Push and Pull of Partnership Tensions: A Social Marketing Perspective

Background This study extends the discussion of partnership tension in social marketing, a common phenomenon in the field. Despite their prevalence, understanding these tensions remains underdeveloped, with discussion predominantly focusing on the private sector, which is often more complex in social marketing partnerships. Focus of the Article This study explores how partnership tensions are conceptualized in social marketing. Research Questions The following three research questions are addressed. • How are partnership tensions conceptualized within social marketing? • What are the root causes of partnership tensions in social marketing? • How are partnership tensions addressed in social marketing? Program Design/Approach This is a conceptual study. Importance to Social Marketing This study advances understanding of partnership tensions in social marketing by positioning them as embedded elements of behavioral change efforts. As social marketing increasingly relies on downstream, midstream, upstream, and system-level partnerships, tensions arising from contradictory logic, power asymmetries, and competing interests are inevitable. Yet, despite the centrality of partnerships, these tensions remain conceptually underdeveloped. By theorizing six distinct types of partnership tensions, this study enhances conceptual clarity and supports more reflexive and effective partnership practice within complex social marketing systems. Method A systematic literature review is used to achieve the objectives. Results The results of our study highlight the urgent need to conceptualize ‘partnership’, including a discussion of the role both controversial and non-controversial organizations play in partnership tensions. Recommendations for Research or Practice This study provides a foundation for developing more robust, empirical investigations of partnership tensions, thereby extending the knowledge base. The results are based on a small sample of 14 articles identified through the review. As a result, this conceptual study provides valuable insights but cannot be considered holistically generalizable.