGs, which the company has achieved over the years. The DBSIL has five sugar units (600,000 tonnes sugar/annum), five co-generation plants (119 MW) and two distilleries (305 KLPD) producing bio-ethanol and hand sanitizer. The company’s 36,500 TCD plants are supporting over 2500 employees, 1,50,000 farmers and their families with an annual turnover of USD 3.7 million (INR 2739 crore). The Sustainable Sugar Intensification project is capable of producing 4.5–5.0 million tonnes of quality sugarcane annually, with 30% saving of irrigation water. It has established 559 vermi-compost units, 948 farmyard manure units, and distributed 1358 solar-powered battery sprayers to promote green technology. The DBSIL has taken several initiatives to protect groundwater quality, rainwater harvesting, reducing greenhouse gases emissions, bio-recycling of wastes and effluents to minimize the carbon foot prints. During 2021, about 29 million KL of water was conserved through drip irrigation; constructed 1401 water harvesting structures and 9200 hectares of land were brought under watershed projects. The company has achieved Zero Liquid Discharge at all their plants and provided 8,01,910 m 3 of recycled water to the farmers for irrigation. At present, 1179 self-help groups consisting of 14,000 women members and 12 training centers are active in income-generating and entrepreneurship development activities. Company’s CSR funded programs include nine e-literacy centers, women and child education, rural health services, climate action, sanitation and potable water facilities, COVID-19 relief, prevention initiatives, and rural roads. The five co-generation plants are producing clean and green electrical energy, and around 60% of surplus renewable electricity is exported to grid for electricity supply to 145 villages. DBSIL has partnered with several NGOs to drive improvement in economic, social and environmental performance of growers and millers, contributing in achieving goals of SDGs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Sustainability in Sugarcane Supply Chain in Brazil: Issues and Way Forward

Raffaella Rossetto, Nilza Patricia Ramos, … Marcos Guimarães de Andrade Landell

Sustainability of sugarcane production in Brazil. A review

Ricardo de Oliveira Bordonal, João Luís Nunes Carvalho, … Newton La Scala Jr

Environmental and Economic Benefits of Sustainable Sugarcane Initiative and Production Constraints in Pakistan: A Review

Anonymous 2020. https://www.niti.gov.in/sites/default/files/2023 - 02/10_Report_of_the_Task_Force_on_Sugarcan_%20and_Sugar_Industry_0.pdf.

Anonymous 2021. Dalmia Bharat Sugar, Catalyzing Transition Green Growth, Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Limited, Corporate Responsibility Report FY2020–21. https://www.dalmiasugar.com/sustainability .

Anonymous. 2023. https://www.isosugar.org/publication/135/sugar-and-sustainable-development-goals---mecas(18)17 .

G.P. Rao and P. Singh 2022. Value addition and fortification in non-centrifugal sugar (jaggery): A potential source of functional and nutraceutical foods. Sugar Tech 24(2):387–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-021-01020-3

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

N.A. Rivera 2022. Bioindicators for the sustainability of sugar agro-industry. Sugar Tech 24 (3):651–661.

Article   Google Scholar  

Singh, P. 2020. Sugar industry: A hub of useful bio-based chemicals. In Sugar and sugar derivatives: changing consumer preferences , eds. Mohan, N., P. Singh, 171–194. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6663-9_11

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Singh, P., and J. Singh 2020. Sugarcane and sugar diversification: Opportunities for small-scale entrepreneurship. In Sugar and sugar derivatives: changing consumer preferences , eds. Mohan, N., P. Singh, 241–251. Singapore: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6663-9_15

P. Singh, Y.G. Ban, L. Kashyap, A. Siraree and J. Singh. 2020. Sugar and sugar substitutes: Recent developments and future prospects. In Sugar and sugar derivatives: changing consumer preferences eds. N. Mohan and P. Singh, 39–75. Singapore: Springer.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6663-9_4

S. Solomon and M. Swapna 2022. Indian sugar industry: Towards self-reliance for sustainability. Sugar Tech 24: 630-650.

S. Solomon, G.P. Rao, M. Swapna,  A. Kumar and R.C. Singh 2019. Corporate social responsibility initiatives and their impact on sugar-mill performance: A case study of the seksaria biswan sugar factory, India. Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 30: 377-383.

Google Scholar  

S. Solomon, P. Singh, K. Kumar Rastogi, and G.P. Rao. 2023 Contributions of the Indian sugar industry to sustainable development—agenda 2030: A case study of dalmia bharat sugar and industries limited. Proceedings of the International Society of Sugar Cane Technologists 31: 97.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the management of Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Limited, cane development staff and all technical and supporting personnel of the DBSIL units for their cooperation and unstinted support in carrying out this study

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

U. P. Council of Sugarcane Research, Shahjahanpur, U.P., India

Priyanka Singh

Lucknow/Society for Sugar Research and Promotion, Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research, New Delhi, India

Dalmia Bharat Sugar and Industries Limited, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi, India

Pankaj Rastogi & Kuldeep Kumar

Society for Sugar Research and Promotion, New Delhi, India

Govind P. Rao

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Priyanka Singh .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Singh, P., Solomon, S., Rastogi, P. et al. Achieving Sustainable Development Goals: A Case Study of Dalmia Bharat Sugar & Industries Limited. Sugar Tech 26 , 313–324 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-023-01343-3

Download citation

Received : 06 April 2023

Accepted : 11 November 2023

Published : 06 January 2024

Issue Date : April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-023-01343-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Sugar industry
• Sustainable development goals
• Corporate social responsibility
• Co-generation
• Greenhouse gases
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 06 August 2022

Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in the post-pandemic era

• Wenwu Zhao   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5342-354X 1 , 2 ,
• Caichun Yin 1 , 2 ,
• Ting Hua 1 , 2 ,
• Michael E. Meadows   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8322-3055 3 , 4 , 5 ,
• Yan Li 1 , 2 ,
• Yanxu Liu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3571-1932 1 , 2 ,
• Francesco Cherubini 6 ,
• Paulo Pereira   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0227-2010 7 &
• Bojie Fu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-9920-9802 1 , 2 , 8  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  9 , Article number:  258 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

13k Accesses

41 Citations

14 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Development studies

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose substantial challenges to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Exploring systematic SDG strategies is urgently needed to aid recovery from the pandemic and reinvigorate global SDG actions. Based on available data and comprehensive analysis of the literature, this paper highlights ongoing challenges facing the SDGs, identifies the effects of COVID-19 on SDG progress, and proposes a systematic framework for promoting the achievement of SDGs in the post-pandemic era. Progress towards attaining the SDGs was already lagging behind even before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Inequitable distribution of food–energy–water resources and environmental crises clearly threaten SDG implementation. Evidently, there are gaps between the vision for SDG realization and actual capacity that constrain national efforts. The turbulent geopolitical environment, spatial inequities, and trade-offs limit the effectiveness of SDG implementation. The global public health crisis and socio-economic downturn under COVID-19 have further impeded progress toward attaining the SDGs. Not only has the pandemic delayed SDG advancement in general, but it has also amplified spatial imbalances in achieving progress, undermined connectivity, and accentuated anti-globalization sentiment under lockdowns and geopolitical conflicts. Nevertheless, positive developments in technology and improvement in environmental conditions have also occurred. In reflecting on the overall situation globally, it is recommended that post-pandemic SDG actions adopt a “Classification–Coordination–Collaboration” framework. Classification facilitates both identification of the current development status and the urgency of SDG achievement aligned with national conditions. Coordination promotes domestic/international and inter-departmental synergy for short-term recovery as well as long-term development. Cooperation is key to strengthening economic exchanges, promoting technological innovation, and building a global culture of sustainable development that is essential if the endeavor of achieving the SDGs is to be successful. Systematic actions are urgently needed to get the SDG process back on track.

Similar content being viewed by others

Expert review of the science underlying nature-based climate solutions

B. Buma, D. R. Gordon, … S. P. Hamburg

Global supply chains amplify economic costs of future extreme heat risk

Yida Sun, Shupeng Zhu, … Dabo Guan

The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals

Ricardo Vinuesa, Hossein Azizpour, … Francesco Fuso Nerini

Introduction

In 2015, the United Nations (UN) adopted “The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” and proposed 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with the aim of eradicating poverty and promoting peace and prosperity for all on a healthy planet by 2030 (UN, 2015 ). While time is running out to achieve the 2030 Agenda, the world is struggling to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. By May 2022, more than 500 million COVID-19 cases were confirmed, with more than six million deaths (WHO, 2022 ). Health services were stretched to the verge of collapse, lockdowns resulted in labor forces being laid off, and millions pushed back to extreme poverty and malnutrition (Sachs et al., 2020 ; Stephens et al., 2020 ).

Even prior to the pandemic, SDG advancement was constrained and delayed, but the health crisis and socio-economic recession resulting from COVID-19 have severely impeded SDG progression. Systematic and practical solutions are urgently needed to get the SDGs back on track. Accordingly, the objectives of this paper are to (1) analyze challenges to SDGs progress that prevailed prior to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) identify the impact of COVID-19 on progress towards achieving the SDGs; and (3) provide a systematic and practical framework for implementing SDGs in the post-pandemic era.

Challenges facing SDG progress before COVID-19

Inequitable access to resources limits sustainable development.

Food, energy, and water (SDG 2, 6, 7) are the resource pillars on which the SDG implementation stands (Stephan et al., 2018 ). Their security is threatened by human development pressures and ecosystem degradation. Since 1970, due to the doubling of the global population (World Bank, 2020 ), primary energy and food production have more than tripled (IPBES, 2019 ), yet billions of people still suffer from food and energy shortages, and inadequate water supply in terms of both quantity and quality (Bazilian et al., 2011 ). With the global population estimated to rise to nine billion by 2050, energy and food production must increase by 50% and 70%, respectively, to meet human basic needs (EIA, 2021 ; UNEP, 2021 ). Moreover, one-sixth of human-dominated land has experienced ecosystem service degradation (UNEP, 2021 ), endangering the supply of food, energy, and water, and therefore undermining the very foundations of sustainable development (Yin et al., 2021 ).

Environmental crises threaten SDG implementation

Climate change, ecosystem degradation, and pollution (SDG 13–15) are major global environmental risks that weaken the natural foundations supporting the SDGs (UNEP, 2021 ). These risks inhibit efforts toward poverty reduction, food and agricultural security, human health, and water security (SDG 1–3, 6). Unstable climate conditions also compromise the safety of urban infrastructures (SDG 9, 11) (Nerini et al., 2019 ). Ecosystem degradation is detrimental to gender equality, especially in rural areas, where local livelihoods are primarily dependent on ecosystem services and women are discriminated against in terms of access to land and education (SDG 5) (Naidoo and Fisher, 2020 ; Yin et al., 2022 ). Increased levels of environmental degradation and pollution also amplify the development gap and accentuate inequalities between countries. Low-income countries, where development is highly dependent on healthy soil, clean water, and climate-sensitive sectors such as agriculture bear the greatest burden of climate change and pollution (SDG 10) (Lusseau and Mancini, 2019 ; Yin et al., 2021 ). Progress in sustainable energy, responsible production and consumption, economic growth, and decent work (SDG 7, 8, 12) are all hampered by environmental pollution and the loss of natural capital (IPBES, 2019 ). About 3.2 billion people are affected by land degradation and pollution, and climate-related natural disasters cost $155 billion in 2018 (Swiss Re Institute, 2019 ). More than 2500 conflicts worldwide were attributed to environmental crises that exacerbate migration and competition for natural resources (World Economic Forum, 2020 ), seriously jeopardizing the development of peaceful and inclusive societies (SDG 16, 17).

Gaps between SDG visions and actual capabilities discourage national efforts

The effective implementation of SDGs in a country depends on their integration into national socio-economic development plans. While the UN is committed to a policy of ‘leaving no one behind’ in achieving the SDGs, only about half the countries (53%) have completed or are developing, a roadmap for SDGs to guide their implementation (Allen et al., 2018 ). This is largely due to critical gaps between the SDGs’ requirements and the prevailing vision in countries, especially where the SDG framework sets higher requirements than the country’s development capacity. Under the constraints of a higher target threshold, the challenge remains as to how to formulate a feasible blueprint (Lu et al., 2015 ). Moreover, restricted by the inadequate technology and resource utilization efficiency, improvements in SDGs, including economic growth and social needs, often come with high environmental costs that put planetary boundaries at stake, which in turn negatively affects the overall achievement of SDGs (Hua et al., 2020 ; O’Neill et al., 2018 ). This emphasizes that upgrading technology is key to accelerating SDG progress and reducing the gap between goals and actual capabilities.

Turbulent geopolitical environment undermines the SDG process

Amid the pandemic and political conflicts, a peaceful external environment and functioning multilateral partnerships are critical to advancing the SDGs. Current geopolitical conflicts between countries are adding uncertainty to the SDG process (UN, 2020b ). Armed conflict and regional instability have caused widespread cropland abandonment, further negatively affecting food security. It is estimated that cultivated croplands in war-ravaged South Sudan reduced by 16% from 2016 to 2018 (Olsen et al., 2021 ). Trade wars between major economies led to a surge in soybean cultivation in Brazil, which has led to deforestation, overuse of agricultural land, and thus threatening carbon sequestration (Aguiar et al., 2016 ; Macedo et al., 2012 ). Geopolitical conflict, more especially the war in Ukraine in 2022 (Osendarp et al., 2022 ), has further undermined international markets and threatened food and energy security, constraining international cooperation that would promote the SDGs (Mach et al., 2019 ). Implementing SDGs depends largely on financial support, especially for developing countries with large infrastructure needs and funding gaps. Under the prevailing turbulent geopolitical environment, aid funding to developing countries is likely to be further reduced, leaving them even less able to fulfill their financial needs (UN, 2020a ). This highlights the importance of global coordination to extend sources of aid funds, cultivate social capital, and improve governance.

Imbalances and trade-offs limit the effectiveness of SDG implementation

Due to differences in the global resource base, status of the environment, and domestic and international political and economic circumstances, progress in advancing the SDGs is unbalanced and exhibits trade-offs globally (Figs. 1 , S1 , and S2b ). Overall, in developing countries, the risk of climate change and deficiencies in the availability of even basic needs (e.g., clean water, energy availability) are key challenges (Balasubramanian, 2018 ; Cheng et al., 2021 ), while for developed countries, responsible consumption and production, coupled with ecosystem integrity are the main bottlenecks (Yang et al., 2020 ). Additionally, the Matthew effect is manifested in differential SDG achievement, as lower income-level nations evidently make slower progress in implementing the SDG agenda (UN, 2020b ). Uneven SDG advancement, therefore, exacerbates development disparities between and within nations (Liu et al., 2021 ; Xu et al., 2020 ). On the other hand, the effectiveness of SDG actions and policies is affected by interactions between the goals and targets, and the extent to which synergies among them can be leveraged (Nilsson et al., 2018 ; Pradhan, 2019 ; Pradhan et al., 2017 ). Previous studies have highlighted negative interactions, for example between SDG10, SDG12, SDG13, and other goals that impede overall progress (Kroll et al., 2019 ; Pradhan et al., 2017 ). Such trade-offs appear to be even more pronounced in high-income countries. As SDG interactions evolve over time, synergies appear to be diminishing and trade-offs increasing, particularly in the case of interactions between SDG7 and SDG1, and SDG7 and SDG3 (Kroll et al., 2019 ). These perturbing findings mean that the current level of action towards implementing the SDGs is failing to leverage synergies and needs to be strengthened to overcome resistance induced by trade-offs.

The color of the map reflects the global average score for each country on the 17 SDGs. Bar charts indicate the SDG index scores for different subregions, including Asia, Africa, North America, Europe, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Oceania. We collected data from the Sustainable Development Report 2019 ( https://www.sdgindex.org/reports/sustainable-development-report-2019/ ).

The effects of COVID-19 on SDG progress

Covid-19 leads to a decline in sdg performance.

The COVID-19 pandemic has constrained progress in achieving the SDGs, as clearly illustrated by the marked decline in global SDG index scores in 2020 (Fig. S2a ) and the increase in global poverty (SDG1) for the first time in decades, whereby an additional 119–124 million people fell back into extreme poverty (UN, 2020b ). The impact of COVID-19 on population health and wellbeing, along with the disruption of medical services, may have reversed decades of SDG 3 progress (Ranjbari et al., 2021 ). In addition, more than 1.52 billion children and youth were out of school or university in 2020 under lockdowns, wiping out 20 years of education gains (SDG 4) (UN, 2020b ). During the pandemic, the world faced the worst economic recession since the Great Depression (Ibn-Mohammed et al., 2021 ) and precipitated the loss of about 255 million full-time jobs (SDG 8) (UN, 2020a ). The supply chain disruptions under lockdown conditions stalled the manufacturing industry and, GDP per capita was estimated to fall by 4.2% globally in 2020 (UN, 2020b ). Meanwhile, the aviation industry suffered its steepest decline in history (Dube et al. 2021 ) as the number of air passengers fell by 60% from 4.5 billion in 2019 to 1.8 billion in 2020 (SDG 9) (UN, 2020b , 2021a ).

COVID-19 amplifies unevenness in SDG progress

COVID-19 has exacerbated differences among countries and communities in achieving the SDGs (Barbier and Burgess, 2020 ). Overall, the SDG index in almost half (49%) of the world’s countries has registered negative growth (i.e. SDG index score growth rate < 0, Fig. 2 ). Data show that SDG progress decreased significantly in most low and lower-middle-income countries, while it increased in high income countries (Fig. 2 ). Notwithstanding high COVID-19 confirmed rates in middle- and high-income countries, progress towards SDGs in 2020 has remained the same or, in some cases, actually improved (Fig. 2 ), suggesting that health systems, infrastructure, market and regulatory systems in such countries are more resilient to emergencies like COVID-19. Meanwhile, low-income countries lack the fiscal freedom to finance an adequate COVID-19 response and invest in recovery plans (Barbier and Burgess, 2020 ; UN, 2021b ). It has been estimated that COVID-19 increased the average Gini coefficient (SDG 10) in emerging market and developing countries by 6% (UN, 2021a ). Moreover, the risk of COVID-19 transmission has been shown to be much greater in densely populated urban areas (SDG11), which account for more than 90% of confirmed COVID-19 cases (UN, 2020a ), more especially in developing countries where high density informal settlements are abundant. COVID-19 also had an uneven impact on different socio-economic groups, since the poor and more vulnerable, including women, children, the elderly, and informal workers, have been the hardest hit (Hawkins et al., 2020 ). Women comprise up to 70% of the global health workforce, making them more susceptible to infection (UN, 2021a ), while increased care responsibilities and domestic violence during home isolation also threatened progress towards gender equality (SDG 5) (Chattu and Yaya, 2020 ). Older and homeless people were not only besieged by greater health risks but also likely to be less capable of supporting themselves in isolation (D’Cruz and Banerjee, 2020 ; UN, 2020a ).

The bar chart shows the number of countries (divided into global, high-income, upper-middle-income, lower-middle-income, and low-income countries) achieving positive and negative SDG growth (2020 compared to 2019), respectively. We collected data from the Sustainable Development Report 2020 ( https://www.sdgindex.org/reports/sustainable-development-report-2020/ ) and the WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard ( https://covid19.who.int/ ).

COVID-19 undermines connectivity and intensifies anti-globalization

The pandemic has delivered an unprecedented shock to the interconnected global system. Firstly, COVID-19 lockdowns directly limited inter-regional connectivity (such as the flow of human capital, and material and financial resources), which seriously affected the interconnected globalized economy and demand-supply chains (Dube et al., 2021 ; Galvani et al., 2020 ). COVID-19 has disrupted the global market, retarding progress towards economic growth (SDG 8) and production and consumption (SDG 12) in 80% and 70% of the world’s countries, respectively (Fig. S3 ). Secondly, the global lockdown has further disrupted social–ecological interactions. As the global recession loomed, local populations in developing countries with limited incomes were more likely to raid adjacent natural ecosystems, resulting in deforestation, poaching, overfishing, and the weakening of restoration initiatives (Roe et al., 2020 ). Indeed, the slump in ecotourism (SDG 9) during lockdown not only led to the loss of local income but also threatened ecological protection funds considered essential for wildlife and ecosystem conservation (SDG 15) (Naidoo and Fisher, 2020 ; Yin et al., 2021 ). Thirdly, in the absence of secure and stable international trade, many countries/regions were forced to depend more on domestic markets to maintain the demand for food, energy, and water (SDG 2, 6, 7), which in turn interrupts the food–energy–water nexus under conditions of limited ecological carrying capacity (Yin et al., 2022 ). Moreover, the pandemic disrupted global economic exchanges fueled regional inequality and disputes and exacerbated anti-globalization. Regional conflicts (such as wars, protests against structural inequality, and racism) intensified during COVID-19 (Cole and Dodds, 2021 ). Rising trade protectionism and anti-globalization have threatened both equality and peace (SDG 10, 16). Since multilateral and global partnerships are challenged by meager financial resources and regional conflicts, COVID-19 also impeded global partnerships, and, hence, SDG 17 progress has declined in 60.6% of the world’s countries (Fig. S3 ).

COVID-19 generates positive signals of change for SDGs

The pandemic not only posed challenges but also opportunities to promote sustainable transformation (Ibn-Mohammed et al., 2021 ; Pradhan and Mondal, 2021 ). Firstly, digital technology experienced a massive impetus and played a strongly supportive role, for example by improving healthcare responses, alleviating the impact of lockdowns, enabling business continuity through remote working, and supporting online education (Pan and Zhang, 2020 ). The digital economy and high-tech manufacturing fueled an economic recovery in late 2020, up 4% from the end of 2019 (SDG 9) (UN, 2021a ). Secondly, while income constraints may have triggered the plundering of ecosystem resources, the drastic reduction in industrial emissions and economic activity reduced CO 2 emissions and pollution, thereby improving environmental quality and ecosystem health in the short term (Le Quéré et al., 2020 ). COVID-19 was estimated to produce a 6% drop in greenhouse gas emissions for 2020 (SDG 13) (UN, 2021a ). Limited human activity during the lockdown provided a chance for ecosystems and oceans to recuperate (SDG 14) (Diffenbaugh et al., 2020 ). Nevertheless, such improvements are likely to be only short-lived (climate action progress in 85.6% of countries declined throughout 2020, Fig. S3 ). Any such environmentally positive signals need to be prolonged by implementing sustainable development commitment once the pandemic ends and the global economy recovers.

A systematic framework for promoting the achievement of SDGs in the post-pandemic era

To address the fragile foundations, uneven progress, and degraded cooperation context towards sustainable development and to help cope with the multiple challenges facing SDG progress before and amid COVID-19, we recommend that post-pandemic SDG actions adopt a systematic framework of “Classification–Coordination–Collaboration” (Fu et al., 2020 ).

Classification

Classification helps rationalize and identify the current development status, clarify the expected goals for sustainability, and select the appropriate development priorities and paths aligned with the national conditions.

Elucidating the impact of the pandemic : It is necessary for governments to adopt multiple solutions that deal with COVID-19’s adverse effects while maintaining positive momentum (Ranjbari et al., 2021 ). Containing the pandemic and avoiding further adverse social and economic impacts necessitates quick and effective interventions, not least the continuation of prevention, testing, and treatment measures but also through the effective roll-out of vaccines globally. Achieving herd immunity, in which a significant proportion of the population (70 percent) is vaccinated, remains an urgent requirement (Jean-Jacques and Bauchner, 2021 ). Improving health care systems, ensuring resource security, restoring livelihoods and production are also critical.

Identifying the urgency of SDGs : Some SDG targets are more urgent amid COVID-19 (e.g., medical and healthcare systems, food and water security) and, under the ongoing pandemic and economic recession, cash-strapped governments need to identify urgency and priorities among diverse SDG targets according to challenges and national development needs (Naidoo and Fisher, 2020 ). As noted above, identifying and harnessing the SDG synergies can enhance the effectiveness of SDG actions and policies. Based on the principles of cost–benefit and social–ecological analysis, governments, and experts need to determine win-win solutions (e.g., Nature-based Solutions) that minimize trade-offs, promote synergies, and address multidimensional development issues (Zhang et al., 2020 ), so as to meet their most urgent needs and to systematically promote the SDGs (Barbier and Burgess, 2020 ).

Classifying countries/regions standards for SDGs : COVID-19 has amplified deficiencies in the foundations of development, and inadequate resilience and recovery potential. It is difficult for less developed countries to achieve SDGs that are measured against a unified global standard, which therefore frustrates their efforts towards making progress. To implement targeted optimization measures for the SDGs, it would be helpful for the UN to classify different countries/regions, considering their differences in SDG baseline levels, resources, infrastructure, technology, and socio-economic status. More realistic and practicable SDG actions require common but differentiated targets for countries/regions at different levels of development. Countries within similar categories can establish national plans to take concerted action in terms of policy, finance, trade, infrastructure, and values.

Coordination

Coordination includes domestic and international support and inter and intra-departmental coordination for both short-term recovery and long-term development.

Domestic and international coordination : The global experience of COVID-19 suggests that stronger domestic and international coordination is needed for achieving SDGs. On one hand, countries need to establish their own management systems to ensure the security of basic resources (Wang et al., 2020 ), such as improving infrastructure and logistics systems and strengthening the domestic production and stock capacity. On the other hand, international organizations need to strengthen their coordination capacity to improve international dialog mechanisms, build platforms for bilateral and multilateral investment and trade cooperation, and coordinate market rules for basic resources, especially given the additional stresses brought about by the pandemic and associated impacts.

Coordination between different administrative departments : To enhance the synergistic effect among SDGs, it is vital that both intra- and inter-departmental coordination be reinforced. While the SDGs were originally presented and envisaged as separate goals, it is clear that they are strongly interdependent. Coordination between different target-related departments is key to avoiding policy overlap and conflict for SDGs. Facing financial and energy constraints after COVID-19, governments have the duty to seek solutions that minimize trade-offs, promote synergies, and address multidimensional development issues to systematically promote the SDGs.

Coordination between short-term recovery and long-term development : To set the goals back on the path to recovery, both short-term and long-term issues must be identified and addressed with targeted measures. In the short term, the pandemic has negatively impacted goals related to reducing poverty and securing food, water, and energy, which must be addressed urgently. However, in the longer term, improving infrastructure, promoting scientific and technological innovation, and optimizing the relationship between humans and nature are imperatives for the realization of the SDGs (Yang et al., 2020 ). Accordingly, in formulating socio-economic development policies for the post-pandemic era, attention of researchers and policymakers needs to be applied to both short-term recovery and long-term development.

Cooperation

Cooperation includes strengthening economic cooperation, promoting technological innovation, and jointly building a global culture of sustainable development.

Economic cooperation to strengthen global economic partnership : Different stakeholders urgently need to strengthen complementarity, adopt common but differentiated responsibilities and build a stable global economic environment. We recommend three actions for all relevant stakeholders as follows: (i) Provide targeted economic assistance to vulnerable communities/regions in a way that allocates aid funds scientifically, thus ensuring their more efficient and equitable use. (ii) Deepen international cooperation on production capacity by implementing actions that optimize production modes, improve production efficiency and economic benefits, increase employment, and avoid resource waste and environmental damage. (iii) Jointly build a platform for financial cooperation by expanding access to financing to strengthen the resilience of global markets.

Technological cooperation to promote scientific and technical innovation : If economies ravaged by the pandemic are to get back on track, there is an urgent need for researchers, corporations, and the technology industry to strengthen the exchange of scientific and technical innovation in the following areas: (i) Building platforms for collaboration that establish channels for joint innovation and technology transfer between countries/institutions while protecting intellectual and rights. (ii) Ensuring that funding for innovation and collaboration flows into key scientific and technical fields, thereby supporting original scientific achievements and guiding market funds towards them. (iii) Cultivating international talents to stimulate innovation and unleash the greater potential of scientific and technological innovation through collaboration.

Cooperation between cultures to shape sustainable development values. Repairing cultural isolation caused by COVID-19 and the lockdown is even more critical than ever if the world is to recover from the pandemic. On the basis of respecting cultural diversity, cultural institutions, and organizations need to take action to form and nurture a culture of global sustainability and values. Effective actions towards this include: (i) deepening and broadening access to education for sustainable development to enhance public understanding, recognition, and willingness to participate in SDGs, respect differences and diversity, and foster the values of harmony with nature. (ii) Improving the development and maintenance of a cultural infrastructure that reduces cultural imbalances that aggravate gender and racial discrimination and foment violent conflicts.

Concluding remarks

COVID-19 has delivered a grave shock to SDG progress. Under global lockdowns and economic recession, political disputes and armed conflicts constrain international coordination and cooperation for sustainable development. In addition, multiple pressures continue to threaten the achievement of SDGs, and their implementation is not simply a case of stepping out of the shadow of the pandemic, since ongoing population growth puts increased pressure on limited natural resources, climate change impacts social security and intensifies natural disasters, and ecosystem degradation and pollution shake the very foundations of sustainable development. We, therefore, urge the UN’s High-level Political Forum, national governments, researchers, and stakeholders to consider more seriously how to recover and transform SDG actions after the pandemic. In the post-pandemic era, it is urgent that more systematic solutions be found and adopted. Such solutions can be enhanced by reclassifying the SDG status and vision, coordinating multiple resources and policies, and promoting and consolidating economic, technological, cultural, and political collaboration. Last but not least, with just 8 years to 2030, we have to plan ahead regarding where and how SDGs should evolve in 2030 and after 2030. For the phase after 2030, the SDG vision needs to be oriented towards 2045, a year which, incidentally, marks the UN’s 100th anniversary. Ideally, the pandemic and global recession will in the future be considered a watershed, and Agenda 2030 is a milestone guiding the world towards Agenda 2045 and a truly sustainable future.

Data availability

The datasets generated and analyzed in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Aguiar APD, Vieira ICG, Assis TO et al. (2016) Land use change emission scenarios: anticipating a forest transition process in the Brazilian Amazon. Global Change Biol 22:1821–1840. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13134

Article   ADS   Google Scholar  

Allen C, Metternicht G, Wiedmann T (2018) Initial progress in implementing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): a review of evidence from countries. Sustain Sci 13:1453–1467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0572-3

Article   Google Scholar  

Balasubramanian M (2018) Climate change, famine, and low-income communities challenge Sustainable Development Goals Comment. Lancet Planet Health 2:E421–E422. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2542-5196(18)30212-2

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Barbier EB, Burgess JC (2020) Sustainability and development after COVID-19. World Dev 135:105082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105082

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bazilian M, Rogner H, Howells M et al. (2011) Considering the energy, water and food nexus: towards an integrated modelling approach. Energy Policy 39:7896–7906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.09.039

Chattu VK, Yaya S (2020) Emerging infectious diseases and outbreaks: implications for women’s reproductive health and rights in resource-poor settings. Reprod Health 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-020-0899-y

Cheng Y, Liu HM, Wang SB et al. (2021) Global action on SDGs: policy review and outlook in a post-pandemic era. Sustainability 13:6461. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13116461

Cole J, Dodds K (2021) Unhealthy geopolitics: can the response to COVID-19 reform climate change policy. Bull World Health Organ 99:148–154. https://doi.org/10.2471/blt.20.269068

D’Cruz M, Banerjee D (2020) ‘An invisible human rights crisis’: the marginalization of older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic—an advocacy review. Psychiatry Res 292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113369

Diffenbaugh NS, Field CB, Appel EA et al. (2020) The COVID-19 lockdowns: a window into the Earth System. Nat Rev Earth Environ 1:470–481. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-020-0079-1

Article   ADS   CAS   Google Scholar  

Dube K, Nhamo G, Chikodzi D (2021) COVID-19 pandemic and prospects for recovery of the global aviation industry. J Air Transp Manag 92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jairtraman.2021.102022

EIA (2021) International Energy Outlook 2021. EIA https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/IEO2021_ReleasePresentation.pdf . Accessed 24 Apr 2022

Fu B, Zhang J, Wang S et al. (2020) Classification–coordination–collaboration: a systems approach for advancing Sustainable Development Goals. Natl Sci Rev 7:838–840. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwaa048

Galvani A, Lew AA, Perez MS (2020) COVID-19 is expanding global consciousness and the sustainability of travel and tourism. Tour Geogr 22:567–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2020.1760924

Hawkins RB, Charles EJ, Mehaffey JH (2020) Socio-economic status and COVID-19-related cases and fatalities. Public Health 189:129–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.09.016

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Hua T, Zhao WW, Wang S et al. (2020) Identifying priority biophysical indicators for promoting food-energy-water nexus within planetary boundaries. Resour Conserv Recycl 163:105102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105102

Ibn-Mohammed T, Mustapha KB, Godsell J et al. (2021) A critical analysis of the impacts of COVID-19 on the global economy and ecosystems and opportunities for circular economy strategies. Resour Conserv Recycl 164:105169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105169

IPBES (2019) Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science–Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3553579 . Accessed 24 Apr 2022

Jean-Jacques M, Bauchner H (2021) Vaccine distribution-equity left behind? JAMA 325:829–830. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.1205

Kroll C, Warchold A, Pradhan P (2019) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): are we successful in turning trade-offs into synergies. Palgrave Commun 5:140. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0335-5

Le Quéré C, Jackson RB, Jones MW et al. (2020) Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement. Nat Clim Chang 10:647–653. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0797-x

Liu YL, Du JQ, Wang YF et al. (2021) Evenness is important in assessing progress towards sustainable development goals. Natl Sci Rev 8:nwaa238. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwaa238

Lu YL, Nakicenovic N, Visbeck M et al. (2015) Five priorities for the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 520:432–433. https://doi.org/10.1038/520432a

Article   ADS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lusseau D, Mancini F (2019) Income-based variation in Sustainable Development Goal interaction networks. Nat Sustain 2:242–247. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0231-4

Macedo MN, DeFries RS, Morton DC et al. (2012) Decoupling of deforestation and soy production in the southern Amazon during the late 2000s. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:1341–1346. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1111374109

Article   ADS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mach KJ, Kraan CM, Adger WN et al. (2019) Climate as a risk factor for armed conflict. Nature 571:193–197. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1300-6

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Naidoo R, Fisher B (2020) Sustainable Development Goals: pandemic reset. Nature 583:198–201. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01999-x

Nerini FF, Sovacool B, Hughes N et al. (2019) Connecting climate action with other Sustainable Development Goals. Nat Sustain 2:674–680. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0334-y

Nilsson M, Chisholm E, Griggs D et al. (2018) Mapping interactions between the sustainable development goals: lessons learned and ways forward. Sustain Sci 13:1489–1503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0604-z

O’Neill DW, Fanning AL, Lamb WF et al. (2018) A good life for all within planetary boundaries. Nat Sustain 1:88–95. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4

Olsen VM, Fensholt R, Olofsson P et al. (2021) The impact of conflict-driven cropland abandonment on food insecurity in South Sudan revealed using satellite remote sensing. Nat Food 2:990–996. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00417-3

Osendarp S, Verburg G, Bhutta Z et al. (2022) Act now before Ukraine war plunges millions into malnutrition. Nature 604:620–624. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-01076-5

Pan SL, Zhang S (2020) From fighting COVID-19 pandemic to tackling sustainable development goals: an opportunity for responsible information systems research. Int J Inf Manag 55:102196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102196

Pradhan MR, Mondal S (2021) Pattern, predictors and clustering of handwashing practices in India. J Infect Prev 22:102–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/1757177420973754

Pradhan P (2019) Antagonists to meeting the 2030 Agenda. Nat Sustain 2:171–172. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0248-8

Pradhan P, Costa L, Rybski D et al. (2017) A systematic study of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) interactions. Earths Future 5:1169–1179. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017ef000632

Ranjbari M, Esfandabadi ZS, Zanetti MC et al. (2021) Three pillars of sustainability in the wake of COVID-19: a systematic review and future research agenda for sustainable development. J Clean Prod 297:126660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126660

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Roe D, Dickman A, Kock R et al. (2020) Beyond banning wildlife trade: COVID-19, conservation and development. World Dev 136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105121

Sachs J, Karim SA, Aknin L et al. (2020) Lancet COVID-19 Commission Statement on the occasion of the 75th session of the UN General Assembly. Lancet 396:1102–1124. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31927-9

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Stephan RM, Mohtar RH, Daher B et al. (2018) Water–energy–food nexus: a platform for implementing the Sustainable Development Goals. Water Int 43:472–479. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2018.1446581

Stephens EC, Martin G, van Wijk M et al. (2020) Editorial: impacts of COVID-19 on agricultural and food systems worldwide and on progress to the sustainable development goals. Agric Syst 183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2020.102873

Swiss Re Institute (2019) Natural catastrophes and man-made disasters in 2018: “secondary” perils on the frontline. sigma. https://www.swissre.com/dam/jcr:c37eb0e4-c0b9-4a9f-9954-3d0bb4339bfd/sigma2_2019_en.pdf . Accessed 24 Apr 2022

UN (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sdgs.un.org/publications/transforming-our-world-2030-agenda-sustainable-development-17981 . Accessed 24 Apr 2022

UN (2020a) Shared responsibility, global solidarity: responding to the socio-economic impacts of COVID-19. https://unsdg.un.org/resources/shared-responsibility-global-solidarity-responding-socio-economic-impacts-covid-19?msclkid=f21129fec47a11ecabe177ea5cf4cc5f . Accessed 24 Apr 2022

UN (2020b) The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2020. United Nations Publications, New York

Google Scholar  

UN (2021a) The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2021. United Nations publications, New York

UN (2021b) The Sustainable Development Report 2021. Cambridge University Press, the UK

UNEP (2021) Making Peace with Nature—a scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies. UNEP Secretariat, Nairobi. https://www.unep.org/gan/resources/report/making-peace-nature-scientific-blueprint-tackle-climate-biodiversity-and-pollution . Accessed 24 Apr 2022

Wang YC, Yuan JJ, Lu YL (2020) Constructing demonstration zones to promote the implementation of Sustainable Development Goals. Geogr Sustain 1:18–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2020.02.004

WHO (2022) WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard https://covid19.who.int/ . Accessed 24 Apr 2022

World Bank (2020) Poverty and shared prosperity 2020: reversals of fortune. World Bank, Washington, DC https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/poverty-and-shared-prosperity . Accessed 24 Apr 2022

World Economic Forum (2020) The Global Risks Report 2020. World Economic Forum, Geneva. https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2020 . Accessed 24 Apr 2022

Xu ZC, Chau SN, Chen XZ et al. (2020) Assessing progress towards sustainable development over space and time. Nature 577:74–78. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1846-3

Yang SQ, Zhao WW, Liu YX et al. (2020) Prioritizing sustainable development goals and linking them to ecosystem services: a global expert’s knowledge evaluation. Geogr Sustain 1:321–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2020.09.004

Yin CC, Zhao WW, Cherubini F et al. (2021) Integrate ecosystem services into socio-economic development to enhance achievement of sustainable development goals in the post-pandemic era. Geogr Sustain 2:68–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2021.03.002

Yin CC, Pereira P, Hua T et al. (2022) Recover the food–energy–water nexus from COVID-19 under Sustainable Development Goals acceleration actions. Sci Total Environ 817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.153013

Yin CC, Zhao WW, Pereira P (2022) Soil conservation service underpins sustainable development goals. Glob Ecol Conserv 33:8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2021.e01974

Zhang C, Cai WJ, Liu Z et al. (2020) Five tips for China to realize its co-targets of climate mitigation and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Geogr Sustain 1:245–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geosus.2020.09.001

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Science-based Advisory Program of the Academic Divisions of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology (2022-ZD-08), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China. The authors thank the editor and reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions on the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Wenwu Zhao, Caichun Yin, Ting Hua, Yan Li, Yanxu Liu & Bojie Fu

Institute of Land Surface System and Sustainable Development, Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Department of Environmental & Geographical Science, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa

Michael E. Meadows

School of Geographic and Ocean Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China

College of Environmental Sciences, Zhejiang Normal University, Jinhua, China

Industrial Ecology Program, Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

Francesco Cherubini

Environmental Management Center, Mykolas Romeris University, Vilnius, Lithuania

Paulo Pereira

State Key Laboratory of Urban and Regional Ecology, Research Center for Eco-Environmental Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bojie Fu .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies requiring ethical approval.

Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary materials: achieving the sustainable development goals in the post-pandemic era, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Zhao, W., Yin, C., Hua, T. et al. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in the post-pandemic era. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 9 , 258 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01283-5

Download citation

Received : 13 February 2022

Accepted : 26 July 2022

Published : 06 August 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01283-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

The impact of covid-19 fiscal spending on climate change adaptation and resilience.

• Alexandra Sadler
• Nicola Ranger
• Brian O’Callaghan

Nature Sustainability (2024)

Characterization of Saponin Extracted from Acacia concinna (Shikakai or Soap Pod) and Thermodynamic Studies of Its Interaction with Organic Dye Rhodamine B

• Wasefa Begum
• Bidyut Saha
• Ujjwal Mandal

Chemistry Africa (2024)

Does banking sector support for achieving the sustainable development goals affect bank loan loss provisions? International evidence

• Peterson K. Ozili

Economic Change and Restructuring (2024)

Multi-way Analysis of the Gender Dimension of the Sustainable Development Goals

• Edith Johana Medina-Hernández
• María José Fernández-Gómez

Social Indicators Research (2024)

Assessing the sustainability of socio-economic boundaries in China: a downscaled “safe and just space” framework

• Qinglong Shao

npj Climate Action (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sustainable Development Goals

• All UCL SDG case studies

Case studies

Search here results.

• UCL students simulate UN SDG summit | Sustainable Development Goals - UCL – University College London
• UCL research helps shape international decarbonisation policy toolkit | Sustainable Development Goals - UCL – University College London
• Researchers at UCL review UK’s progress towards achieving the SDGs | Sustainable Development Goals - UCL – University College London
• Making UCL catering services more sustainable | Sustainable Development Goals - UCL – University College London
• UCL start-up takes ‘living walls’ to new level of sustainability | Sustainable Development Goals - UCL – University College London
• UCL undergraduates inspire more girls to keep up their football | Sustainable Development Goals - UCL – University College London
• New UCL master’s course to accelerate sustainable energy solutions | Sustainable Development Goals - UCL – University College London
• UCL student consultancy challenge boosts charity action towards the SDGs | Sustainable Development Goals - UCL – University College London
• Fourth Gold Athena Swan award recognises UCL’s commitment to equity and inclusion | Sustainable Development Goals - UCL – University College London
• New UCL MSc to equip ecologists with cutting-edge data science tools | Sustainable Development Goals - UCL – University College London

Please enable JavaScript to use this page or visit this page for a non javascript version.

Research outputs

View all UCL’s published research related to the SDGs.

View all SDG research​ →

About the UN's 17 SDGs

Simon Knowles Head of Coordination (SDGs) [email protected]

Sidebar Menu English

• About the SDG Fund
• Financial information
• How to partner
• Achieving SDGs
• Research and knowledge
• Final Evaluations
• Final Narrative Reports
• Sustainable cooking
• UN Joint Efforts
• National ownership
• Private Sector Advisory Group
• Business and SDG 16
• Universality and the SDGs
• Business and UN
• SDGF Framework of Engagement
• Creative Industries
• Aligning SDGs
• Matching funds
• South South Cooperation
• Architecture
• Digital Education
• Sustainability
• Gender mainstreaming
• Transparency
• Joint Programmes
• Selection process
• UN Agencies
• Private Sector
• Universities
• Case studies

Topbar Menu EN

Case Studies - Achieving SDGs

With this online database of sustainable development case studies, the SDG Fund has gathered a selection of best practices on “how” to achieve a sustainable world and advance the 17 Sustainable Development Goals.

The SDG Fund is a UN mechanism promoting partnerships between UN agencies, governments, academia, civil society and businesses to address the challenges of poverty and achieve the SDGs.

As part of its mission, the SDG Fund collects and disseminates insight for public and private entities worldwide interested in sustainable development, sharing lessons learned and best practices in its current and past development work. Most of these initial case studies come from previous experiences with the MDG Achievement Fund. New case studies will be added after the first round of joint programmes is concluded.

This series of case studies has been created to disseminate a robust evidence base on what implementing innovative development approaches actually means in practice. The case studies produced are concise, engaging, readable and equally appealing to practitioner and non-practitioner audiences. Users can search case studies by SDG or country. Each case study has a brief background of the situation, strategic approach, results and impact of the initiative, and a particular focus on challenges, lessons learned and potential for sustainability.

This project has been possible thanks to the support of the UN Volunteers programme, and particularly the writing, editing and translating work of the following volunteers: Lucy Oyelade, Judith McInally, Jamie Kadoglou, Nathan Weatherdon, Giovanni Avila Flores, Lorena Belenky, Beatriz Ruiz Espejel and Esperanza Escalona Reyes. The SDG Fund also thanks Samant Veer Kakkar and Rebeca Huete, for their work as consultants on this project. Funding has been provided by the Spanish Cooperation for International Cooperation (AECID).

A taste for transformation in Timor-Leste

Addressing Violence against women in Bangladesh

Bangladesh: Strengthening Women’s Ability For Productive New Opportunities (SWAPNO)​

Better water and sanitation services through a consumer rights based contract in Albania

Bolivia: Improving the Nutritional Status of Children via the Strengthening ofLocal Production Systems

Building social capital to prevent violence in El Salvador

Business opportunities network in Panama

Colombia: Productive and Food Secure Territories for a Peaceful and Resilient Cauca

Côte D’Ivoire: Joint Programme on Poverty Reduction ​ in San Pedro Region​

Creative industries alleviate poverty in Peru

Cuba: Strenghtening the Resilience of Families and Vulnerable Groups affected by Drough in Santiago de Cuba

Economic opportunities and citizenship for women in extreme poverty in Bolivia

Ecuador: Strenghtening Local Food Systems and Capacity Building aimed at Improving the Production and Access to Safe Food for Families

El Salvador: Food Security and Nutrition for Children and Salvadoran Households (SANNHOS)

Energy efficiency and renewable energy sources in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Ethiopia: Joint Programme on Gender Equality and Women Empowerment – Rural Women Economic Empowerment Component

Fiji: Youth in Organic Agriculture in Fiji

Formulation of a localized customer service code in the Philippines

Gender mainstreaming in the Ministry of Culture in occupied Palestine territory

Gender mainstreaming strategy in the pro-poor horticulture value chain in Upper Egypt

Generating employment opportunities for young people in Honduras

Guatemala: Food and Nutrition Security of the Department of San Marcos

Harnessing the Opportunities of the New Economy in Mozambique: More and Better Jobs in Cabo Delgado and Nampula

Healthy children, healthy Afghanistan: best practices and lessons learned

Honduras: Culture and Tourism for Sustainable Local Development in Ruta Lenca

Indigenous and Afro-Colombian communities in the Chocó department promote their food security and nutrition in Colombia

Indigenous women participating in water management in Panama

Institutional strengthening against gender-based political violence in Bolivia

Institutional strengthening to improve food security and nutrition in El Salvador

Integrated Nutrition and Food Security Strategies for Children and Vulnerable Groups in Viet Nam

Irrigated and integrated agro production systems help Mozambique adapt to climate change

Lessons learned from the implementation of the joint programme on nutrition in Guinea-Bissau

Mauritania converts national policies into concrete action on natural resource management

Multi-disciplinary teams bring agricultural adaptation to climate change in China

Multi-sectoral programme for the fight against gender-based violence in Morocco

Nigeria: Food Africa – Empowering Youth and Promoting Innovative Public-Private Partnerships through More Efficient Agro-Food Value Chains in Nigeria

Occupied Palestinian Territory: A One-Stop-Shop for Sustainable Women-Owned Businesses

Paraguay: Joint Programme on Paraguay Protects, Promotes and Facilitates Effective Implementation of the Right to Food Security and Nutrition

Partnerships to combat malnutrition in Guatemala

Peace building for the displaced in Chiapas, Mexico

Peace-building in the department of Nariño in Colombia

Peru: Economic Inclusion and Sustainable Development of Andean Grain Producers in Ayacucho and Puno

Philippines: Pro-Water: Policies, Infrastructure and Behaviors for Improved Water and Sanitation

Planting Seeds of Change in Ethiopia

Productive cultural recovery on the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua

Regional action plan for youth employment in Tunisia

Samoa: Engaging Youth in Samoa in Organic Farming and Menus: A Farm to Table Value Chain Approach

Sierra Leone: Enabling Sustainable Livelihoods Through Improved Natural Resource Governance and Economic Diversification in the Kono District​

Sri Lanka: Scaling Up Nutrition through a Multi-Sector Approach

Strengthening capacity to adapt to climate change in Turkey

Strengthening the institutional environment for the advancement of women in Guatemala

Strengthening the response to malnutrition in Bolivia

Sustainable urban development in El Salvador

Taking a value chain approach towards local economic development and women's economic empowerment in Vietnam

Tanzania: Joint Programme to Support Tanzania’s Productive Social Safety Net

The private sector as an agent of local development in Cuba

Water and sanitation management with a gender perspective in Mexico

Water governance in Ecuador

Women's empowerment through the promotion of cultural entrepreneurship in Cambodia

Women’s Participation in Stabilization and Conflict Prevention in North Kivu

Youth employment and migration in Costa Rica

Youth employment fund in Serbia

Youth in Organic Agriculture in Vanuatu

An initiative of

Useful links

Footer menu en.

• Publications
• Terms of use

Follow us on

British Council

Sustainable development goals (sdgs).

• What are the sustainable development goals?

SDG case studies

Following the SDGs exhibition of 2016, we commissioned an externally-led study to review evidence from a selection of programmes across the British Council's portfolio. This included three case studies to illustrate impact and lessons learned. As well as highlighting success and good practice, the case studies provide useful guidance for further development of programmes, in order to demonstrate contribution to the SDGs, as well as reinforcing the need for evidence of long-term impact.

The English for Education College Trainers (EfECT)

This project was initiated following a request from the Burmese government for support with its process of educational reform. The case study notes that the project was not designed using the SDG framework but Goal 4 underpins the British Council’s work in English and education in Burma.

This programme was started in Pakistan in 2013 and ran until April 2016. The name means ‘friendship’ in Urdu and Hindi but is also an acronym for Developing and Organising Social Transformation Initiatives. The project links football with personal and peace-building development training in which the lessons of the football pitch – teamwork, self-discipline, respect for others, tolerance – are inculcated, deepened and amplified. The case study notes that contribution to gender equality has been significant, breaking down traditional attitudes and empowering girls and young women.

Newton Fund

This case study looks at the way that the support of the Newton Fund – managed by the UK Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – facilitated the creation of a network of researchers in Oxford and Mexico collaborating on a vaccine against Dengue Fever. Unlike the programmes featured in the other case studies, the SDGs were central to this programme, as the Newton Fund uses contributions to the SDGs as a criterion for assessing funding proposals. The case study notes that the requirement to demonstrate the relevance of their work to the SDGs was not seen as an imposition [by the team] but merely confirmed the implicit focus of their work.

British Council Worldwide

• Afghanistan
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Czech Republic
• Hong Kong, SAR of China
• Korea, Republic of
• Myanmar (Burma)
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• North Macedonia
• Northern Ireland
• Occupied Palestinian Territories
• Philippines
• Saudi Arabia
• Sierra Leone
• South Africa
• South Sudan
• Switzerland
• United Arab Emirates
• United States of America

Publication

Engineering for sustainable development: delivering on the Sustainable Development Goals

It analyses the transformation of engineering education and capacity-building at the dawn of the Fourth Industrial Revolution that will enable engineers to tackle the challenges ahead. It highlights the global effort needed to address the specific regional disparities, while summarizing the trends of engineering across the different regions of the world.

By presenting case studies and approaches, as well as possible solutions, the report reveals why engineering is crucial for sustainable development and why the role of engineers is vital in addressing basic human needs such as alleviating poverty, supplying clean water and energy, responding to natural disasters, constructing resilient infrastructure, and bridging the development divide, among many other actions, leaving no one behind.

It is hoped that the report will serve as a reference for governments, engineering organizations, academia and educational institutions, and industry to forge global partnerships and catalyse collaboration in engineering so as to deliver on the SDGs.

More information

Related items.

• Natural sciences
• Engineering
• Engineering education
• Science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)

More on this subject

Other recent publications

Your browser is not supported

Sorry but it looks as if your browser is out of date. To get the best experience using our site we recommend that you upgrade or switch browsers.

Find a solution

We use cookies to improve your experience on this website. To learn more, including how to block cookies, read our privacy policy .

• Skip to main content
• Skip to navigation
• Collaboration Platform
• Data Portal
• Reporting Tool
• PRI Academy
• PRI Applications

• Back to parent navigation item
• What are the Principles for Responsible Investment?
• PRI 2021-24 strategy
• The PRI work programme
• A blueprint for responsible investment
• About the PRI
• Annual report
• Public communications policy
• Financial information
• Procurement
• PRI sustainability
• Diversity, Equity & Inclusion for our employees
• Meet the team
• Board members
• Board committees
• 2023 PRI Board annual elections
• Signatory General Meeting (SGM)
• Signatory rights
• Serious violations policy
• Formal consultations
• Signatories
• Signatory resources
• Become a signatory
• Get involved
• Signatory directory
• Quarterly signatory update
• Multi-lingual resources
• Espacio Hispanohablante
• Programme Francophone
• Reporting & assessment
• R&A Updates
• Public signatory reports
• Progression pathways
• Showcasing leadership
• The PRI Leaders’ Group
• The PRI Awards
• News & events
• The PRI podcast
• News & press
• Upcoming events
• PRI in Person 2024
• All events & webinars
• Industry events
• Past events
• PRI in Person 2023 highlights
• PRI in Person & Online 2022 highlights
• PRI China Conference: Investing for Net-Zero and SDGs
• PRI Digital Forums
• Webinars on demand
• Investment tools
• Introductory guides to responsible investment
• Principles to Practice
• Stewardship
• Collaborative engagements
• Active Ownership 2.0
• Listed equity
• Passive investments
• Fixed income
• Credit risk and ratings
• Private debt
• Securitised debt
• Sovereign debt
• Sub-sovereign debt
• Private markets
• Private equity
• Real estate
• Climate change for private markets
• Infrastructure and other real assets
• Infrastructure
• Hedge funds
• Investing for nature: Resource hub
• Asset owner resources
• Strategy, policy and strategic asset allocation
• Mandate requirements and RfPs
• Manager selection
• Manager appointment
• Manager monitoring
• Asset owner DDQs
• Sustainability issues
• Environmental, social and governance issues
• Environmental issues
• Circular economy
• Social issues
• Social issues - case studies
• Social issues - podcasts
• Social issues - webinars
• Social issues - blogs
• Cobalt and the extractives industry
• Clothing and Apparel Supply Chain
• Human rights
• Human rights - case studies
• Modern slavery and labour rights
• Just transition
• Governance issues
• Tax fairness
• Responsible political engagement
• Cyber security
• Executive pay
• Corporate purpose
• Anti-corruption
• Whistleblowing
• Director nominations
• Climate change
• The PRI and COP28
• Inevitable Policy Response
• UN-convened Net-Zero Asset Owner Alliance
• Sustainability outcomes
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Sustainable markets
• Sustainable financial system
• Driving meaningful data
• Private retirement systems and sustainability
• Academic blogs
• Academic Seminar series
• Introduction to responsible investing academic research
• Our policy approach
• Policy reports
• Consultations and letters
• Global policy
• Policy toolkit
• Policy engagement handbook
• Regulation database
• A Legal Framework for Impact
• Fiduciary duty
• Australia policy
• Canada Policy
• China policy
• Stewardship in China
• EU taxonomy
• Japan policy
• SEC ESG-Related Disclosure

• More from navigation items

Global Impact Partners SDG case study

2020-07-27T07:10:00+01:00

Signatory type: Service provider (investment advisory) Operating region: Asia Pacific Practice area: Engagement and investment decisions

Global Impact Partners advises governments, corporations, and non-profits on strategy and impact investment. We collaborate with clients who are contributing towards achieving the SDGs within sectors such as infrastructure and urban development, healthcare, sustainable technology and sustainable agriculture.

Why we focus on the SDGS

The SDGs naturally align with our ethos and provide a framework to guide project selection and indicators to measure impact. We have integrated the goals into our primary ESG framework because their ratification in 2015 reflects a broad-based global consensus on the world’s most pressing environmental and social challenges. In the case of infrastructure and urban development, for example, we believe that the SDGs can provide a frame through which to identify and address the environmental challenges created by unchecked urbanisation.

We believe that applying SDG-based performance targets to projects, through the use of onsite renewable energy generation and smart grids, for example, can directly reduce the operational expenditure of the assets, demonstrating the alignment of the SDGs with commercial objectives. Taking this detailed approach, we can guide infrastructure project design teams in making changes that will optimise the sustainable and commercial outcomes of the project.

Measuring project outcomes

We take a bottom-up, indicator-driven approach to assessing the outcomes from projects. Working with the master-planning and engineering teams during the design phase of infrastructure projects, we can optimise their designs to deliver outcomes which contribute towards the SDGs. In selecting relevant indicators, we use the SDG Impact Indicators guidance published by the Sustainable Finance Platform, chaired by the Dutch Central Bank, which aims to develop “a common set of impact indicators [to] help companies to improve the disclosure of impact data to their shareholders and creditors” 1 . We evaluate which indicators are relevant, taking into account the potential for positive and negative outcomes from the project, and select those which we believe we can most influence.

Furthermore, working during the design phase allows us to ensure that the planned assets embed monitoring tools – such as sensors – to measure performance against these specific SDG targets and indicators. The monitoring tools are adapted for the specified target, whether that be measuring renewable energy generated, or proportion of wastewater recycled. Where appropriate, we also use third parties to conduct qualitative monitoring on our behalf, such as customer surveys, and publish independent reports. These tools are integrated into a centralised monitoring platform so the delivery of SDG-linked outcomes can be continually assessed and adjusted as appropriate.

Example: Orange Smart City

Orange Smart City (OSC) is a sustainable smart city development situated near Mumbai. It has been designed using an innovative approach to city planning and development that incorporates technology, design, and systems to optimise its social, environmental, and economic outcomes.

GIP was engaged by the project developer, Orange Smart City Pvt Ltd, to advise on generating impact through the project. This entailed structuring the project from an outcomes and commercial perspective, to make it attractive to investors and working with the company leading the master-planning and engineering of the site, Surbana Jurong. It also meant ensuring that sustainability was considered from the outset of the project.

The SDGs were chosen as the framework to distil Orange Smart City’s broad vision into specific social and environmental outcomes. For example, the design plan and targets for the construction of residential real estate in the city was driven by SDG indicator 11.1, which refers to the number of people with access to safe, affordable and sustainable housing. Similarly, SDG indicators on water and energy use led to the integration of smart grids, onsite renewable energy generation, and water efficiency and rainwater harvesting technology. GIP worked closely with the Surbana Jurong team on integrating these outcomes into the design, and on using technologies such as sensors and monitors to measure and report on them.

Project reporting has been built around these and other relevant SDG indicators so that there is ongoing monitoring of progress towards targets. As noted previously, this monitoring can be carried out through a mix of technology built into the different assets, surveys and other information-gathering processes by third-party organisations. Reports on these indicators are published on an online portal where investors and other key stakeholders can monitor and evaluate outcomes.

A key lesson for the team throughout this process was that the SDGs have a strong global brand across the investment community. We have found them to be an effective tool for communicating intended outcomes of projects, such as OSC, because they are increasingly recognised and understood by investors. This in turn has stimulated greater investor interest in OSC. 

1  SDG impact indicator: A guide for investors and companies (PDF, 960KB)

• Emerging Markets
• How infrastructure investors can contribute to SDG outcomes
• HQ: Developed Markets
• HQ: Oceania

Related content

Delivery of the SDGs is off track. Investors are crucial in promoting human rights

Global responsible investment trends: Inside PRI reporting data

An introduction to responsible investment: Infrastructure

PRI asset class and asset owner guidance advisory committees: Call for new members

More from Sustainable Development Goals

EdenTree Investment Management: Clean water, energy and climate change

Closing the funding gap: responsible investment in emerging markets

Closing the funding gap: The case for ESG incorporation and sustainability outcomes in emerging markets

East Capital: Assessing SDG outcomes across the value chain

• News and press
• Annual Report
• PRI governance
• Privacy policy
• The PRI is an investor initiative in partnership with UNEP Finance Initiative and UN Global Compact .

• PRI Association, 25 Camperdown Street, London, E1 8DZ, UK
• Company no: 7207947
• +44 (0)20 3714 3141
• [email protected]
• PRI DISCLAIMER The information contained on this website is meant for the purposes of information only and is not intended to be investment, legal, tax or other advice, nor is it intended to be relied upon in making an investment or other decision. All content is provided with the understanding that the authors and publishers are not providing advice on legal, economic, investment or other professional issues and services. PRI Association is not responsible for the content of websites and information resources that may be referenced. The access provided to these sites or the provision of such information resources does not constitute an endorsement by PRI Association of the information contained therein. PRI Association is not responsible for any errors or omissions, for any decision made or action taken based on information on this website or for any loss or damage arising from or caused by such decision or action. All information is provided “as-is” with no guarantee of completeness, accuracy or timeliness, or of the results obtained from the use of this information, and without warranty of any kind, expressed or implied. Content authored by PRI Association For content authored by PRI Association, except where expressly stated otherwise, the opinions, recommendations, findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed are those of PRI Association alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of any contributors or any signatories to the Principles for Responsible Investment (individually or as a whole). It should not be inferred that any other organisation referenced endorses or agrees with any conclusions set out. The inclusion of company examples does not in any way constitute an endorsement of these organisations by PRI Association or the signatories to the Principles for Responsible Investment. While we have endeavoured to ensure that information has been obtained from reliable and up-to-date sources, the changing nature of statistics, laws, rules and regulations may result in delays, omissions or inaccuracies in information. Content authored by third parties The accuracy of any content provided by an external contributor remains the responsibility of such external contributor. The views expressed in any content provided by external contributors are those of the external contributor(s) alone, and are neither endorsed by, nor necessarily correspond with, the views of PRI Association or any signatories to the Principles for Responsible Investment other than the external contributor(s) named as authors.

Site powered by Webvision Cloud

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Achieving Sustainable Development Goals Through Collaborative Innovation: Evidence from Four European Initiatives

Laura mariani.

1 Department of Management, University of Bergamo, Via Dei Caniana, 2, 24127 Bergamo, Italy

Benedetta Trivellato

2 Department of Sociology and Social Research, University of Milano-Bicocca, Via Bicocca degli Arcimboldi, 8, 20126 Milan, Italy

Mattia Martini

3 Department of Business and Law, University of Milano-Bicocca, Via Bicocca degli Arcimboldi, 8, 20126 Milan, Italy

Elisabetta Marafioti

The role to be played by multi-stakeholder partnerships in addressing the ‘wicked problems’ of sustainable development is made explicit by the seventeenth Sustainable Development Goal. But how do these partnerships really work? Based on the analysis of four sustainability-oriented innovation initiatives implemented in Belgium, Italy, Germany, and France, this study explores the roles and mechanisms that collaborating actors may enact to facilitate the pursuit of sustainable development, with a particular focus on non-profit organizations. The results suggest that collaborative innovations for sustainability contribute simultaneously to the fulfilment of different Sustainable Development Goals, reaching beyond their original intent, and that the value being created has the potential to reinforce such roles and mechanisms. These partnerships are prompted and managed by non-profit organizations that act as metagovernors of collaborative innovation processes as they play the roles of cultural spreaders, enablers, relational brokers, service provides, and influencers. These findings will help policy-makers and practitioners in the public and non-profit sector to identify and utilize emerging opportunities for value creation through collaborative innovation, and to better design existing and prospective collaborative efforts aimed at sustainable objectives, thereby supporting progress towards the implementation of Agenda 2030.

Introduction

In 2015, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the 2030 Development Agenda. At the core of this agenda are the seventeen goals that spell out a vision for a sustainable development, including a critical role to be played by collaboration for sustainability (Schaltegger et al., 2018 ). These Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) follow the previous eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) which, by setting up measurable and time-bound objectives, helped “promote global awareness, political accountability, improved metrics, social feedback, and public pressures.” (Sachs, 2012 ; p. 2206). Both the MDGs and the SDGs have their roots in a view of sustainable development that encompasses the so-called “triple bottom line approach to human wellbeing” (Sachs, 2012 ), integrating economic development, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability (Hammer & Pivo, 2017 ). The origins of this approach date back to the mid-1990s, which saw the environmental agenda broadening to include the triple bottom line, and an increasing consensus that partnerships among businesses and stakeholders are of critical importance to pursue this “much broader, and more demanding, sustainable development agenda” (Elkington, 1998 ). Compared to the MDGs, the SDGs similarly feature an increased emphasis on the role of partnerships between public and private sector (both for-profit and non-profit) organizations, as embodied by the 17th goal, Partnerships for the Goals. Sustainable development, in fact, is a complex concept, dealing with different temporal and spatial scales and with multiple stakeholders. As such, it requires a pluralistic approach to deal with multiple actors and multiple levels, so as to create a common vision of the planet’s future, and to resolve potential trade-offs (van Zeijil-Rozema et al., 2008 ). This need for an integrated approach to tackle the SDGs is, in fact, a pillar of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, where the Goals and the targets are meant to stimulate action in the following five areas: people, planet, prosperity, peace, and partnerships. A key part of the 2030 Agenda is also the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, which contains concrete measures in relation to public and private resources, international trade and aid, and a range of issues related to science, technology, innovation and capacity-building, and data, monitoring and follow-up (UN General Assembly, 2015 ).

Sustainable development challenges include issues such as the consequences of climate change, inequalities in access to health and education, integration of immigrants and refugees, and several others which embody the ‘wicked problems’ (Sørensen & Torfing, 2017 ; Torfing & Ansell, 2017 ) that are best addressed through forms of governance involving partnerships and multi-actors’ networks (Hofstad & Torfing, 2016 ; Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004 ; Sørensen & Torfing, 2011 ; Van Huijstee et al., 2007 ). Within the New Public Governance approach (Ansell & Torfing, 2014a , 2014b ; Crosby & Bryson, 2010 ; Koppenjan, 2012 ; Osborne, 2006 , 2010 ), such wicked problems may be fruitfully addressed through collaborative innovation, which involves constructive integration of partners’ differences and resources, and the development of new solutions that disrupt established practices (Hofstad & Torfing, 2016 ). Despite its promises, the collaborative innovation framework draws the attention mostly to the ‘meso’ level of the collaboration and of the arenas where collaborative processes take place, and to the ‘macro’ level of policy-making, rather than to the ‘micro’ level of the collaborating organizations. Moreover, although collaborative innovation is meant to involve both public and private (for profit and non-profit) actors, and private actors are acknowledged as its potential metagovernors, the specific role of non public actors within these processes remains relatively underexplored (Sørensen & Torfing, 2017 ).

In this context, we believe that a focus on the role of collaborating actors, and on non-profits in particular, is needed in order to obtain a better understanding (a) of the relevant roles, activities, and processes and how they contribute to collaborative innovation outputs; and (b) of the factors that may influence such roles, activities, and processes. Therefore, in this paper we propose that the collaborative innovation literature may be fruitfully integrated with contributions from the market/societal orientation literature (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ; Hsieh et al., 2008 ; Kotler & Levy, 1969 ; Liao et al., 2001 ), stakeholder theory (Abzug & Webb, 1999 ; Fassin et al., 2017 ; Van Puyvelde et al., 2012 ), and grassroots sustainable innovation (Kemp et al., 1998 ; Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012 ; Seyfang & Smith, 2007 ) in order to explore the roles and dynamics that allow such collaborative innovation to occur, and to translate into sustainable development improvements. In fact, an improved understanding of these dimensions at the meso and micro levels allows to better support (for instance through institutional design) and implement (e.g. thanks to greater awareness of drivers and barriers) existing and prospective collaborative endeavors aimed at sustainable objectives, and relatedly the progress towards the implementation of Agenda 2030.

In summary, multi-stakeholder collaboration is seen as a potentially crucial instrument to address the wicked problems of sustainable development both by the SDGs and by the collaborative governance and collaborative innovation literature. However, the roles and mechanisms that collaborating organizations and individuals may enact to facilitate the pursuit of sustainable development are not very clear. We therefore address this issue through our first research question: (1) How can multi-stakeholder collaboration contribute to improvements in sustainable development?

Moreover, the collaborative innovation framework explicitly concedes that not only the collaborating participants but also the metagovernor of the collaboration may be a non-profit organization (NPO) (Sørensen & Torfing, 2017 ). However, most studies within this literature highlight the role of a public sector organization as metagovernor: exploring the conditions where such role is played by a NPO may then be important, because it widens the scope for such critical role to be played in finding solutions to wicked problems. We focus on this issue through our second research question: (2) What role(s) do non-profit organizations play within multi-stakeholder collaborations that contribute to sustainable development?

In order to address these questions, we conducted a multiple-case study analysis of four innovation initiatives implemented across Europe. This specific empirical setting was chosen because the four initiatives result from collaborations among various actors, including NPOs in their different forms, and because they represent a befitting exemplification of how the above-mentioned ‘wicked problems’ may be addressed. We refer to these initiatives as ‘collaborative innovations for sustainability’, which group together networks of actors who generate novel bottom–up solutions that respond to the interests and values of the communities involved (Smith et al., 2014 ). In summary, our ultimate goal is to assess the ability and potential of these networks to address ‘wicked and unruly problems’ (Hofstad & Torfing, 2016 ) through collaborative innovation.

Theoretical Background

Our theoretical framework is built on the premise that collaboration can play a crucial role in solving societal problems, especially within the inter-organizational partnerships that are one of the pillars of the SDGs, and which are the object of analysis in this work. As detailed below, we propose an integration of two different literature strands, so as to connect the ‘meso’ level of the collaboration / network of partners with the ‘micro’ level of the individual collaborating organizations. A meso-level perspective—grounded in New Public Governance theory (Ansell & Torfing, 2014a , 2014b ; Crosby & Bryson, 2010 ; Koppenjan, 2012 ; Osborne, 2006 , 2010 )—sheds light on how multi-stakeholder collaboration may help to address the ‘wicked problems’ of sustainable development. A micro-level (organizational) perspective focusing on individual non-profit organizations—and grounded in the non-profit management and market orientation literature (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ; Hsieh et al., 2008 ; Kotler & Levy, 1969 ; Liao et al., 2001 )—emphasizes that an NPO needs to adopt a so-called ‘societal orientation’ to survive and fulfil its mission, with collaboration being a major component of such orientation. Joining these two perspectives highlights the positive role to be played by collaboration both for society and for individual NPOs, in the latter case through its impact on organizational performance (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ), with the implication that increased micro-level collaborative behaviour will contribute to improved outcomes also at the meso and ultimately macro level.

Societal Orientation and Collaboration

The micro-perspective draws on the work of those authors who have sought to adapt the concept of ‘market orientation’ from the private for-profit sector (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993 ; Slater & Narver, 1994 ) to the specificities of the private non-profit sector, while also integrating insights from stakeholder theory. This evolution emanates from the acknowledgement that a focus primarily on customers and profitability (Narver & Slater, 1990 ) is not appropriate for the study of NPOs, which have a wider variety of critical stakeholders in addition to customers and shareholders (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ; Hsieh et al., 2008 ). Moreover, stakeholder management as a critical component of a firm’s strategy was also born in the for-profit sector (Freeman, 1984 ), to be later extended to a more comprehensive stakeholder theory, including an increased focus on non-profits as particular stakeholders of a focal for-profit organization (e.g. Abzug & Webb, 1999 ), and on NPOs being themselves the focal organizations dealing with a variety of internal and external stakeholders (e.g. Fassin et al., 2017 ; Van Puyvelde et al., 2012 ).

In this context, the ‘societal orientation’ literature (e.g. Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ; Liao et al., 2001 ) has emerged by pointing out what should be the key concerns for NPOs to ensure organizational performance, which include: attention to their stakeholders (e.g. users/beneficiaries, donors, employees and volunteers, competitors, and other stakeholder groups), collaborative orientation, and interfunctional coordination. Both Liao et al. ( 2001 ) and Duque-Zuluaga and Schneider ( 2008 ) consider collaborative orientation as a “crucial component of the societal orientation construct” as “(p)artnerships can ensure continuity of operation, increase the capability of solving problems, and contribute to improving the efficiency of service delivery” (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 , p. 35). In a similar vein, Yin and Jamali ( 2020 ) suggest that value creation within social partnerships essentially depends on actors adopting a ‘partnership logic’, with the latter encompassing joint ownership of the issues being addressed, creation of synergy among opposite yet complementary goals, creative use of limited resources, and tolerance for divergent interests and unbalanced power relationships among partners.

Multi-actor Collaboration as a Driver for Innovation

Collaborative strategies have been shown to be more advantageous than authoritative or competitive strategies especially when dealing with ‘wicked problems’, i.e. those where no definitive statement can be made about the problem itself, where stakeholders champion alternative ways to frame it and to propose solutions, and where constraints to the solving process are constantly changing (Roberts, 2000 ). Moreover, there is now a consensus among scholars of public and non-profit management and administration that especially fruitful are those collaborations among actors from the public, private for-profit, and private non-profit sectors, with authors referring to them with labels—just to name a few—as diverse as cross-sectoral partnerships (Huxham, 1996 ; Huxham & Vangen, 2005 ), integrated networks (Provan & Milward, 1995 ), networked government (Agranoff, 2007 ), inter-organizational partnerships for value creation (Le Pennec & Raufflet, 2018 ), multi-stakeholder partnerships (MacDonald et al. 2019 ), and social partnerships (Yin & Jamali, 2020 ).

Whereas the reference to complex and wicked problems often implies without making explicit the need for new solutions, Hartley ( 2005 ) explicitly highlights the existence of a relation between networked governance and innovation , and the roles to be played by policy makers, public managers and citizens. Eggers and Singh ( 2009 ) further reinforce this perspective when they emphasise that, in order to encourage innovation, the following strategies are especially important: partnering (within bilateral relationships) among government agencies, and among government, private industry, universities, and non-profits, so as to test new ideas quickly and overcome bureaucratic and financial constraints; networking , so as to use the innovation assets of a diverse base of organizations and individuals; and adopting open source innovation models that encourage several people to collaborate voluntarily to create solutions. In fact, Bommert ( 2010 ) notes that collaborative innovation is especially suited to solve persistent as well as emergent problems “because it opens the innovation cycle to a variety of actors and taps into innovation resources across borders, overcomes cultural restrictions and creates broad socio-political support for public innovation.” (Bommert, 2010 , p. 29).

More recently, Torfing ( 2019 ) notes a renewed interest in the concept of collaborative innovation prompted by a growing body of literature which seeks to integrate contributions on collaborative governance (Ansell & Torfing, 2014a ; Bryson et al., 2014 , 2015 ; Cristofoli et al.,  2021a , b ; Emerson et al., 2012 ; McGuire, 2006 ) with those that rely more generally on theories of innovation in public sector settings (Eggers & Singh, 2009 ; Hartley, 2005 ; Sørensen & Torfing, 2011 ; Torfing et al., 2020 ; Trivellato et al., 2021 ). As it ascribes a crucial role to cross-sector partnerships, this literature assumes that “the participants in collaborative innovation are public and private actors that either have relevant knowledge, ideas and resources or are affected by the problem or the innovative solution and, therefore should be included in order to ensure that the problem is properly understood and the solution is feasible and solves the problem.” (Torfing, 2019 , p. 4).

Collaborative innovation is, according to Hofstad and Torfing ( 2016 ), a promising means to address the ‘wicked and unruly’ problems that increasingly characterize public policy arenas, including those related to the challenges posed by sustainable development. Examples of such problems include climate change, congested cities, protection of natural resources and social inequalities in health and education (Torfing & Ansell, 2017 ), as well as homelessness, integration of immigrants and refugees, or gang-related crime (Sørensen & Torfing, 2017 ). In fact, all these examples pertain to areas of sustainable development in their social, environmental, and economic dimensions (Sachs, 2012 ). As such, collaborative innovation holds promise to address these issues as it “brings together a range of stakeholders from the public, for-profit, and nonprofit sectors, as well as users and citizens themselves, in interactive arenas that facilitate the cross-fertilization of ideas, mutual and transformative learning, and the development of joint ownership of new solutions.” (Hartley et al., 2013 ; p. 828; Trivellato et al., 2019 ).

A Framework for the Study of Multi-actor Collaboration for Sustainability

To assess how collaborative innovations may in practice contribute to the 2030 Agenda, we draw from a framework that was originally developed by Sørensen and Torfing ( 2011 ) for the analysis of collaborative innovation 1 (Fig.  1 ), and we add contributions from the literature on grassroots innovations for sustainability (Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012 ; Seyfang & Smith, 2007 ; Smith et al., 2014 ), and from the societal orientation literature (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ; Hsieh et al., 2008 ; Liao et al., 2001 ). Our framework highlights the elements, and the interactions thereof, that lead to the generation of innovation outputs; we build on it by making explicit how these innovation outputs generate benefits that contribute to sustainable development.

Analytical framework for the analysis of collaborative innovations for sustainability.

Source: Authors’ elaboration based on Sørensen and Torfing ( 2011 )

Given their central role within the framework, it is helpful to point out at the outset that innovation outputs are seen as including new forms of governance, organization, or process work; product and service innovations; and policy innovations (Sørensen & Torfing, 2011 ). In the case of sustainability-oriented bottom-up initiatives—such as low impact housing developments or community composting schemes—these innovations are further characterized by the common goal of promoting sustainable development, and by a strong involvement of NPOs in the innovation process. The results are “novel bottom–up solutions for sustainable development; solutions that respond to the local situation and the interests and values of the communities involved” (Seyfang & Smith, 2007 , p. 585). These are innovations that improve performance based on ecological, economic, and social criteria for the definition of such performance (Boons et al., 2013 ; Carrillo-Hermosilla et al., 2010 ) and whose characteristics may differ according to specific spatial, temporal, and cultural conditions (Boons et al., 2013 ).

Sustainability-oriented innovations produce both intrinsic and diffusion benefits that affect a wide range of stakeholders (Seyfang & Smith, 2007 ), and contribute to sustainable development through the adoption of a triple bottom line approach. Intrinsic benefits within a local community may appear, for instance, in the form of reductions in car use, increase of recycling practices, or planting trees. Within that same community, other second level intrinsic benefits follow those environmental benefits as they relate to job creation, training and skills development, and personal growth. At a third level, the positive spillovers within the community can translate into an overall improvement of a sense of community, social capital and civic engagement, and better access to services and facilities (Devine-Wright, 2006 , Seyfang & Smith, 2007 ). Diffusion benefits, on the other hand, refer to transferring the value created by the innovators to the wider community through the mobilization of NPOs, so as to create a new system with values that differ from the mainstream, thereby generating transformations in production-consumption systems in ways that single individuals cannot sustain (Maniates, 2002 ). In this vein, the involvement of the NPOs in co-production processes can contribute to add value in the public sphere by increasing the direct benefit for the citizens who receive a specific public service (user value), the positive outcome for the user’s family and friends (value for wider group), social cohesion and social interaction (social value), ecological sustainability (environmental value), and democratic participation through co-planning of services with the stakeholders (political value) (Bovaird & Loeffler, 2012 ).

From the organizational-level perspective of the societal orientation literature, the ‘beneficiary or recipient orientation’ that is one of its components generates advantages for the beneficiaries (or customers) of the activities and/or services that are provided through the collaboration, as their needs and the related response are to be regularly monitored and adjusted accordingly. This will likely increase beneficiary response, which can be measured in different ways, including in terms of satisfaction, attendance, participation, or improvement reported by a user’s supervisor (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ). More generally, as highlighted by Liao et al. ( 2001 ), benefits will accrue to the collaborating partners’ stakeholders whenever the former adopt the ‘stakeholder orientation’—that is, a focus on their needs—that is a key part of societal orientation.

Innovation outputs result from collaborative processes that involve partners with different identities, roles, and resources ( collaborative innovation processes ) (Sørensen & Torfing, 2011 ). Because of mutual learning, their interaction generates new ideas, with the overall process being facilitated by the development of forms of joint ownerships that contribute to overcome resistance, and to ensure coordination and flexible adjustment. Differences in goals and practices, often linked to different institutional logics (e.g. between businesses and NPOs), may be overcome when partners adopt a partnership logic based on “goal realignment, power rebalance and creative use of limited resources” (Yin & Jamali, 2020 , p. 18). A ‘collaborative orientation’ allows NPOs to—among other benefits—increase their problem solving capabilities and improve their service delivery efficiency (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ), which feeds into their capabilities to produce product/service as well as process innovations.

The literature on sustainability transitions (i.e. Geels, 2005 ; Loorbach, 2007 ; Rip & Kemp, 1998 ; Rotmans et al, 2001 ; Smith et al, 2005 ) further suggests that sustainability-oriented innovation processes are often performed within protected spaces, where the communities that promote and host such initiatives are labeled ‘strategic niches’ (Kemp et al., 1998 ; Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012 ). The activities that characterize such niches include: the management of actors’ expectations; the promotion of networks of actors through the alignment of visions and interests towards a collective goal; and the stimulation of learning about the problems, needs and possibilities of a given solution (Kemp et al., 1998 ). More specifically, managing expectations relates to how niches are displayed to external audiences, and the extent to which they can deliver in terms of performance. To promote niche emergence, “these expectations should be widely shared, specific, realistic and achievable” (Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012 , p. 384). Networking activities, on the other hand, best support niches when they involve different stakeholders with their diverse stock of resources. Lastly, learning processes are considered most effective when they contribute to everyday knowledge and expertise but also, at a deeper level, to people’s questioning the assumptions and constraints of regime systems (Kemp et al., 1998 ).

At the same time, these collaborative innovation processes are not immune from external influences. The extent to which different actors work together and use collaboration as a vehicle for innovation may depend on a number of context-bound factors that facilitate or hamper the overall process ( drivers and barriers ). These drivers and barriers may emanate from cultural norms and values, institutional logics, inter-organizational relationships, and organizational routines (Sørensen & Torfing, 2011 ). Contexts with particularly high institutional complexity may push partners to adopt a ‘substitution’ rather than a ‘partnership’ logic, with the ensuing lower opportunities for value creation from the collaboration (Yin & Jamali, 2020 ). Unmet social needs, in particular, are not the sole grassroot-level driver: NPOs’ commitment to alternative sustainable ways of doing things is another important driver that allows the development of innovative practices based on reordered priorities and alternative values (Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012 ). For instance, archetypes of socio-economic systems geared towards quality of life rather than economic growth per se (Jackson, 2004 ; Robertson, 1999 ) may find expression into initiatives like locally produced food, or the rewarding of socially reproductive labor that is not adequately valued in the traditional labor market (Seyfang, 2006 ). On the other hand, significant challenges may affect the diffusion of sustainability-oriented innovations (Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012 ), as obstacles from the social and institutional context may hinder the adaptation of the same model to other communities, the growth of the initiative, and the substitution of unsustainable models. To support diffusion, innovators may search for public funding that is often short-term and frequently linked to constraining targets imposed by funders, rather than to the needs of the recipients. A ‘donors or resource acquisition orientation’ on the part of NPOs will translate into activities aimed at retaining or attracting financial resources (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ), and establishing relationships with funders that are nourishing rather than constraining. A ‘competitive orientation’ (Liao et al., 2001 ), will allow NPOs to adequately consider the impact of potential competition among partners, for instance in service delivery or in resources’ acquisition, on the collaboration and on its (innovation-related) outcomes. More generally, a ‘stakeholder orientation’ (Liao et al., 2001 ) is likely to increase an NPO’s ability to consider the various and diverse needs of its stakeholders, and more appropriately manage the extent to which these needs may transform into drivers or barriers to collaborative innovation.

These collaborative innovation processes and the drivers and barriers that act upon them are embedded within institutional arenas of interaction that supply the rules, norms, routines, cognitive scripts, and discourses which define the actions of the actors, thereby creating several patterns of interaction ( institutional arenas of interaction ) (Sørensen & Torfing, 2011 ). These institutional arenas can be shaped by proactive forms of metagovernance that regulate the network of actors through both hands-off and hands-on strategies. The term ‘metagovernance’ refers, in particular, to the channels and tools used by public authorities and other actors to govern various forms of collaborative arrangements, without excessive reliance on traditional forms of command and control (Sørensen & Torfing, 2017 ). More specifically, it is “a specific kind of second- and third-order governance that aims to improve the functioning and capacity of relatively self-governing networks to produce governance solutions that enhance the production of public value” (Sørensen & Torfing, 2017 , p. 829). The challenge for metagovernors lies in a combination of influence over the network and allowance of a certain degree of autonomy, otherwise actors may lose their enthusiasm for joint problem-solving (Cristofoli et al., 2021a ). In this respect, hands-on approaches may involve the direct management of participatory engagement, whereas hands-off strategies include institutional design and network framing. Through activities aimed at stabilizing the institutional arenas, enhancing drivers, and removing barriers, the metagovernors of innovation processes within the public sphere are often public actors who have legitimacy, special resources, and capacities (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2000 ). Moreover, in the perspective of the collaborative innovation for sustainability literature, metagovernors are required to address challenges in the various phases of the innovation life-cycle, from start-up to diffusion and scaling (Seyfang & Smith, 2007 ).

Methodology and Empirical Setting

To pursue our research aim, that is to explore the roles and mechanisms that collaborating organizations may enact to facilitate the pursuit of sustainable development, we conducted a qualitative multiple case study analysis of four sustainability-oriented innovation initiatives across Europe in the fields of energy and food consumption. This study was part of a larger EU-funded project (CASI) which focused on the assessment and management of innovation practices through a conceptual framework that was built through a shared understanding of sustainability and innovation among stakeholders (Martini et al, 2020 ). Within this study, we collected qualitative data from four initiatives of sustainable innovation in four different EU countries (Belgium, France, Germany and Italy).

Data were collected following a three-step procedure at multiple time points between 2014 and 2016 (see Fig.  2 ). This longitudinal case approach is ideal to capture the richness and complexity of unfolding learning processes taking place within organizations (Yin, 2013 ), and to ground theory development in actual case data (Eisenhardt, 1989 ; Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ). A total of 26 semi-structured interviews were conducted involving the contact person of each innovation initiative—in all cases a person holding a management position within the key NPO in charge of promoting the innovation project—and one or two of their collaborators depending on the case. The other interviewees were representatives of the major partner organizations involved in the innovative project (between three and four depending on the project). In order to increase information reliability through triangulation (Miles & Huberman, 1994 ), we collected secondary data from financial reports, institutional websites, press releases, minutes of meetings, process documentation, industry reports and trade journals.

Research process

A first round of semi-structured interviews was conducted between March and July 2014, focusing on the assessment of the practices, the outcomes and the players for each case. The interviewees were asked about key objectives, origins, success factors, barriers, drivers, tensions, funding and market potential, degree of mobilization, mutual learning processes, geographical and sectoral transferability and use of assessment methods related to each sustainable innovation initiative. In addition, we investigated the overall impact of the projects on the economic, environmental and social system. A second round of interviews was conducted between November 2015 and February 2016 through half-day meetings (one for each case) with the aim to highlight the main difficulties related to the project, and identify a set of actions to overcome them. A multi-level and multi-actor perspective was adopted in defining actions, by distinguishing between management levels and stakeholders’ perspectives to which each action referred. A final round of interviews was carried out between February and May 2016 with the aim to develop an action roadmap with the innovators, consisting of activities that they would commit to accomplish to scale up the project. Interviews typically lasted approximately 2 hours, and were transcribed verbatim. Data were coded separately by the researchers based on categories that reflect the components of the framework used to guide the analysis. The results were then compared and discussed among the authors, and combined with the results of the secondary data collection, in order to build on and move beyond the informants’ descriptions, in an attempt to interpret facts and information and integrate them in an emerging and coherent framework (Lee, 1999 ; Miles & Huberman, 1994 ). Whereas the process followed a sequential path, the results from each stage were adjusted and further developed as additional sets of data made us reconsider and revise our interpretations, with the ultimate aim of improving the fit between the tentative framework and the data (Lee, 1999 ).

European Cases of Sustainability-Oriented Innovation

The four cases were selected so as to ensure both the theoretical and literal replication of the results (Yin, 2013 ). Two out of the four initiatives (Siticibo and the Solidarity Stores) provide solutions for reducing food waste, while the other two (Fifty/Fifty and EnergyBook) aim at reducing energy consumption. Table ​ Table1 1 summarises the main features of the four cases as relevant to this work. In addition to the name of the project and its primary aim, the table lists the main promoter for each initiative and the multiple roles they play within the innovative process, together with the other actors involved and their respective roles; the last column highlights the sustainable development goals that are more directly linked to these initiatives.

Main features of the four European initiatives of sustainable innovation

Based on the activities they carry out within the collaborative innovation processes, we label the relevant stakeholders as follows: financial promoters , supplying funds to support the initiatives; co-designers , engaged in the initial phases of the project; co-implementers , directly involved in the service provision process; and accelerators , carrying out direct and indirect activities that favour the diffusion of the innovation.

Solidarity Stores—ANDES

Solidarity Stores are local convenience stores where low-income people who cannot afford to buy their food in traditional supermarkets, but who are, at the same time, reluctant to benefit from charity, can buy everyday food products at 10–20% of their commercial price. The Association Nationale de Développement des Epiceries Solidaires (ANDES—National Association for the Development of Solidarity Stores) is the network created in France in 2000 to promote the diffusion of these stores. The initiative has grown beyond the country’s borders, and expanded to include cooking lessons, parent-children activities, and employment reintegration workshops. With reference to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, the contribution from Solidarity Stores can be related to goals number 2, Zero Hunger (end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture) and 12, Responsible consumption and production (ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns). ANDES’ Solidarity Stores, in fact, aim at making the consumption of fruit and vegetables accessible to people suffering from economic fragility; at the same time, they reduce food waste by promoting the consumption of non-marketable but still consumable products.

Siticibo—Banco Alimentare

Fondazione Banco Alimentare Onlus (FBA—Food Bank Foundation) collects the production surplus of the food supply chain and, through its network of 21 local food banks, distributes it to 8.898 charitable organizations that assist the needy all over Italy. In addition to its main collection program, in 2003 FBA launched a program called ‘Siticibo’ with the aim to recover and distribute fresh and cooked food products discarded by hotels, hospitals, schools and companies, which are to be consumed within 24 h and must be transported by refrigerated vans. As in the case of the Solidarity Stores, the goals number 2, Zero Hunger and 12, Responsible consumption and production, are those that can be fulfilled through initiatives such as Siticibo. These aims are accomplished, respectively, through the daily re-distribution of cooked food to soup kitchens and nonprofit organization engaged in poverty alleviation, and through the recovery of non-marketable but consumable fresh food.

EnergyBook—Ilanga

EnergyBook is a co-operative investment system in which parents and people from the neighbourhood invest in making school buildings more energy-efficient. Citizens, local administrations, owners of school buildings or other buildings work with coaches supplied by Ilanga and Bond Beter Leefmilieu (Union for a Better Environment), two think-tanks located in Belgium where people with expertise in energy and finance formulate solutions aimed at increasing the energy efficiency of buildings. With reference to the 2030 SDGs, the contribution from EnergyBook can be linked to goal number 7, Affordable and clean energy (ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all).

Fifty/Fifty—UfU

Fifty/Fifty is an initiative promoted by the German Unabhängiges Institut für Umweltfragen (UfU Independent Institute for Environmental Issues), a private research and innovation support organization, and implemented by over 3,500 schools in Germany. Participating schools receive 50% of the energy costs saved through conscious usage, to be used at their discretion; the other 50% remain with the school district. As in the case of EnergyBook, the SDG number 7, Affordable and clean energy, is directly pursued by Fifty/Fifty partners.

European Cases of Collaborative Innovation for Sustainable Development

Based on the framework presented in section two, this section first describes the innovation outputs and their related benefits in the four cases, which are then followed by the roles and the activities of the metagovernors, and subsequently by the collaborative innovation processes and their related drivers and barriers. Table ​ Table2 2 summarises the main components of the framework, describes the focus of the analysis in our cases for each of these components, and outlines the main results.

Operationalization of Sørensen and Torfing ( 2011 )’s model for the analysis of collaborative innovations for sustainability

The Outputs of Collaborative Innovations

The outputs of the collaborative processes under study take the form of service, process, and organizational innovations, as well as innovative governance models, often with multiple types of innovation outputs within the same case.

The innovation introduced by Siticibo, for instance, is twofold. The first concerns the creation of an innovative service that was not available beforehand. The food banks belonging to the FBA network, in fact, previously provided non-profit organizations only with packaged food retrieved from large retailers or from the food industry. This newly introduced service innovation adds the distribution of discarded cooked food, collected from the canteens of schools, companies, and other organizations, to kitchens and charitable entities. Before the introduction of this service, unconsumed cooked food was bound to be thrown away because of healthcare safety reasons, with a consequent significant amount of waste. A solution, therefore, had to be found to address these safety concerns, which prompted Siticibo to engage with the challenge and concurrently introduce a process innovation: “ with the support of Milan’s Polytechnic, we developed and adopted a new procedure to treat the food, so that we can preserve it and transport it in the appropriate way, and then it can be processed in the kitchens of the receiving charitable organizations”.

In the case of the Solidarity Stores, the innovation concerns the introduction of a new service addressing the primary needs of the less well-off directly through its stores, without the intermediation of charities, as in the case of traditional food banks. This service caters to the needs of individuals who may not resort to food banks because of the associated stigma, or who are experiencing financial difficulties without being extremely impoverished. Being able to purchase food, instead of receiving it as a donation, allows these consumers to feel they are participating in a market transaction, and therefore retain their dignity. As noted by one interviewee: “we work with community partners to minimize the barriers that may prevent individuals from seeking these kinds of services”. At the same time, the retailing activity is a means to channel more extensive solidarity actions: customers are encouraged to share their concerns and are provided with advice on how to seek help and improve their self-esteem. In order to increase these individuals’ social inclusion, and to develop their skills and competences, further collateral activities are promoted within the stores, such as cooking lessons, and parents-children activities.

EnergyBook and Fifty/Fifty display organizational and governance innovations. Both cases highlight an innovative and sustainable way to render schools self-sufficient in energy production (organizational innovation), by involving local communities simultaneously as owners and consumers (governance innovation), thereby promoting new means of citizens’ engagement. In the case of Fifty/Fifty: “schools receive 50% of the energy costs that they saved because of conscious usage of their energy and water, and they can use them at their discretion, while the other 50% remains available to the school district”. School managers together with users—pupils, teachers, and administrative staff—are directly involved in innovation implementation, which increases their commitment and sense of ownership while also educating them in the direction of a more sustainable lifestyle. This process of increased awareness and learning further extends to the pupils’ families, which facilitates its diffusion within the local community. In the case of EnergyBook there is also a dimension of service and process innovation: citizens can contact Ilanga to ask for guidance and support in their plan to make (school) buildings more energy-efficient; Ilanga coordinates the process, and helps with communication and stakeholder gathering (citizens, local administrations, owners, electricity transmission system operators etc.). Within EnergyBook, citizens are brought together to think about how they can invest in making their neighborhoods more sustainable, which not only produces innovations in local governance forms, but also increases social cohesion.

Compared to other collaborative innovations promoted by public administrations, these four initiatives do not touch public services directly; rather they affect a wider concept of public sphere. In the cases of both Siticibo and the Solidarity Stores, in particular, these initiatives contribute to poverty reduction, a major responsibility of public administrations, through food provision, which is rarely managed or financed by public institutions. At the same time, the efficient and sustainable energy consumption promoted by Fifty/Fifty and EnergyBook is not a public service per se, however it affects positively the long-term collective interest that is related to environmental protection.

Benefits of Collaborative Sustainability-Oriented Innovations

The benefits generated by collaborative sustainability-oriented innovations are both intrinsic and extrinsic (Seyfang & Smith, 2007 ), and affect different dimensions of the value being created (Boivard and Loeffler, 2012). At a first level, the innovations generate benefits for the users and the wider groups who are related to them. In the case of EnergyBook and Fifty/Fifty, users include students, their families and the host communities, whereas for Siticibo the primary users are the recipients of fresh and cooked food, and for the Solidarity Stores, the shops’ clients. More specifically, the value for users of Fifty/Fifty and EnergyBook is directly related to its form in terms of environmental sustainability. As one EnergyBook interviewee explains, the benefits are also extrinsic: “citizens, together with a coach from EnergyBook, the local administration, and the owners of the school buildings are engaged in the co-creation of a more sustainable environment” . The beneficiary and stakeholder orientation (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ; Liao et al., 2001 ) here is visible in the effort to involve all the relevant stakeholder, so that their perspective and interests are taken into consideration, thereby increasing the likelihood of the project’s success. From the perspective of Ilanga, EnergyBook’s promoter, this success contributes to the achievement of their mission and effective use of the resources they invest in the collaboration. Through this initiative, stakeholders can “reduce the schools’ energy bills, and invest in school buildings to enhance energy savings, allow smart sharing of energy, and promote sustainable energy consumption”, furthermore, with Fifty/Fifty, they can “save water and energy in the public education sector, save money for schools, and reduce CO2 emissions”.

In the case of both Siticibo and the Solidarity Stores, the positive outcome on environmental sustainability is rather an indirect implication of their business model. A Siticibo interviewee explains that the positive contribution to the environment is in a way a side effect “in addition to the direct effect as a support to charities and families”, but still it is of great importance, since “discarded food in landfills would immediately begin to produce methane gas, a greenhouse gas with over 20 times the heat-trapping capacity of carbon dioxide”.

Another component of the benefits provided by these initiatives concerns the social dimension, for instance in the form of social inclusion as explained in the case of the Solidarity Stores: “Solidarity Stores (…) are effective in preserving dignity, reducing dependence on charity and relieving beneficiaries from the feeling of being indebted. Stores are places where people are listened to and helped to rebuild their relationships with society, appreciate their own value and competences and reinforce their self-esteem. Several activities are organized there, such as cooking lessons, parent-children activities, and employment reintegration workshops”. Such social value tends to be produced through ad hoc initiatives that are promoted in addition to the main innovation. This is the case, for instance, with the Solidarity Stores’ professional integration workshops, which provide practical skills while also enhancing the attendees’ motivation to search for job opportunities . On the other hand, the extrinsic benefits in terms of political value occur through NPOs’ involvement in the initiatives. In the case of the innovative governance models proposed by UfU and Ilanga, value creation in the political sphere is a consequence of the communities’ direct involvement in the development of a sustainable model of energy consumption. As an EnergyBook interviewee explains: “The cultural challenge in our project does not refer exclusively to environmental sustainability, but concerns also the wider problem of citizens’ direct engagement in public issues”.

Metagovernance: Actors and Mechanisms

The metagovernance of the initiatives under study is performed by four non-profit organizations: Fondazione Banco Alimentare (FBA) for Siticibo, the Nationale de Développement des Epiceries Solidaires (ANDES) for the Solidarity Stores, Ilanga Belgium for EnergyBook, and the Unabhängiges Institut für Umweltfragen (UfU) for Fifty/Fifty. These institutions engage in both hands-on and hands-off strategies (Sørensen & Torfing, 2017 ) along the multiple phases of the innovation process (Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012 ; Seyfang & Smith, 2007 ).

Hands-on strategies are performed with different intensity across the four cases, ranging from the management of collaborative processes to active involvement in the implementation of the initiative. At the managerial level, FBA, ANDES, Ilanga, and UfU play the role of the innovation orchestrator, by integrating the contributions of various stakeholders in a coherent whole, in a way that enables collaboration toward a common goal. Moreover, both FBA and ANDES are involved in the innovation’s implementation: in the case of Siticibo and of the Solidarity Stores respectively, they play the role of both inventor and co-implementer, together with the companies that provide food and, in the case of Siticibo, non-profit organizations engaged in distribution. As noted by a Solidarity Stores’ interviewee: “ANDES supplies the know-how about how to interact with low income people and families who are affected by poverty, and also sets the conditions for accessing social stores based on socioeconomic and needs-based criteria. All the parties then participate in the financing, development and opening of the new stores, including the restructuring of buildings and the provision of shop equipment”.

These organizations also perform hands-off strategies by influencing the creation of favorable institutional arenas of interactions at two different levels. At a first level, they try to reduce potential institutional barriers through open dialog with national and European actors. As explained by FBA’s President: “The role of both EU and local governments is essential for the development of policies aimed at reducing food waste, and we perceive ourselves [FBA] as a privileged informer in the process of policy-making: the Good Samaritan Law is the best example of this process”. At a second level, they promote the development of a culture of social and environmental sustainability within the communities in which the collaborative sustainable innovations are implemented, with specific attention for the wellbeing of future generations. In the case of EnergyBook, the interviewee explained how they address the challenges of promoting a sustainability culture: “by bringing citizens together, and think about how they can invest in making their neighborhoods more sustainable, and by developing an energy cooperative in which the citizens themselves take the initiative”. In particular, the cultural transformation occurs by involving children within schools, through communication campaign programs, so as to encourage responsible energy consumption. Similar initiatives are promoted in the case of Fifty/Fifty: “we aim to promote a culture of sustainable behavior by educating students to reduce their energy and water consumption, and to act as multipliers by spreading such knowledge within their families”.

The Institutional Arenas of Interaction: Processes and Role of the Metagovernors

The case studies highlight how the processes of network promotion, expectations’ management, and learning stimulation that characterize successful strategic niches (Kemp et al., 1998 ; Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012 ) are primarily performed by the networks’ metagovernors.

As far as networking activities are concerned, for instance, the collaborative processes that generate sustainable innovations are prompted by the metagovernors’ attempt to involve different stakeholders at different levels, often with a progressive enlargement of the partnership, with the related increase in resources’ diversity that is considered by the literature as conducive to fruitful niche emergence. In our cases, these resources are both material (e.g. food and financial resources) and immaterial (including specialized skills and competences). In the case of the Solidarity Stores, at the outset the stores originated mainly from networks of public and non-profit organizations aimed to establish a system of free food distribution, essentially for homeless or very poor people. More recently, ANDES has worked to promote the growth of the initiative so as to include large food retailers, who played a crucial role in developing the network and allowing a rapid increase in the number and efficiency of the Solidarity Stores in France. At the micro-level, collaboration occurs among individuals, and the success of these partnerships is mainly due to an effective combination of personnel from different organizations and with various backgrounds. In the case of the Solidarity Stores, the teams consist of employees of large retailers, NPOs and public authorities who work together to launch the stores by bringing in their respective skills. Large retailers bring the specific management, logistic and sale skills that are required to meet quality standards, and provide advance financial support for warehouse and handling costs. This behavior, both at the individual and organizational level, is a reflection of the collaborative orientation (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ) that is adopted by the metagoverning NPO as well as the other partners. The pooling of material and intangible resources allows the relevant service to be delivered in the first place, but also to increase its efficiency and quality (for instance through the involvement of large retailers in the case of the Solidarity Stores), and to build on partners’ specialized skills to foster innovation (as in the case of Siticibo’s solution to transport cooked food safely).

As for the management of expectations that is meant to be conducive to successful niche emergence, FBA begins by referring to surplus food as a ‘resource’ rather than ‘waste’. This communication effort aims at convincing food suppliers that the partnership with FBA transforms waste in resources for the recipients; at the same time, it provides a relief for the disposal of unwanted food. These savings may not be dramatic but are easily computed and therefore recognizable by partner organizations. Emphasis on surplus food as a resource instead of waste also serves the objective of aligning partners’ visions and interests that, according to the niche emergence perspective is crucial for network promotion. The network-level aim of maximizing the gains to be obtained from discarded food is aligned with the organizational-level aims of producing societal benefits while also reducing corporate costs. Similarly, in the case of EnergyBook and Fifty/Fifty, the innovation allows to reach visible and identifiable savings that are then shared by the school and the funders. Corporate costs’ reductions and energy savings are real and measurable, which makes partners’ expectations in relation to them both realistic and achievable, thereby facilitating the virtuous dynamics that characterize strategic niches. Collaboration does not necessarily concern only service provision processes: in some circumstances it involves a higher level, i.e. that of policy definition, as in the case of Siticibo. As the President of FBA explains, “the idea for Siticibo was born in 2001, inspired by a mother trying to avoid wasting excess food in schools, and was lunched in application of the Italian Law 155/2003 [the so called ‘Good Samaritan Law’]. FBA was one of the promoter of this law, which, for the first time in Europe, stated that non-profit organizations providing free distribution to food-deprived people are to be considered equal to end-consumers for the purpose of preserving, storing, and using foodstuff”. Here again the alignment of interests and objectives, together with a clear indication of the benefits that would accrue to actors at all levels, facilitated acceptance and relatively swift implementation of the innovation also at the regulatory level.

Finally, as for the kind of learning that supports the growth of niches, we see evidence of first-order learning, that is development of new knowledge, skills, and expertise (Kemp et al., 1998 ): this is, for instance, the case of Siticibo with the new food preservation system that allows cooked food to be transported without deteriorating. At the same time, we also see deeper learning processes with potential systemic effects (Kemp et al., 1998 ), as they promote greater awareness of the environmental impact of various activities. In the cases of both EnergyBook and Fifty/Fifty, for instance, participating schools commit to involve their students: Ilanga and UfU promote, in particular, the development of ad hoc training and educational modules targeted to students to increase their awareness about energy consumption and sustainability-oriented behaviors. With specific reference to Fifty/Fifty, an UfU operator suggests how “ it is innovative because it doesn’t only require changes in technology, but also in the educational curricula ”. And he adds: “ The direct involvement of students in the innovation process and the supply of lessons, project days, study groups and study trips focusing on climate and energy topics allow them to learn about energy saving practices and to transfer new knowledge to their families ”. Specific knowledge at the individual level coupled with wider receptiveness at the societal level, therefore, increase the strength of the learning processes and the likelihood that they will contribute to meaningful innovations.

The Institutional Arenas of Interaction: Drivers and Barriers Enacted by Local Stakeholders

With reference to the drivers of these initiatives, one of EnergyBook’s interviewees identified, first of all, a growing awareness of sustainability problems among the local communities. In particular, he suggests that “in times of economic crisis, the government alone cannot provide the money and know-how that are necessary to invest in climate mitigation solutions [and] citizens are invited to proactively initiate projects”, and that with EnergyBook “ people and citizens are put at the centre ”. The presence of financial rewards for different stakeholders is another key driver. In the case of Fifty/Fifty and EnergyBook, one of the reasons for their diffusion resides in the financial interest by the community investing in the projects. The involvement of the community as financers is a key factor used by Ilanga to promote EnergyBook among schools. This resource acquisition orientation (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ) is not directed towards donors in a strict sense, but towards citizens who may be willing to invest their excess resources in a responsible way, while also obtaining a financial return. Interviewees confirm, in fact, that “the Belgian people traditionally save a lot of money; but saving money is not economically profitable at the moment, and investing in projects that assure a return on investment is more attractive”. As a consequence, Ilanga purposefully explains to citizens that the project is cost-effective, allowing “a profit of 3 to 6% over a period of 10 to 15 years”. In the cases of both the Solidarity Stores and Siticibo, the companies that provide food surplus see their operating costs diminish due to lower management costs of inventory and waste, and often see a positive indirect impact on their revenues through an overall improvement in their reputation. According to a Solidarity Stores’ interviewee: “[our project] enhances our corporate brand image and reduces the costs of managing waste”. In the case of Siticibo, the President of FBA stressed that “the recovery of surplus food underlines the economic value of food, and donors can reduce storage and disposal fees while also putting products to good use instead of wasting them, thereby contributing to the common good of society”. The donor/resource acquisition orientation on the part of Siticibo can be seen, first, in their effort to raise companies’ awareness that their waste can be repurposed for other, socially oriented, uses; and secondly, in their linking such socially responsible behavior to cost savings for those same companies. The success of this innovation, then, is closely linked to the fact that it provides companies with the opportunity to reduce costs related to waste disposal; moreover, “the recognition of food banks’ social value has led to a strong partnership with private sector organizations, who can design their policies of corporate social responsibility as an extension of their core business”. A last important driver of collaborative innovations for sustainability may be a supportive public sector. In the case of Fifty/Fifty, Germany’s Environmental Department covers the costs that schools face during the process through the National Climate Protection Initiative for the first three years. After that period, each school district becomes responsible for keeping the project alive and ensuring its effectiveness and economic sustainability. In addition to non-economic incentives such as the positive environmental impact and the spillovers from the involvement of students, the economic incentive seems to be rather clear to public managers, who understand the opportunity to save money by embracing a strategy aimed to reduce energy and water consumption. In addition, “the fact that the initial investments for schools are covered by the national government represents another incentive for public managers as it reduces the economic risk of the initiative”.

Whereas a supportive public actor was a key driver in the case of Fifty/Fifty, Siticibo’s interviewees noted that public administrations and governmental regulations sometimes hinder the diffusion of the initiative, thereby acting as a barrier to collaborative innovation. According to a Siticibo interviewee: “sometimes the external environment does not seem to boost food surplus donation, as food donors are wary of jeopardizing their brand image. They are not willing to take on the liability risk in relation to the donated food, and there are no fiscal incentives that promote food donation”. Moreover, “regulations for the non-profit sector in Italy are often very complicated or difficult to apply”. In addition to the regulatory barriers, Siticibo’s operators identify other barriers related to the structure of the Italian food industry: “the Italian economy features a very fragmented retail industry. A few companies are leaders in every region, and then there are many small organizations operating at the local level with whom it is difficult to get in touch and begin to collaborate at the policy level. The same fragmentation is found among trade associations, which are strongly divided and are not willing to engage in mutual cooperation. The same is also true for the restaurant industry, where every organization thinks for themselves. In general, this fragmentation makes it difficult to create a network and increase the power to influence policies, at the national as well as at the European level”. These comments once again show a stakeholder orientation (Liao et al., 2001 ) on the part of Siticibo, highlighting the fact that such orientation can also help build a better understanding of the interests that potentially constrain the collaboration. Such improved understanding may, in turn, support the metagovernor—and/or one or more partners—in their search for an effective way to work around these constraints.

We have argued that NPOs may play an important role in supporting sustainable development, particularly when they are involved in various ways in the promotion of collaborative innovations. As they refer to the metagovernance of collaborative innovation processes, Sørensen and Torfing ( 2017 , p. 830) acknowledge that “(i)t is not the prerogative of the public authorities to step into the role of metagovernor. Private actors, such as community leaders, interest organizations, and business leaders, might seek to take on this position and their success in doing so depends, among other things, on whether they possess the centrality, resources, and ability to do so”. By integrating the meso- and the micro-levels of analysis, we propose that, in the case of collaborative innovations for sustainability, such role may indeed be fruitfully played by NPOs.

The results of the analysis of the four case studies are here discussed first in relation to the contribution of collaborative innovations to SDGs (the focus of our first research question) and, second, by explaining the roles that NPOs engaged in the metagovernance of these collaborations may play in this process (which addresses our second research question). In the last part of this discussion section, we draw on our results to propose a conceptual model for the analysis of collaborative innovations for sustainability that suggests the possibility of a virtuous cycle between metagovernance, collaborative innovation processes, and value creation.

Value Creation Through Collaborative Sustainability-Oriented Innovation

As far as the contribution of collaborative innovation to the SDGs is concerned, our analysis adds to the literature on sustainable transitions (Seyfang & Haxeltine, 2012 ; Smith et al., 2014 ) through a better understanding of how these sustainability-oriented innovations generate value, and which characteristics thereof are being created. In this vein, our results suggest that although each case focuses on one or two of the SDGs—among Zero Hunger, Responsible consumption and production, and Affordable and clean energy—their positive externalities are wider, affecting the environmental, the social and the economic dimensions of sustainable development. For instance, a positive outcome of these innovations appears to begin early in the innovative process, before the beneficial effects of services provision for users start to emerge: the NPO often acts as early-stage promoter of the innovation, and this contributes to the creation of social capital, trust, and meaningful relations long before the initiatives are implemented or the services are actually supplied. Therefore, the innovation’s benefits are multiple and possibly reinforce each other, thereby facilitating its growth across time and space. In the case of both EnergyBook and Fifty/Fifty, for instance, investing—through training—in a culture that promotes sustainability among the youth supports the creation of a sustainability culture across generations. Here, we see the immediate environmental as well as financial benefits from lower energy consumption that are enjoyed by the relevant community in the short/medium term. These immediate gains will also translate in wider and longer-term benefits, as families adopt more responsible behaviours also in other areas of their lives, and transfer this sustainability-oriented culture to their offsprings. In the case of Siticibo, the collection of discarded food that would otherwise go into incinerators has a positive impact on the environment, while also supporting the activities of NPOs that address social needs. At the same time, the collection allows companies to optimize inventory management, with positive economic implications, and to implement socially responsible practices that contribute to improved reputation and, potentially, to increasing purpose-driven behavior at the organizational level.

These initiatives, therefore, extend their scope across the environmental, social, and economic dimensions, with wider effects that reach beyond those cases where the impact tends to be limited to a single dimension. Particularly significant is the role of the financial benefits of collaborative innovation for sustainability, which may become an important driver of their diffusion and scaling-up. In the case of Fifty/Fifty, for instance, the financial benefits associated with savings from lower water and energy consumption and the related possibility to invest in other spheres are a strong incentive for scaling-up. On the other hand, even if the financial dimension may be a powerful driver, a challenge lies in showing to the relevant community the opportunity for savings and financial returns. Here the metagovernors can play a key role: rather than leveraging the intrinsic and ethical motivations of the people involved, as it happens with traditional non-profit organizations, they can build on the logic of the social enterprise, featuring a balance among the environmental, social, and economic dimensions.

Lastly, these initiatives of collaborative innovation for sustainability contribute in a fundamental way to the implementation of SDG n. 17, Partnerships for the goals, as it refers especially to the establishment of ‘multi-stakeholder partnerships that mobilize and share knowledge, expertise, technology and financial resources, to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals’ ( https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg17 ).

Non-profit Organizations as Metagovernors of Collaborative Innovation for Sustainability

As for the contribution of NPOs as metagovernors (Sørensen & Torfing, 2011 ) of multi-stakeholder and social partnerships (MacDonald et al. 2019 , Yin & Jamali, 2020 ), our analysis adds to the interdisciplinary literature on collaboration a specific focus on the role of the actors involved. In this vein, we integrate Sørensen and Torfing ( 2011 )’s collaborative innovation framework by focusing specifically on the NPO as a metagovernor, as opposed to the prevailing literature’s focus on public actors. Moreover, we highlight how the ‘metagovernance’ umbrella term actually includes a set of possible specific roles that the NPO may also play concurrently: the analysis leads us to identify five such roles (see Table ​ Table3 3 ).

Metagovernance of collaborative innovation processes for sustainability

The metagovernor can play the role of a Cultural Spreader by promoting a culture of environmental and social sustainability among various stakeholders across time and space, thereby contributing to the generation of social and environmental value along the innovation process. For instance, UfU performs this role with the environmental sustainability seminars carried out at the schools within the Fifty/Fifty project. This actor can also play the role of the Enabler of the innovation co-design process, by involving the members of the local communities. These communities contribute to identify local needs and challenges, as well as the solutions that can be implemented to address them, thereby experimenting with forms of direct democracy. In the case of EnergyBook, for example, Ilanga’s coaches perform an enabling role as they build relations among citizens, the local administration, and the owners of the school buildings, so as to identify the innovative solution that is most suitable for that specific context. Similarly, the role of the Relational Broker also involves the promotion of networking activities among different actors, but with a specific focus on the implementation of the innovation. Metagovernors play this role when they join together resources from different actors, so as to allow the actual implementation of the innovative project. In the case of the Solidarity Stores, ANDES is engaged in the identification of new suppliers, the rearrangement of the buildings where the stores are located, and in the promotion of the initiative within the local community. At a different level, a metagovernor may become a relational broker for innovation diffusion, by promoting increasing awareness of the initiative across different communities, thereby extending value creation across space. Ilanga plays this role through the promotion of EnergyBook across Belgium. In other circumstances, the metagovernor plays the role of the Service Provider who’s directly involved in the provision of the innovative service. In the case of Siticibo, FBA provides the core service of fresh food transfer through its logistic infrastructure. In this role, the metagovernors create a direct benefit for users and, at the same time, they touch the environmental and economic dimensions of sustainable development by providing services (the innovation outputs) contributing to the mitigation of the environmental impact of economic activities, and, at the same time, by generating a financial pay-off for several actors. Finally, as they get involved in the development and diffusion of the innovation, the metagovernors may contribute to the formulation of public policies, thereby assuming the role of the Influencer . This happened for instance in the case of Siticibo, where FBA was instrumental in the promotion of the Good Samaritan Law.

A Conceptual Model of Collaborative Innovation for Sustainability

Drawing on Sørensen and Torfing ( 2011 )’s model, integrated with contributions from with literatures on grassroots sustainable innovation and on societal orientation, and in the light of the results of our analysis, we propose a conceptual model to study collaborative innovations for sustainability that highlights the presence of a potential virtuous circle (see Fig.  3 ).

A conceptual model of collaborative innovation for sustainability

As in Sørensen and Torfing’s ( 2011 ) model, metagovernance affects both institutional arenas of interaction and collaborative innovation processes—with the latter being, in turn, influenced by drivers and barriers—which ultimately lead to innovation outputs. We propose an integration to this model that, first, distinguishes among five types of metagoverning roles, which in our cases appear to influence certain spheres of value creation more than others (see Table ​ Table3). 3 ). Second, we propose to make explicit the value being created not only as a result of innovation outputs, but also as a result of the collaborative processes. This is most visible in the fact that the collaboration contributes to create trust and social capital early on, before the actual services (the innovation outputs) are supplied: in the EnergyBook and Fifty/Fifty cases we see an effort to create a culture of sustainability among the youth, and relatedly across generations. The benefits are multiple—as they inform the social, environmental, and financial dimensions—and reinforce each other as, for instance, increased ties and trust within the community and the visible financial rewards from energy-saving activities will likely encourage responsible behaviors also in the future. The types of value being created can also be linked directly to the dimensions of sustainable development that they contribute to support, thereby suggesting that the contribution of these initiatives to sustainable development goes well beyond the specific SDG they most directly contribute to (that is, number 2. Zero Hunger, number 12. Responsible consumption and production, and number 7. Affordable and clean energy). Our proposed framework therefore wishes to highlight that collaborative innovation processes may contribute to the various dimensions of sustainable development both directly (e.g. by fostering a culture of sustainable development among the youth) and indirectly (through the production of innovation outputs, such as a service that provides NPOs with surplus cooked food produced by companies’ canteens), and that this contribution is likely to be shaped by the role(s) taken by the metagovernor.

In addition to this set of influences, we wish to point out the feedback effects that from the value being created revert to the metagovernors and to the collaborations respectively. In the case of the metagovernors, seeing the value being created may prompt them to further promote and coordinate sustainability-oriented innovations, and/or to scale up existing ones, thereby establishing new collaborations in the process. Such visible value may take the form, for instance, of target users’ higher social inclusion through improved job market participation, or energy/water savings within the local community.

As for the effect on collaborations, the value being created may influence both their drivers and barriers. As for the drivers, different components of the value being created may contribute to increase the awareness of sustainability problems among individuals and communities: these components include, for instance, measurable improvements in pollution indicators or CO2 emissions, or reductions in food waste. More pragmatically, the financial value resulting from the collaboration may further push existing partners to collaborate, as well as attract other stakeholders. The generation of economic value may also help reduce certain barriers, as in the case of the fragmented Italian food industry in the case of Siticibo: the evidence of financial rewards may work as an incentive for companies and trade associations to set aside (part of) their conflicting interests and work together towards a common objective. Similarly, evidence of the social, environmental, and economic value being created may push public administrators to amend those regulations that act as barriers, while also establishing programs and setting aside financial resources for the promotion of sustainability-oriented partnerships.

The 2030 Agenda explicitly recognizes the role to be played by cross-sector partnerships for sustainable development. However, the forms, functionings and impacts of such partnerships can be extremely varied. As noted by Yin and Jamali ( 2020 , p. 4) in relation to social partnerships, “little has been known as to how managing the processes across the partnership dimensions may lead to value creation”.

The New Public Governance approach, and the collaborative innovation literature in particular, have shown how the wicked problems of sustainable development may be addressed through new solutions that build on partners’ diverse competences and resources (Hofstad & Torfing, 2016 ; Koppenjan & Klijn, 2004 ; Sørensen & Torfing, 2011 , 2017 ; Van Huijstee et al., 2007 ), thereby shedding light on several of the aforementioned issues. On the other hand, the collaborative innovation literature mostly neglects the specific role played by non-profits within collaborations, thereby losing an opportunity to better understand possible NPO-related elements to be leveraged for greater efficacy, both from a policy perspective and from the viewpoint of the individual collaborating organizations.

The aim of our study, then, was to understand first how collaborative innovation for sustainability may actually contribute to the implementation of the Agenda 2030, and secondly which role do NPOs play within cross-sector partnerships engaged in collaborative innovation processes. To reach this objective, we conducted a multiple case study analysis of four sustainability-oriented innovation initiatives implemented across Europe in the fields of energy and food consumption.

Our results reach beyond confirming that NPOs may act as metagovernors (Sørensen & Torfing, 2017 ), by showing how they can actually play the central part that is often occupied by public organizations, and by suggesting a typology of the roles played by NPOs that in various ways contribute to generate innovation for sustainability. This enhanced model adds to existing frameworks by explaining how value in terms of sustainability is being created, by pointing out three major dynamics. First, collaborative innovation processes contribute to value creation both directly (e.g. by creating trust), and indirectly through the innovation outputs (e.g. a new service) that in turn generate value for users and other stakeholders. Secondly, innovation benefits for the purpose of sustainability are multiple—as they inform the social, environmental, and financial dimensions—and reinforce each other (e.g. financial and reputational rewards will encourage responsible corporate behavior). Thirdly, the value being created produces feedback effects on the metagovernors (who may be prompted to further promote sustainability-oriented innovations or scale up existing ones), and on the barriers and drivers to collaborative innovation processes (e.g. public administrators may be pushed to amend regulations that act as barriers). This model, therefore, also extends the literature on grassroots innovations for sustainability (van Lunenburg et al., 2020 ) as it suggests that such innovations may benefit greatly from their being promoted and implemented by partnerships between NPOs and other stakeholders. Starting from a specific aim of sustainable development—i.e. diffusion of clean energy or responsible consumption practices—grassroots innovations based on collaboration generate positive externalities at the environmental, social and economic levels, reaching far beyond their original intent. Lastly, our work adds to the societal orientation literature (Duque-Zuluaga & Schneider, 2008 ; Hsieh et al., 2008 ; Liao et al., 2001 ) as it highlights that all of this concept’s outward-oriented components—in addition to the NPO’s ‘collaborative orientation’—are likely to facilitate multi-stakeholder collaboration.

Joining the meso- and the micro-levels of analysis brings the benefit of integrating two different perspectives when pursuing a sustainability oriented initiative: the macro-level perspective of policy design and implementation, and the micro-level perspective of the participating organizations’ behaviour and activities. An improved understanding of the relevant roles and dynamics, therefore, allows both better institutional support and more effective collaborative behaviour, thereby improving the outlook for the implementation of Agenda 2030.

The results of this work may be of interest both from a theoretical and a practical point of view. From a theoretical perspective, this work contributes to the extant literature by developing a conceptual framework that sees collaborative innovation initiatives as drivers for the fulfilment of sustainable development, with a fundamental role to be played by NPOs not only in their design and implementation, but also in the metagovernance of the institutional arenas of collaborative interaction. From a practitioner’s viewpoint, this work provides managers of NPOs with a better understanding of the roles they may play within the innovation process. For instance, the ability to generate financial value—and to draw the attention of the relevant stakeholders to it—may strengthen the innovative process and its diffusion and scaling-up, with positive implications for value creation at different levels. In fact, part of the follow-up to our research work was the construction of a roadmap, together with the management of the organization acting as promoter/metagovernor, aimed at scaling up the innovation projects and helping them shape the mainstream approach to—in our cases—energy saving and surplus food management programs.

Our work also highlights that the four countries’ socio-economic, regulatory and economic contexts affect the innovation processes, as in the case of Siticibo facing the intricate Italian regulatory framework for NPOs, or EnergyBook benefiting from Belgians’ propensity to invest their savings. Awareness of these influences—whose examination goes beyond the scope of this paper—can help the managers of the metagovernor and of other collaborating organizations to either take advantage of or work around them.

From a policy-making perspective, the results show the opportunity for public administrations to allow NPOs to innovate trough a bottom-up approach, thereby eventually supporting sustainable development processes, and to play an active role by enabling such innovation processes while also eliminating any institutional barriers. In addition—and building on the basic idea proposed by Torfing and Triantafillou ( 2016 ) that ‘the way we shape the institutional forms of governance in the public sector affects its capacity for innovation’ (p. 3) —our results suggest that if NPOs are allowed to be metagovernors, and supported in such role, the overall system’s capacity for innovation may be enhanced. By transforming public governance in the right ways, public innovation may be boosted for the benefit of different and diverse actors.

The main limitations of this work are linked to its case study-based nature: the cases were selected through theoretical sampling, so as to explore certain elements and dynamics within a constrained comparative approach. Further research could first test the external validity of the mechanisms and dynamics highlighted by our proposed framework, by extending the analysis to other sectors, contexts, and larger samples; secondly, it could explore the extent to which such mechanisms may in fact reinforce each other and encourage a virtuous circle as our analysis suggests. Nevertheless, given the SDGs’ voluntary nature and the related weak capacity to enforce the collaborations that can foster them, our study shows that NPOs may play a crucial role not only by directly addressing local communities’ needs but also as promoters and metagovernors of collaborations among relevant stakeholders. Whereas collaboration and collaborative innovation are not without risks (Torfing & Triantafillou, 2016 ), they also have the potential to trigger a process of value creation that is multidimensional, and which, therefore, may contribute to sustainable development in ways that go beyond the pursuit of individual Goals. The value being created in its different forms, in turn, may act as providing incentives and reducing organizational and institutional barriers to both metagovernance and collaboration, thereby contributing to address the challenges faced by the implementation of the Agenda 2030. As of end-2021, these challenges are exacerbated by the impact of the global pandemic caused by Covid-19: at a time when publicly provided services are under considerable stress, both within and outside the healthcare sector, NPOs are seeing an increased demand for both their service delivery and innovation capabilities (Shi et al., 2020 ). Collaborative innovation through multi-stakeholder partnerships may be one way, among others, to answer this call.

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Milano - Bicocca within the CRUI-CARE Agreement. The research leading to these results received funding from the European Commission, FP7 Science in Society, Grant/Award Number: 612113.

Declarations

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

1 Figure  1 is a simplification of Sørensen and Torfing ( 2011 )’s model, specifically as it does not include the initial conditions that influence the institutional arenas of interaction, nor the evaluation of innovation outputs.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Contributor Information

Laura Mariani, Email: [email protected] .

Benedetta Trivellato, Email: [email protected] .

Mattia Martini, Email: [email protected] .

Elisabetta Marafioti, Email: [email protected] .

• Abzug R, Webb NJ. Relationships between nonprofit and for-profit organizations: A stakeholder perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 1999; 28 (4):416–431. doi: 10.1177/0899764099284003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Agranoff R. Managing within networks: Adding value to public organizations. Georgetown University Press; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ansell C, Torfing J, editors. Handbook on theories of governance. Edward Elgar; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ansell C, Torfing J, editors. Public Innovation through Collaboration and Design. Routledge; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bommert B. Collaborative innovation in the public sector. International Public Management Review. 2010; 11 (1):15–33. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boons F, Montalvo C, Quist J, Wagner M. Sustainable innovation, business models and economic performance: An overview. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2013; 45 :1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bovaird T, Loeffler E. From engagement to co-production: The Contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 2012; 23 (4):1119–1138. doi: 10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryson JM, Crosby BC, Bloomberg L. Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review. 2014; 74 (4):445–456. doi: 10.1111/puar.12238. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bryson JM, Crosby BC, Stone MM. Designing and implementing cross-sector collaboration—needed and challenging. Public Administration Review. 2015; 75 (5):647–663. doi: 10.1111/puar.12432. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carrillo-Hermosilla J, del Río P, Könnölä T. Diversity of eco-innovations: Reflections from selected case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2010; 18 (10):1073–1083. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.02.014. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cristofoli D, Douglas S, Torfing J, Trivellato B. Having it all: Is it possible for collaborative governance to be both legitimate and accountable? Public Management Review. 2022; 24 (5):695–719. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2021.1960736. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cristofoli D, Trivellato B, Sancino A, Maccio L, Markovic J. Public network leadership and the ties that lead. Journal of Management and Governance. 2021; 25 :251–274. doi: 10.1007/s10997-020-09505-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crosby BC, Bryson JM. Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations. The Leadership Quarterly. 2010; 21 (2):211–230. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.01.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Devine-Wright P, Devine-Wright H. Social representations of intermittency and the shaping of public support for wind energy in the UK. International Journal of Global Energy Issues. 2006; 25 (3–4):243–256. doi: 10.1504/IJGEI.2006.008994. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duque-Zuluaga LC, Schneider U. Market orientation and organizational performance in the nonprofit context: Exploring both concepts and the relationship between them. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing. 2008; 19 (2):25–47. doi: 10.1300/J054v19n02_02. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eggers WD, Singh S. The public innovators playbook. Harvard Kennedy School of Government; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Eisenhardt KM. Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review. 1989; 14 (4):532–550. doi: 10.2307/258557. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elkington J. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environmental Quality Management. 1998; 8 (1):37–51. doi: 10.1002/tqem.3310080106. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Emerson K, Nabatchi T, Balogh S. An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2012; 22 (1):1–29. doi: 10.1093/jopart/mur011. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fassin Y, Deprez J, Van den Abeele A, Heene A. Complementarities between stakeholder management and participative management: Evidence from the youth care sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 2017; 46 (3):586–606. doi: 10.1177/0899764016661247. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Freeman RE. Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Pitman; 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Geels FW. Technological transitions and system innovations: A co-evolutionary and sociotechnical analysis. Edward Elgar; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Glaser B, Strauss A. The discovery of grounded theory. Weidenfield and Nicolson; 1967. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hammer J, Pivo G. The triple bottom line and sustainable economic development theory and practice. Economic Development Quarterly. 2017; 31 (1):25–36. doi: 10.1177/0891242416674808. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartley J. Innovation in governance and public service: Past and present. Public Money & Management. 2005; 25 (1):27–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hartley J, Sørensen E, Torfing J. Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to market competition and organizational entrepreneurship. Public Administration Review. 2013; 73 :821–830. doi: 10.1111/puar.12136. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hofstad H, Torfing J. Collaborative innovation as a tool for environmental, economic and social sustainability in regional governance. Scandinavian Journal of Public Administration. 2016; 19 (4):49–70. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hsieh J, Curtis KP, Smith AW. Implications of stakeholder concept and market orientation in the US nonprofit arts context. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing. 2008; 5 (1):1–13. doi: 10.1007/s12208-008-0001-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Huxham C. Creating collaborative advantage. Sage; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huxham C, Vangen S. Managing to collaborate: The theory and practice of collaborative advantage. Routledge; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jackson T. Chasing progress: Beyond measuring economic growth. New Economics Foundation; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jaworski BJ, Kohli AK. Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing. 1993; 57 :53–70. doi: 10.1177/002224299305700304. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kemp R, Schot J, Hoogma R. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche management. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 1998; 10 (2):175–195. doi: 10.1080/09537329808524310. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Klijn EH, Koppenjan JMF. Public management and policy networks: Foundations of a network approach to governance. Public Management Review. 2000; 2 (2):135–158. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koppenjan JFM. The new public governance in public service delivery. Eleven International Publishing; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Koppenjan JFM, Klijn EH. Managing uncertainties in networks. Routledge; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kotler P, Levy SJ. Broadening the concept of marketing. Journal of Marketing. 1969; 33 :10–15. doi: 10.1177/002224296903300103. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee TW. Using qualitative methods in organizational research. Sage Publications; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Le Pennec M, Raufflet E. Value creation in inter-organizational collaboration: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics. 2018; 148 :817–834. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-3012-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liao MN, Foreman S, Sargeant A. Market versus societal orientation in the nonprofit context. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing. 2001; 6 (3):254–268. doi: 10.1002/nvsm.151. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Loorbach D. Governance for sustainability. Sustainability. 2007; 3 (2):1–4. [ Google Scholar ]
• Maniates M. In search of consumptive resistance: The voluntary simplicity movement. Confronting Consumption. 2002; 14 :199–235. [ Google Scholar ]
• MacDonald A, Clarke A, Huang L. Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainability: Designing decision-making processes for partnership capacity. Journal of Business Ethics. 2019; 160 :409–426. doi: 10.1007/s10551-018-3885-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Martini M, Hölsgens R, Popper R, editors. Governance and management of sustainable innovation. Springer International Publishing; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• McGuire M. Collaborative public management: assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review. 2006; 66 (s1):33–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00664.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Sage Publications; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Narver JC, Slater SF. The effect of market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing. 1990; 54 :20–35. doi: 10.1177/002224299005400403. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Osborne SP. The new public governance? Public Management Review. 2006; 8 (3):377–387. doi: 10.1080/14719030600853022. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Osborne SP, editor. The new public governance? Routledge; 2010. [ Google Scholar ]
• Provan KG, Milward HB. A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1995; 40 (1):1–33. doi: 10.2307/2393698. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rip A, Kemp R. Technological change. In: Rayner S, Malone EL, editors. Human choice and climate change. Battelle Press; 1998. pp. 327–399. [ Google Scholar ]
• Roberts NC. Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management Review. 2000; 1 (1):1–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Robertson J. The new economics of sustainable development: A briefing for policymakers. Kogan Page; 1999. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rotmans J, Kemp R, van Asselt M. More evolution than revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight. 2001; 3 :15–31. doi: 10.1108/14636680110803003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sachs J. From millennium development goals to sustainable development goals. Lancet. 2012; 379 :2206–2211. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60685-0. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schaltegger S, Beckmann M, Hockerts K. Collaborative entrepreneurship for sustainability: Creating solutions in light of the UN sustainable development goals. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing. 2018; 10 (2):131–152. doi: 10.1504/IJEV.2018.092709. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seyfang G. Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examining local food networks. Journal of Rural Studies. 2006; 22 :383–395. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.01.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seyfang G, Smith A. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Environmental Politics. 2007; 16 (4):584–603. doi: 10.1080/09644010701419121. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seyfang G, Haxeltine A. Growing grassroots innovations: Exploring the role of community-based initiatives in governing sustainable energy transitions. Environment and Planning C. 2012; 30 (3):381–400. doi: 10.1068/c10222. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shi Y, Jang HS, Keyes L, Dicke L. Nonprofit service continuity and responses in the pandemic: Disruptions, ambiguity, innovation, and challenges. Public Administration Review. 2020; 80 (5):874–879. doi: 10.1111/puar.13254. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slater SF, Narver JC. Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation performance relationship? Journal of Marketing. 1994; 58 :46–55. doi: 10.1177/002224299405800104. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sørensen E, Torfing J. Enhancing collaborative innovation in the public sector. Administration & Society. 2011; 43 (8):842–868. doi: 10.1177/0095399711418768. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sørensen E, Torfing J. Metagoverning collaborative innovation in governance networks. American Review of Public Administration. 2017; 47 (7):826–839. doi: 10.1177/0275074016643181. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith A, Stirling A, Berkhout F. The governance of sustainable sociotechnical transitions. Research Policy. 2005; 34 (10):1491–1510. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2005.07.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith A, Fressoli M, Thomas H. Grassroots innovation movements: Challenges and contributions. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2014; 63 :114–124. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.12.025. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torfing J. Collaborative innovation in the public sector: The argument. Public Management Review. 2019; 21 (1):1–11. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2018.1430248. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torfing J, Ansell C. Strengthening political leadership and policy innovation through the expansion of collaborative forms of governance. Public Management Review. 2017; 19 (1):37–54. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2016.1200662. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Torfing J, Triantafillou P. Enhacing Public Innovation by transforming public governance? In: Torfing J, Triantafillou P, editors. Enhacing public innovation by transforming public governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Torfing J, Cristofoli D, Gloor P, Meier A, Trivellato B. Taming the snake in paradise: Combining institutional design and leadership to enhance collaborative innovation. Policy & Society. 2020; 39 (4):592–616. doi: 10.1080/14494035.2020.1794749. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trivellato B, Mariani L, Martini M, Cavenago D. Leading knowledge mobilization for public value: the case of the Congestion Charge Zone (Area C) in Milan. Public Administration. 2019; 97 (2):311–324. doi: 10.1111/padm.12559. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trivellato B, Martini M, Cavenago D. How do organizational capabilities sustain continuous innovation in a public setting? The American Review of Public Administration. 2021; 51 (1):57–71. doi: 10.1177/0275074020939263. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• UN General Assembly. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 25 September 2015 ( https://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E ).
• Van Huijstee MM, Francken M, Leroy P. Partnerships for sustainable development: A review of current literature. Environmental Sciences. 2007; 4 (2):75–89. doi: 10.1080/15693430701526336. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Lunenburg M, Geuijen K, Meijer A. How and why do social and sustainable initiatives scale? A systematic review of the literature on social entrepreneurship and grassroots innovation. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 2020; 15 :1–2. doi: 10.1007/s11266-020-00208-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Puyvelde S, Caers R, Du Bois C, Jegers M. The governance of nonprofit organizations: Integrating agency theory with stakeholder and stewardship theories. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 2012; 41 (3):431–451. doi: 10.1177/0899764011409757. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Zeijil-Rozema C, Kemp R, Martens P. Governance for sustainable development: A framework. Sustainable Development. 2008; 16 (6):410–421. doi: 10.1002/sd.367. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin RK. Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications; 2013. [ Google Scholar ]
• Yin J, Jamali D. Collide or collaborate: The interplay of competing logics and institutional work in cross-sector social partnerships. Journal of Business Ethics. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s10551-020-04548-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]