Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Qualitative meta-analysis reveals patterns of harm and flaws in cross-sector partnerships, suggesting the need for better design.
Cross-sector partnerships (CSPs) are widely recognized as vehicles for addressing societal challenges. Yet, their potential to generate harm to communities, the environment, and broader societal systems remains underexamined. Evidence is fragmented and context-dependent, obscuring broader patterns. Moreover, attribution challenges hinder efforts to trace observed harms to CSPs, particularly in the absence of well-specified mechanisms. To address this gap, we adopt an intervention perspective that centers on CSPs’ interactions with focal societal issues and conduct a qualitative meta-analysis of case-based evidence. This analysis identifies recurring patterns of societal harm, intervention flaws, and partnership-related antecedents. We integrate these insights into the HIDE framework (societal Harm, Intervention flaws, Design antecedents, and Evaluative challenges). The framework conceptualizes societal harm as multifaceted, helps identify pathways through which CSP design antecedents are associated with observed societal effects via intervention flaws, and provides a structured lens for reflecting on the assessment of societal harm.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Stadtler et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: