Partnering for impact: how Swedish environmental NGOs characterize the impact of corporate collaborations

Cross-sector collaborations among business and non-profit organizations have been growing exponentially, propelled by the emphasis on corporate social responsibility (CSR) and/or sustainability and higher expectations for responsible businesses conduct (Chaudhri and Hein, 2021; Austin and Seitanidi, 2012; Stafford et al., 2000). Broadly speaking, CSR entails “the responsibility of enterprises for their impact on society” (European Commission, 2011/2014). The scope of responsibility can be multidimensional, “integrating social, environmental, ethical, consumer, and human rights concerns into their business strategy and operations” (Ibid).

Relatedly, the formation of cross-sector collaborations has been described as a response to societal pressures from stakeholders to solve economic, social and environmental issues (Laasonen et al., 2012; Van Tulder et al., 2016) centered on the argument that complex social and environmental issues (e.g. climate change) require collaborative solutions (Austin and Seitanidi, 2012). The societal expectation to collaborate is also endorsed by key global institutions such as the United Nations (Bode et al., 2019; United Nations, 2015). Goal 17 of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) explicitly advocates for cross-sector partnerships as “important vehicles for mobilizing and sharing knowledge, expertise, technologies and financial resources to support the achievement of the sustainable development goals” (Multi-stakeholder partnerships, 2025). The deeper integration of CSR and/or sustainability into business strategy is further projected to lead to an upswing in cross-sector partnerships. Indeed, data from C&E Advisory (2024) Corporate-Non-Profit Partnership Barometer suggest that over 80% of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and businesses NGO believe that cross-sector partnerships will become more important over the next three years. Notably, the study finds that “’strategic alignment and long-term impact’ are key to modern partnerships” (Virdi, 2024).

Against this backdrop, our exploratory study focuses on partnerships between business and environmental NGOs as one of the key “arenas” of cross-sector collaborations (Selsky and Parker, 2005, p. 851) and seeks to unpack how the ‘impact’ of such efforts is characterized by the NGO partner. We deem this worthy of investigation because despite the shift toward business–NGO partnerships, there is a research gap concerning the impact(s) of collaboration efforts (Austin and Seitanidi, 2012; Herlin, 2013; Shumate et al., 2018; Shah, 2011; Van Tulder et al., 2016). Extant research extols the benefits of high-engagement collaborations, where the roles and efforts of partners are integrated, to realize real societal changes (Austin and Seitanidi, 2012; Rondinelli and London, 2003; Shumate et al., 2018). Building on this view, much research has situated partnerships as a win-win without addressing the varieties of impact (Van Tulder et al., 2016). According to the win-win perspective, collaborations offer financial stability for NGOs and simultaneously positively affect the reputation of the corporate partner by legitimizing their CSR efforts (Dempsey, 2011; Herlin, 2013). For NGOs, the outcomes are not quite as conclusive (Herlin, 2013; Shumate et al., 2018).

Although NGO–business partnerships are not the only mechanism by which NGOs may influence social responsibility and/or sustainability commitments of business, it has been argued that “developing partnerships with societal actors is a sine qua non for companies engaging in CSR initiatives” (Nijhof et al., 2008, p. 153; italics original). Further, in light of the projected growth in NGO–business partnerships, it becomes important to understand how the impacts of such partnerships are understood. Foregrounding an NGO perspective, we advance two interrelated research questions:

To address the research questions, we conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with environmental NGOs in Sweden. Sweden was chosen for the high levels of engagement in and support of CSR and also the prevalence of an NGO–business partnership orientation (Ahlstrom and Sjostrom, 2005; Fontana, 2018). Sweden is also categorized as outspoken and active in CSR policy-making and environmental politics (Fontana, 2018; Peters et al., 2007). Since March 2018, almost 500 Swedish companies have committed to the UN Global Compact initiative to align their strategies and operations according to the Ten Principals of the initiative and the UN SDGs (UN Global Compact, 2025). Further, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency partners and supports both the private sector in its contribution to economic, social and environmentally sustainable development and civil society organizations and NGOs in their role to influence business to take greater responsibility.

A contextual perspective is also aligned with the contention that the (regional) context influences the activities and metrics of cross-sector partnerships (Gjølberg, 2009; Van Tulder et al., 2016). Finally, following the assertion that business–NGO “partnerships” may also take differentiated forms (Austin and Seitanidi, 2012; Selsky and Parker, 2005; Waddock, 1988), we focus on environmental collaborations to permit an in-depth understanding and dynamics of a specific sector issue (environment) that, in particular, goes beyond the scope of a single actor.

At the outset, it is worth noting that collaborations between business and NGO are variously defined. Selsky and Parker (2005) define cross-sector social-oriented partnerships as: “[…] projects formed explicitly to address social issues and causes that actively engage the partners on an ongoing basis” (p. 850). According to the authors, partnerships can be short-term transactional projects limited to self-interest, and more long-term integrated projects oriented around the common interests of the partners. Others differentiate cross-sector partnerships from philanthropic efforts and as active involvement and “commitment of resources – time and effort – by individuals from all partner organisations” (Waddock, 1988, p. 18). Likewise, NGOs do not constitute a unitary group. Following Teegen and colleagues (2004), the study treats NGOs as “private, not-for-profit organizations that aim to serve particular societal interests by focusing advocacy and/or operational efforts on social, political and economic goals, including equity, education, health, environmental protection and human rights” (p. 466).

In this study, we view the growing interest in NGO–business partnerships as an expression of CSR agendas particularly focused on environmental causes. According to industry data, over 95% of the 240 largest businesses report their sustainability performance (GRI, 2020); over 3,000 businesses have set carbon goals to reduce their emissions (Science Based Targets, 2022); and a third of the largest European companies have signed a pledge to reach net-zero by 2050 (Winston, 2021). Stakeholder demand for and expectations of greater environmental stewardship are also on the rise. As a case in point, 93% of employees believe businesses must lead with a purpose, and 88% agree that it is not acceptable for business to focus on profits at the expense of society (Porter Novelli, 2020).

Heightened stakeholder expectations along with calls for multilateral solutions are arguably accelerating the role of NGOs as institutional actors engaged in supporting and shaping business efforts to be environmentally responsible (Austin and Seitanidi, 2012; Ahlstrom and Sjostrom, 2005). In particular, Goal 17 of the UN SDGs which emphasizes the establishment of cross-sector partnerships between all stakeholders to support sustainability goals worldwide (United Nations, 2015) is assumed to have catalyzed NGO–business collaborations in the context of CSR (C&E, 2024; Rayne et al., 2020).

Despite the growing evidence of cross-sector partnerships, the impact of such partnerships remains ambiguous. A review of existing scholarship suggests that impact exists at multiple levels, may be short and long term, and lacks standardized assessments. As a case in point, extant research taking a short-term view of impact focuses on financial efficiency and stakeholder management benefits that are tangible and, arguably, follow a corporate logic of favoring immediate and measurable results (Barnett et al., 2020; Shumate et al., 2018; Hansen and Spitzeck, 2011). Paradoxically, a long-term assessment of impact increases the uncertainty of the cause and effect making it difficult to ascertain if long-term impacts are results of the collaboration or other external factors.

Additionally, impact has been defined on various levels, from community- to business-level impacts (Hansen and Spitzeck, 2011), from financial profits to the achieved innovation (Austin and Seitanidi, 2012), from individual to societal and issue-level impact (Van Tulder et al., 2016), from organizational to reputational benefits (Mirońska and Zaborek, 2019), as well as from micro- to macro-level impact (Bode et al., 2019; Shumate et al., 2018) (Table 1).

As this overview suggests, “impact” is a multidimensional phenomenon and the varied ways in which impact is understood and operationalized warrants further examination. Doing so is especially relevant given the growing interest in and numbers of NGO–business collaborations.

A second point in relation to the discussion of impact pertains to the role of trust and strategic fit as key considerations that enable impactful collaborations (AbouAssi et al., 2016; Jonker and Nijhof, 2006; Mirońska and Zaborek, 2019). An initial level of understanding between the business and NGO can be an obstacle if or when the partners have contrasting premises with respect to values, mission and goals. Moreover, the historical origins and conflicting objectives of NGOs and businesses often lead to an initial mistrust (Seitanidi et al., 2010). Although transparency, for example, sharing useful insights or vulnerable information (Bode et al., 2019; Idemudia, 2017) is emphasized as a trust-builder, it is challenging to accomplish in practice. For instance, in Idemudia’s (2017) investigation of environmental collaborations between Shell and NGOs in the Niger Delta, NGOs confirmed that limited transparency hindered trust because of the corporate policy of Shell which did not allow full disclosure. From an NGO perspective, this indicates that the corporate agenda and lack of transparency may constrain their trust in the corporate partner.

Equally important is the strategic fit and alignment between partners’ interests, objectives and resources (Chaudhri and Hein, 2021, Den Hond et al., 2015; Herlin, 2013). CSR research finds that firms are more likely to approach and select NGOs based on whether their objectives and resources fit those of their business (Den Hond et al., 2015) and that, despite differences, there is room for understanding if the partners view themselves as connected to a common issue (Jonker and Nijhof, 2006). Paradoxically, the more closely interlinked the interests of the partners are, the higher the risk of NGO co-optation. Baur and Schmitz (2012) note that co-opted NGOs are “gradually absorbed and their organizational identity is compromised” (p. 11). In this way, corporate partnerships can risk NGO co-optation and cause reputational damage (Baur and Schmitz, 2012; Burchell and Cook, 2013; Herlin, 2013).

Another way to conceptualize impact is proposed by Austin and colleagues who categorize the engagement and value creation potential of collaborations (Austin, 2000; Austin and Seitanidi, 2012). As collaborations progress from philanthropic to transactional to integrative, so does their engagement and their potential value creation leading to the argument that “the more effective collaborations are characterized by clear purpose, mission congruency, high and mutually balanced value creation, effective communication, and deep reciprocal commitment” (Austin, 2001, para 7). Similarly, Rondinelli and London (2003) state that only integrative partnerships have the potential to tackle and prevent environmental issues. Some other evidence contests this claim (Vestergaard et al., 2020) noting that corporate interests are often given priority because of a power asymmetry between partners. Indeed, the paradox for NGOs is that more integrative partnerships pose higher legitimacy risks for NGOs (Herlin, 2013; Mirońska and Zaborek, 2019).

In sum, extant literature points to important but contested conceptions of impact. How impact understandings translate to practice and what are the additional factors that appear to hinder or help NGO–business partnerships merits further examination. Our exploratory study aims to offer insights into these questions from an NGO perspective.

To examine the two interrelated research questions, how environmental NGOs characterize the impact of collaborations with a corporate partner and conditions that facilitate and constrain impact, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with representatives of environmental NGOs in Sweden between March and April 2022. All interviewees held senior managerial and/or decision-making roles in participating NGOs qualifying them to reflect on the strategic impact of business collaborations in which the NGO was engaged. Interviewee roles included executive director, engagement manager, board member, president, head of corporate partnerships, strategic relations coordinator and project manager.

Both large established international NGOs and local smaller NGOs in the environmental sector in Sweden were invited to participate. An important criterion was that all participating environmental NGOs were currently engaged in some form of partnership with business organizations. As such, majority of the interviewees were responsible for the corporate partnership function in their respective NGO. This group of participants were purposefully selected (Magnusson and Mareck, 2015), as they had the necessary experience and knowledge to elaborate on what constitutes the impact of collaboration efforts from an NGO perspective. Each interviewee was requested to recommend at least two other potential interviewees that fit the participant profile. In total, 38 NGOs were contacted using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling. In the end, 12 NGOs consented to participate in the research (Table 2: Participant profile).

A semi-structured interview guide was used to understand how NGO representatives characterize the impact of collaborations and the conditions for an impactful NGO–business relationship. Participants were asked to share examples of ongoing or past environmental collaborations with business, describe how they understood and assessed the impact of such engagements and outline perceived barriers and facilitators to attaining impact. Indicative questions included: From an NGO perspective, how do you understand impact in a partnership; what does impact mean to/for you? What enables and constrains your ability to achieve “impact” in a partnership? When approaching or working in a partnership model, how would you describe your approach(es) toward creating impact (e.g. key considerations, ways of working, communication strategies, risk mitigation, etc.). Participants were invited to share examples of past or ongoing programs and to raise other topics not covered in the interview. Moreover, the interview guide provided room for additional comments and topics that the participants considered relevant to discuss in the context of partnership impact.

Before the interview, all participants signed an informed consent form. Except two English-language interviews, all interviews were conducted in Swedish by one of the authors fluent in both English and Swedish. Depending on interviewee preference, interviews were conducted online via Teams on Zoom, audio-recorded (as per consent), transcribed and translated. An online tool, Sonix, was used to generate an initial draft of transcriptions from all the interviews. Thereafter, the initial transcripts were reviewed and edited manually in Word, based on the recorded interviews. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, with the exception of removing necessary information to ensure participants’ anonymity. Interview lasted an average of ±51 min and yielded 182 single-spaced pages of transcripts.

Consistent with the exploratory nature of our study, an inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze interview data and involved an iterative process of reading and re-reading the data, generating initial codes, identifying and reviewing themes (Braun and Clarke, 2012; Braun et al., 2019). We followed Owen’s (1984) criteria to formulate themes: recurrence (“same thread of meaning, even though different wording indicated such a meaning”), repetition (“repetition of key words, phrases, or sentences”) and forcefulness (“vocal qualities that served to stress or subordinate words and phrases”; pp. 275–276).

Participating NGOs framed impact in multifaceted ways albeit coalescing around the link between impact and the (agreed upon or expressly stated) partnership goal. Specifically, interviewees defined impacts of collaborations in terms of Awareness, both of the partner and (environmental) issue through network formation, Behaviour change at the dual levels of business practice and consumer behavior and as creating a Catalytic effect on partners to engage in co-creating “win-win” solutions. We refer to these as the ABC of NGO–business partnership impact and unpack them in the subsequent section.

A key theme pertained to impact in terms of forming and facilitating networks of organizations to further advance awareness and visibility of both the (environmental) issue and the partnering organization. Over half of the participating NGOs noted that collaborations facilitated physical or digital platforms for companies to network with other firms in furthering collective environmental practices. In this way, corporations pitched their progress, exchanged knowledge and accelerated efforts together with businesses from similar industries, regions or across sectors. As recounted by one interviewee, “we offer them the opportunity to meet other businesses from other industries, then you do not gather people from one industry but rather you gather companies one question regarding sustainability” (P12). Several NGOs also underlined that the collaboration bridges the efforts of firms that have come further in their sustainability agenda with corporations that are lagging and/or need a push in the right direction.

NGOs too gain from these networks. One participant explained how the entwined NGO and issue identity benefits from such affiliations:

As much as collaborations benefit corporations, they also contribute to higher visibility for the NGO, their programs, campaigns and activities. The network(ing) was also explained as a means to recruit new/potential business partners, reported to be especially helpful for smaller NGOs.

A second way in which impact was conceptualized was in terms of behavior change. These were further categorized in dualistic terms, as having an impact on business practices and processes as well as influencing consumer behavior.

NGOs noted that partnerships allowed them to gain access to the internal workings of the business and, consequently, permit influence on corporate practices and processes. One participant explained “we turn to big global actors such as [business name] to look into their plastic production which they then report back to us” (P11).

Influence on process improvement within business took various forms from contributing NGO expertise and insights through tailored seminars and educational material to collaborative projects. As an example, this NGO explained how its involvement and expertise helped avert a potential problem:

Another recalled the symbiosis of NGO and business insights in the process of acquiring a FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certification:

Notably, even when NGOs accepted the economic priorities of business (“They have profit as their goal, right”; P9), they noted that every small action that helped push the issue (e.g. reducing waste, minimizing consumption or developing sustainable energy solutions) was a win. For example, progress could manifest in varied tangible and intangible ways: “the companies can then say that we collected 173 bags of litter this weekend with the help of 240 volunteers” (P6) or “if they initially could not define what they meant by ‘sustainability,’ then we can see the following year that they have incorporated a definition” (P12).

The ability of corporations to influence the behavior of consumers was the second way in which NGOs defined behavioral impact. Working with businesses to influence consumers is perceived to result in larger societal impacts, explained thus: “companies influence the consumer behavior, which products come out and what they buy. It has an enormous impact, we can’t put the whole burden on the consumers, that’s why we work with companies” (P1).

The societal impact of behavioral change among consumers was brought up by several NGOs. A spiral of behavioral impact was emphasized, “they [consumers] learn and understand that they can make a difference, and with the help of the education we provide they can take the next step, for example to stop purchasing new clothes” (P6). Moreover, in some larger collaborations, the NGOs could track changes behavioral changes on a national level. A tangible example came from a participant whose partnership with business entailed, among others, a recycling competition to induce behavior change among consumers:

The end-goal of influencing consumer behavior was described as ultimately leading to larger impacts such as reducing emissions. In other words, as a small step toward a larger environmental shift.

Finally, impact was explained as serving a catalytic function in enabling a “win-win” for sustainability goals guided by the belief that either party (NGO or business) “can’t do this by ourselves” (P4). This notion is in line with previous research framing NGO–business collaborations as a win-win solution (Den Hond et al., 2015; Laasonen et al., 2012; Van Tulder et al., 2016). Many NGOs opined that the mutual benefit was necessary to convince firms to collaborate in the first place: “It’s important to have a clear link to agree on the outcomes from the beginning and that there’s an interest for both. So that there’s win-win” (P9). In this way, partnership impact was attributed to both collaborating partners and their stakeholders in meeting mutual goals:

Working together on different UN SDGs (e.g. SDG 6 to minimize water contamination or SDG 14 to develop and produce sustainable sea food, to conserve the resources in the oceans) was not only perceived as mutually beneficial but also encouraged NGOs to view business in a different light and to “have a different attitude towards businesses” (P4).

As the themes for RQ1 illustrate, the understanding and articulation of impact is multi-layered with implications for the social sector issue (i.e. environment) as well as strategic benefits for the NGOs and business, even extending beyond organizational boundaries to the domains of consumer behavior and meeting societal and/or government obligations. Improving corporate practices was deemed to have a cumulative effect whereby partnering corporations could influence consumers and other stakeholders, accelerating sustainable behavioral trends.

RQ2 followed up on RQ1 to examine the perceived barriers and facilitators of impactful collaborations. Consistent with previous research, trust was cited as the fundamental precondition to a fruitful collaboration, encapsulated thus: “we can create all the processes, structures, and formal agreements in the world, but at the end of the day the question is: Do I trust you and do you trust me?” (P2). An initial level of trust that progresses during the partnership is necessary to stimulate a productive collaboration (AbouAssi et al., 2016; Jonker and Nijhof, 2006; Mirońska and Zaborek, 2019).

Although the emphasis on trust as the crux around which impact hinged was hardly surprising, the considerations for building and nurturing trust offered novel insights. Previous literature attributes the lack of trust to the contrasting values of NGOs and the corporate agenda (Bode et al., 2019; Idemudia, 2017; Seitanidi et al., 2010). NGOs in our study articulated the manifestations of trust in both tangible and intangible ways, as demonstrable business initiative, interpersonal relations between collaborators and select (long-term) collaborations. These are unpacked in the following pages.

As its base, trust was contingent on the demonstration of initiative from the corporate partner that could be as simple as “a real ambition to minimize their littering and waste” (P11) or to be committed to specific SDGs or even to undertake an honest assessment of their own [business] practices. To illustrate, one NGO required potential partners to complete a self-assessment and evaluate their efforts from a water impact, emissions and human rights perspective: “We ask all potential partner companies to do a self-assessment, where we ask them if they understand, if they have certification, if they take into account the effects of their production and their value chain” (P3). An honest initial assessment could then serve as the foundation of a trusted relationship. Subsequent efforts by business in improving their own practices was stated by many interviewees as illustrative of the firms’ interest in environmental initiatives and was perceived to further enhance trust between the partners.

However, not all NGOs required corporations to have come far in their efforts; instead, a demonstrable willingness to change was also helpful to building trust in the relationship. Noting the importance of shared interests, one interviewee explained, “If we don’t find that there’s a fundamental interest in working together to create a change, then we don’t collaborate with the company at subject” (P3).

Regardless of the degree of expressed commitment, NGOs agreed that for the partnership to not be an eyewash, NGOs needed to be mindful and alert, “and of course we have to be on our guard at all times, there is always the appeal of simply being associated with our brand of course” (P5). Moreover, involving the NGO too late in the sustainability efforts of firms and only as an implementor or an external communicator was articulated as a barrier to trust and consequently impact. NGOs expressed an aspiration to be involved early on as a strategic partner in the decision-making process:

A second crucial factor was the strength of reciprocal interpersonal relationships with the corporate partner premised on the idea that “people” and “individuals” in the collaboration work well together: “It’s about the individual, you have to work together, and it has to be reciprocated” (P8). Be it meeting regularly in-person, maintaining frequent contact via phone and email and/or continually engaging the collaboration partner, investing in reciprocal interpersonal relationships was deemed a key trust enabler.

Strong relational ties were also linked to more open and honest communication, possibly even extending the corporate partner the benefit of the doubt especially in sticky situations. An interviewee hypothesized, “if you are an NGO that would immediately expose your corporate partner when a conflict arises, by saying ‘look at what they are doing wrong,’ then you have sabotaged the collaboration” (P5) and went on to use this illustration to reinforce the value of cultivating trusted interpersonal relationships.

From the NGO perspective, however, investing in relationships may place further constraints on NGO time, resources and capacities. Some noted the impermanence of these relationships in times of corporate reorganizations and restructuring (“a change of contact shakes the relationship”; P4), while others cautioned against a dependence culture such that a contact person’s exit could jeopardize the collaboration: “It should not only be something [the collaboration] that is maintained by a small unit or department, but that it is anchored all the way up to the CEO” (P4). As much as the individuals in the relationship are essential to building trust, collaborations need to be strategically embedded in the organization to ensure longevity and impact.

Finally, and building on the earlier considerations, NGOs in our study argued that maintaining a select few (long-term) partnerships was decisive to creating trust and eventually impact. Select/fewer collaborations were preferred for such reasons as balancing NGO capacity with the demands of the collaboration, especially for smaller NGOs, for example, “the challenge is the internal capacity of a small organization like ours, to give time, love and tenderness, to really give them what they need” (P11). For bigger NGOs as well, fewer partnerships instead of “many small partnerships” delivered “the best return of our efforts” (P5). Additionally, the potential for longevity was a key consideration “because we know that it takes approximately ten years to enable lasting behavioral changes” (P3). Another explained it by saying “it isn’t a short sprint, it is about reminding them and keep talking about the same things over and over again so that you really get the entire business involved in the issue” (P12). A long-term view was echoed by others for its potential to generate positive spillover: “when we keep our partners for a longer time, they become more satisfied with the collaboration, and we will we find more things to do together which generated donations to our organization and efforts” (P11). That said, a minority pointed to the risk of stagnancy in long-term collaborations. In this view, there is a risk that if the partners become too comfortable and assume that what used to work still works, then complacency sets in and limits potential impact.

This exploratory study examined NGO perspectives on what constitutes impact in NGO–business collaborations in the environmental sector in Sweden. Through semi-structured in-depth interviews with NGO representatives engaged in corporate partnerships, our research confirms that impact is a multidimensional construct (Austin and Seitanidi, 2012; Bode et al., 2019; Hansen and Spitzeck, 2011; Van Tulder et al., 2016) even when it is explicitly linked to the goals of the collaboration.

As previously stated, NGOs and businesses are increasingly entering into collaborations and partnerships in fulfilling CSR and/or sustainability goals. While partnerships are by no means the only mechanism by which NGOs may seek to influence responsible business conduct, projections only confirm scholarly assertions that “developing partnerships with societal actors is a sine qua non for companies engaging in CSR initiatives” (Nijhof et al., 2008, p. 153; italics original). As a corollary, understanding how the impacts of such partnerships are conceptualized is a worthy goal.

Foregrounding an NGO perspective, our findings suggest that the principal impacts revolve around what we label as the ABC of NGO–business partnership impact, namely, awareness both of the partner and (environmental) issue through network formation, behavior change, also at the dual levels of business practice and consumer behavior, and catalytic effect on partners to engage in co-creating “win-win” solutions.

In viewing these manifestations of impact, it becomes clear that there are multiple, different, touchpoints for impact that range from short-term, immediate and tangible goals to long-term behavioral or structural changes. Short-term quantifiable impacts such as hectares of certified forest and tons of waste collected co-exist with an emphasis on long-term impacts such as behavioral or structural changes. In tandem, they appear to propel NGOs and businesses to the core of the collaboration, that is, advancing attention to and betterment of environmental problems. Arguably, impact may well be an unbounded or boundaryless construct in that the effects of a partnership may continue well beyond its duration.

In terms of the how and what of impact, our study echoes the importance of trust as foundational (AbouAssi et al., 2016; Jonker and Nijhof, 2006; Mirońska and Zaborek, 2019) to impactful collaborations. However, as our interviewees note, trust is earned, most expressly through business commitment to environmental goals. In pragmatic terms, our interviewees outlined a qualified level of commitment where there are no absolutes but some minimum standards (i.e. at least a willingness to change). To accomplish impact, NGOs in our study expressed a desire to be involved as more of a strategic partner to the corporations, that is, to not be limited to providing a service which corporations can buy to improve their image. Being strategic partners also necessitates investments in relationship maintenance, a challenge for many resource-strapped NGOs, illustrating the entanglement of enablers and constraints.

Another notable consideration linked to both trust and impact assessment, was to maintain select and long-term partnerships. This mirrors previous literature that societal impacts and effectiveness require a long-term approach (Vestergaard et al., 2020; Van Tulder et al., 2016; United Nations, 2011). The findings echo Hansen and Spitzeck (2011) contention that achieving impactful results requires several years. While many interviewees professed a long-term orientation, others qualified this emphasis depending on the state of maturity of the business partner and the NGOs standing in the field. Not all NGOs have the appetite or the capacity to manage long-term partnerships, more so when NGO survival may be dependent on corporate funding (Den Hond et al., 2015; Mirońska and Zaborek, 2019). This dependence may also explain NGO acceptance of the profit-first paradigm and structuring the partnership around corporate interests to be profitable.

Conspicuously absent from the conversations were any instances of reputation risks that our interviewees have encountered in their collaboration with business. From this perspective, collaboration efforts improved industry CSR practices, helped the reputation of businesses, aided NGOs to achieve their missions and supported the global environmental goals set up by transnational institutions. Although the potential for risk was noted in many interviewees, it was dismissed as being exaggerated and outweighed by the benefits. That none of the NGOs reported experiencing reputational damage as a result of the corporate partners actions diverges from previous scholarship and is likely attributable to the study sample and the research focus. That impact is (described as) ubiquitously positive may well be a factor of the competitive context in which NGOs operate and vie for CSR partnerships. Although the Swedish context privileges an institutionalized status for NGOs, evidenced in the European Commission’s support for civil society (Non-governmental organizations, 2025), recent developments such as the sizable budget cuts in overseas development aid jeopardize the long-term international collaborations and research of Swedish NGOs (Paterlini, 2024). How these government policies affect NGO–business partnerships and/or the social issues that are (de)prioritized within Sweden remains to be seen.

Admittedly, our study focused on a specific context (Sweden) where NGOs as an institutional actor and the environment as a social sector issue enjoy institutionalized status. Whether these results translate to contexts in which environmental concerns are still contested warrants further investigation. As our focus was on the impact of NGO–business partnerships which are projected to increase, not on the motivations for partnerships, some of this bias may be mitigated. Future research may extend this line of enquiry to additional institutional contexts to assess similarities and differences.

Additionally, our results illuminate the need to attend to differences among NGOs in their characterization of impact. NGO size was explicitly mentioned as a differentiator although we can expect more granular understandings of impact contingent on NGO position in the field, prior experience with partnerships, stages of partnership and so on. How these differences afford NGOs the ability to negotiate impact with their corporate partners is a valuable arena for further investigation. Future research could explore additional points of convergence and divergence through, for example, in-depth case studies of NGO–business partnership impact. Complementing this line of enquiry, comparative studies across contexts would provide broad-based insights that transcend geographic and/or regional boundaries. Pragmatically, such an endeavor may also be useful for business in their partnership decisions and result in better alignment between NGOs and businesses looking to enter into a partnership.

Despite these limitations, this exploratory study contributes to advancing (contextual) understanding what is yet an ambiguous construct – that is, impact – amidst the growing prevalence of NGO–business partnerships.

The authors thank the editor and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and feedback on this manuscript.

Statements relating to ethics and integrity policies: The paper is based on original research conducted by the second author as part of her MA thesis in Media and Business, completed at Erasmus University Rotterdam. All participants signed informed consent forms and have been anonymized. The authors report no conflict of interest. No funding was available for this study.