No abstract

Literature on partnerships has grown rapidly in the past decade across different disciplines. However, despite conceptual attention to the value of strategic multi-stakeholder collaboration to promote peace and reconciliation, challenges posed by (post-)conflict, fragile contexts have barely been considered in empirical studies. In this article we contribute by bringing together debates from different partnership literatures and providing an overview of existing, relatively limited research insights on partnerships for peace in fragile states. We present a typology of different levels (local, national, international) at which collaboration takes place and different types of partnerships (philanthropic, transactional, engagement, transformative). This is exemplified with specific attention to Africa, where most fragile states are found, and to partnerships with transformative potential. The analysis suggests that the lowest-level (local) partnerships tend to exclude the national government, while the most recent international, multilateral-driven collaboration has not included business; national cases are most transformative but incidental and not yet leveraged internationally. Despite the interconnected nature of conflict and fragility issues, linkages between partnerships and partners at different levels are largely missing, offering potential for further development by a broad spectrum of scholars and thought leaders. Insights from 'extreme' unconventional contexts thus have relevance for management research more generally.

Attention has increased for the potential role of Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) in helping address conflict issues and/or furthering peace and reconciliation as part of their corporate social responsibility policies. However, while existing literature emphasises the importance for MNEs to collaborate with various stakeholders, including non-governmental organisations (NGOs), research on the scope, peculiarities and impact of such cooperation has been limited, particularly in those countries in Central Africa with a fragile state and weak governance structures. Furthermore, until recently, MNEs and NGOs in conflict countries had antagonistic relationships, which has created impediments for positive engagement. This article examines MNEs and conflict issues, including interactions with NGOs, and sheds light on possible MNE contributions to peaceful societies by highlighting a few innovative partnerships of MNEs and non-business partners in Central Africa. Innovative partnerships take the conflict context into account, have a learning or capacity-building component, are part of a more comprehensive development plan yet are embedded at the community level, and tackle issues directly related to the conflict, such as governance, human rights, artisanal mining and transparency. The article also discusses implications of such activities for the role of the state in fragile contexts.

The authors aim to contribute to the literature on subsistence marketplaces and the marketing field more generally by exploring social innovation partnerships in a fragile country characterized by institutional gaps, specifically considering the role of cross-sector collaboration in conflict-affected areas. The empirical setting consists of coffee partnerships in Eastern Congo (DRC), where the authors collected data from and about companies, NGOs and cooperatives, using both primary and secondary sources, including a field trip, interviews and group discussions with farmers and their families. They show results at the organizational level (build-up of managerial capacities; transfer of financial-administrative skills; improved functioning of cooperatives), the farmer level (better prices, livelihoods and access to markets; increased revenues), and more widely in communities considering reduced tensions and collaboration between previously hostile groups, and the creation of new governance modalities in a fragile institutional setting. The study suggests that partnerships may offer a systemic approach to addressing institutional gaps, which seems necessary in such 'extreme' contexts. Further implications for research and public policy are discussed.