Public Private Partnerships Enhancing Social Impact

Social Sector Office
Public-Private Partnerships
Harnessing the private sector’s
unique ability to enhance social impact
Working Document
December 2009
McKinsey & Company is a management consulting
firm that helps many of the world’s leading
corporations and organizations address their
strategic challenges. The Social Sector Office works
with global institutions and philanthropies to address
chronic, complex societal challenges in education,
economic development and health.
All content of this study, including text, graphics, logos, icons, and images and the selection and arrangement
thereof, is the exclusive property of McKinsey or its licensors and is protected by U.S. and international copyright
laws. All rights not expressly granted are reserved.
Cover Photography: WHO/P. Virot (Far left and far right).

iStockPhoto (middle left and middle right)
Acronyms
ACHAP African Comprehensive HIV/AIDS Partnership
ADIPs Accelerated Development and Introduction Plans
AIDS Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome
BMGF Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
CCM Global Fund Country Coordinating Mechanism
CSR Corporate social responsibility
DCSA DaimlerChrysler South Africa
FIND Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics
FT Financial Times
GAIN Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition
GPPPHW Global Public-Private Partnership for Handwashing with Soap
GTZ Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit
GVEP Global Village Energy Partnership
HIV Human Immunodeficiency Virus
IAVI International AIDS Vaccine Initiative
IFFIm International Finance Facility for Immunization
JEI Jordan Education Initiative
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MDP Mectizan Donation Program
MMV Medicines for Malaria Venture
NGO Non-governmental organization
PDP Product development partnership
PEPFAR President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
PPP Public-private partnership
R&D Research and development
SCMS Supply Chain Management Solutions
STCP Sustainable Tree Crops Program
UN United Nations
UNICEF United Nations Children Fund
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WEF World Economic Forum
WFP World Food Program
WHO World Health Organization
2
Harnessing the private sector’s unique ability to enhance social impact 3
Contents
Introduction 4
Finding #1: Four archetypes for PPPs are emerging 12
Finding #2: The private sector can contribute to PPPs in five ways 15
Finding #3: How the private sector wins with PPPs; recognizing mutual
benefits is key to success 21
Finding #4; Nine best practices to help maximize the value of private
sector engagement and PPP impact 27
Conclusion: The evolving PPP landscape 34
Appendix 1: List of interviewees 36
Appendix 2: Bibliography 38
Appendix 3: PPP profiles 42

4
Introduction
Bringing the specific efficiencies, discipline, focus and mindset of for-profit
businesses to bear on the public and non-profit sectors is an old idea, but one that is
gaining momentum with the success and proliferation of public-private partnerships
(PPPs) over the last 15 years.
Challenges such as poverty, public health and education – long considered purviews
of government – have proved stubbornly resistant to government-only solutions.
However, collaborative efforts between the public, private and civil sectors to address
major societal challenges have delivered progress. Working together, the three sectors
are often able to accomplish far more than any can do alone. Indeed, the very mixture
of differing approaches and expertise is the added value which these partnerships
bring, making them far more than just the sum of their parts.
Despite this success – or because of it – a growing sense has emerged that PPPs could
do even more. To do more though, they need additional help from the private sector.
And not just any help, but the right kind of help. More resources – whether money,
staff time, products, or other in-kind contributions – are always welcome but more
valuable is expertise: the very reason for the formation of PPPs in the first place.
We found that the most effective and most needed ways for the private sector
to increase its involvement in PPPs are to help strengthen PPP governance and
management; increase public awareness of PPP goals and activities; and provide
specific institutional capabilities which can help PPPs deliver on their missions. Non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) and government agencies are often less well
equipped to provide these types of expertise so support from the private sector has
proven its worth across a range of PPP efforts. It has also helped to raise awareness
throughout the business community of the unique contributions that private
enterprise can make, spurring ever more companies to get involved.
Many for-profit companies tend to approach participation in PPPs as a purely

philanthropic endeavor. To the modest extent that they expect their own businesses to
benefit, it is mostly from a public relations perspective: improving their image among
customers, workers, and the general public. However, PPPs can be powerful vehicles
to help companies create and capture opportunities for their core business. They
can increase a company’s productivity – for example by improving the health of its
workforce. They can also help boost demand for a company’s products and services, or
provide a mechanism for joint investment and risk-sharing to create new markets or
products. Furthermore, working with a PPP can deepen a company’s understanding of
key markets and develop valuable networks for future business development.
Participation in PPPs can create a virtuous cycle of mutual benefit for all concerned;
in particular, for private sector entities traditionally seen solely as benefactors and
not as beneficiaries. One of our most striking findings is that the most effective PPPs
understand that part of their strategy must be to explain to companies the benefits
of greater involvement and to create an environment to engage their private sector
partners more deeply. The more clear it is to everyone – and especially private
companies – that participating in a PPP yields benefits to all, the more companies will
be become involved. And the greater the benefits of participation become, the greater
their commitment and contributions to the cause.
Since this realization is growing, we expect private sector involvement in PPPs to

continue to increase in coming years. In particular, we predict significant growth into
sectors beyond public health, long the area with the greatest concentration of large
global PPPs.
We further believe that new kinds of private sector partners, from industries which
have not yet engaged widely with PPPs, will get involved, bringing new skills and
capabilities to the table.
While we expect that most of this growth will be beneficial, we also caution that PPPs
are not a one-size-fits-all solution, and that they can carry significant costs. In some
cases other, potentially less costly, methods of public and private collaboration will
serve a given cause as well or better than a new PPP. Moreover, there are already some
examples of duplication and overlap between existing PPPs while others continue to
operate, solicit, and attract resources despite having outlived their original purpose.
Consolidation and “creative destruction” could therefore be powerful forces to further
increase PPPs’ effectiveness.
This report begins with an overview of the current PPP landscape, and then discusses
in detail four key findings:
1. Four archetypes of public-private partnerships have emerged from the recent

boom in PPP activity
2. The private sector can contribute to PPPs in five major ways
3. Benefits to the private sector from engaging in PPPs extend well beyond public
relations, and there is growing recognition that mutual benefit is key to success
and sustainability
4. PPP leaders from any sector can benefit from nine best practices that maximize the
value of private sector engagement and PPP impact
We conclude with some thoughts on how the PPP landscape will likely evolve in
the coming years. The appendices summarize the interviewees we spoke with, a
bibliography of research, and a profile of the PPPs we studied for this report.
We would like to thank all the interviewees who helped us develop this report. Their
experience and insights were invaluable and critical to the report’s success.
6
MOTIVATION, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF STUDY

There is an extensive body of research on public-private partnerships. This study
does not seek to replace or supersede that research. Rather, we aim to build upon it
by focusing on one key topic: what the private sector brings to, and gains from, these
partnerships. Specifically, we seek to:
Understand how private sector involvement in PPPs has created value for both
the partnerships themselves and their private sector partners, how this value has
evolved over time, and whether the benefits vary by partnership type; and
Identify opportunities and best practices to further increase the impact and
benefit of private sector engagement in PPPs.
We developed case examples of 15 specific global or transnational PPPs from public

health, economic development, education and humanitarian relief. Analyzing those
examples, we illustrate the broader benefits of private sector engagement in PPPs
and identify in practical terms which elements of these partnerships have been most
successful. We do not evaluate individual PPPs or assess where they are more or less
relevant than other forms of public-private collaboration. Similarly, the report does
not address the contributions of the public and civil sectors which, while critical and
complimentary to the role of the private sector, simply fall outside our scope. Lastly,
while we acknowledge that there are many small PPPs operating at country level, we
have chosen to focus primarily on global, or transnational, partnerships. We believe
that in many ways, local PPPs are qualitatively different from larger partnerships, and
therefore engage the private sector differently. Therefore, we have chosen to restrict
our scope to ensure we derive clear findings and best practices for a class of PPPs.
Our report is informed by the experiences and observations of a broad set of PPP
stakeholders and experts. We reviewed the extensive body of literature on PPPs and
conducted more than 60 in-depth interviews with officials from leading PPPs and
other experts in the field.
Exhibit 1: PPPs reviewed for this work
Global Public Health Economic development

• Better health through new rapid, accurate • Energy action plans through support for
and affordable diagnostics developing country energy SMEs
• Reduce malnutrition through the use of • Inspire and support entrepreneurial multi-
food fortification stakeholder partnerships
• Save lives by increasing access to
immunization • Improve economic and social well being of
African tree crop farmers
• Reduce diarrhoeal diseases through
promoting handwashing with soap
• Prevention and treatment of HIV among Education

employees and their families • Engaging ICT private sector to drive
education innovation and capability
• Mectizan/albendazole distribution against
onchocerciasis/lymphatic filariasis
Humanitarian relief
• Discovery, development and registration of • Logistics knowledge and resources to
malaria medicines deliver humanitarian food relief
• Increase supply and demand for
insecticide treated nets
Other
• Increase resources to fight three of the • Promoting responsible business practices
most devastating diseases
Finally, we sought to maximize the relevance of our study by testing our hypotheses
and illustrating our findings based on the actual experience of the 15 PPPs we studied.
Exhibit 1 provides a brief overview of the partnerships we reviewed for this study and
more detail on each of these organizations is available in Appendix 3.
OVERVIEW OF THE PPP LANDSCAPE

A number of compelling forces are bringing the private, public and civil sectors
together to collaborate in addressing major economic and social challenges. Public-
private partnerships are one distinct form of this collaboration. This section sketches
the recent history of PPP growth, outlines the reasons behind this growth, and
highlights the four archetypes of PPP that have emerged.
Recent History of PPPs

The last fifteen years have seen explosive growth in the number and diversity of
PPPs seeking to tackle societal challenges (see Exhibit 2 for a timeline). Although
definitions of PPPs vary, one study estimates that roughly 50 PPPs were operating
in the late 1980s whereas today there are at least 400. 1 Other sources suggest this
number could be far higher – for example, the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) alone claims to have cultivated more than 680 public-private
alliances through its Global Development Alliance program.2 Regardless of the exact
numbers, it is clear that PPPs are operating in an increasingly wide range of sectors,
including health, education, economic development and humanitarian relief.
A number of factors have driven the PPP boom. First, they were a response to
governments’ perceived failure to provide universal access to health, education
and other public goods.3 Advocates of PPPs argued that the private sector can help
accelerate these efforts and that, acting together, the public, civil and private sectors
can achieve an impact well beyond what any could accomplish alone. For the many
social challenges that are driven by the lack of a well functioning market (and which
could therefore be sustainably resolved by creating one) the argument for a PPP
seemed particularly strong.
Second, the success and growth of national PPPs inspired the creation of transnational
partnerships to address challenges faced by more than one country.4 The United
Nations (UN) in particular played a key role in driving the growth of PPPs at the global
level. Kofi Annan (the first UN Secretary General to hold a MBA) moved aggressively
to foster partnerships between UN organizations, NGOs and the private sector. His
call on the private sector to become more involved in addressing social challenges
led to the creation of the UN Global Compact, a corporate citizenship initiative that
encourages companies to help foster human rights, improve working conditions,
protect the environment, and fight corruption. He was also an instrumental voice
behind the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), an ambitious agenda to improve
1 Kaul, Inge. “Exploring the Policy Space Between Markets and States: Global Public-Private
Partnerships.” In The New Public Finance: Responding to Global Challenges. Inge Kaul and
Pedro Conceição, eds. United Nations Development Programme. Oxford University Press.
2006.
2 http://www.usaid.gov/gda
3 Kaul 2006; Martens, Jens. Multistakeholder Partnerships – Future Models of Multilateralism?
Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Dialogue on Globalization. January 2007
4 Kaul, 2006
8
public health and alleviate global poverty by 2015. The MDGs have been a major
catalyst to increase private sector involvement in addressing these challenges.
Exhibit 2: History of private sector involvement
<1990 1990–2000 2000–today

Multi-sector representation Embracing the private sector Making PPPs work
• Role of non-governmental actors in • In light of globalization/opening • UN continues to embrace private
traditionally public areas (e.g. markets private sector seen as key sector collaboration, developing
environmental protection, health) contributor in public arena systematic approaches and
develops and first collaboration with • A collaborative approach to public integrating partnerships institutionally
the private sector is initiated topics is promoted and PPPs • Focus on improving efficiency and
• For-profit private sector’s involvement experience strong growth in securing long-term sustainability and
remains marginal due to public popularity and numbers financing
sector's fear of conflict of interests
Rio conference 1992: UN emphasizes role

of private sector in development
1997: Kofi Annan announces partnership
between UN and private sector as priority
1998 forward: Foundations (Rockefeller, Gates) fund
PPPs in health, e.g., GAVI, MMV
2000: Millennium Development Goals defined,
catalyzing multi-sector involvement
2005: The Commission for Africa Report calls
for more private sector partnership
2007: Business call for action focuses on business
action through core business activities
2007: WHO DG calls for review of existing partnerships
with respect to cost-benefit ratio
Third, foundations stepped in with financing and other help to support the
creation of PPPs. Between 1996 and 2002, for instance, the Rockefeller Foundation
provided management advice and seed funding for six partnerships, including the
International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) and the Medicines for Malaria Venture
(MMV).5 The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) was pivotal to the creation
of some of the most recognized global PPPs, including the Global Alliance for Vaccines
and Immunization (GAVI – now the GAVI Alliance) and the Global Alliance for
Improved Nutrition (GAIN). It has also provided tens of millions of dollars to support
other PPPs such as the African Comprehensive HIV/AIDS Partnership (ACHAP).
BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PPP GROWTH

A key rationale for creating PPPs is the recognition that many challenges do not fall
neatly into either the public, civil or private sectors; instead, they require joint efforts
from all sectors. For example, efforts to promote economic development are more
likely to succeed, when they include both the public and private sectors, since the
latter is usually the major source of employment and economic activity. Similarly, the
private sector is a major provider of health services in many countries – accounting for
about 50% of healthcare in many African countries for instance6 – so can contribute
significantly to public efforts to improve service delivery and health outcomes. In an
increasingly globalized economy, many private companies now have a significant
stake in low-income countries (e.g., as a source of raw materials, a location for
5 The four other partnerships which the Rockefeller Foundation supported in this context are
the Global Alliance for TB Drug Development, the International Partnership for Microbicides
(IPM), the Pediatric Dengue Vaccine Initiative (PDVI) and the Centre for the Management of
Intellectual Property in Health R&D (MIHR).
6 The International Finance Corporation, the World Bank. The Business of Health in Africa:
Partnering with the private Sector to Improve People’s Lives. December 2007.
production sites or as rapidly growing markets) so it is in their interest to help address

key economic and social challenges to improve the overall business climate.
There are many demonstrated benefits from working through PPPs to address these
challenges. Stakeholders interviewed cite numerous areas of benefit, including7:
Avoiding duplication of investment or activities;
Increased economies of scale;
Sharing or reducing risks;
Sharing knowledge and resources to improve effectiveness;
Attracting funding and publicity by building a common “brand”.
Although most PPPs today are less than 10 years old, these benefits have meant that
many have already made an impact in their respective spheres beyond what either
the public or private sector could have achieved alone. They have raised awareness for
their causes, making them priorities on national and international agendas, secured
funding from traditional sources as well as new donors, and spurred the research
and development of new and improved products.8 PPPs have also helped introduce
new ideas and approaches. In many cases, they have infused a private sector mindset
and culture – especially a focus on outcome and performance – into efforts that had
long been dominated by the public and/or civil sectors alone.9 Thanks in part to these
innovations, access to services among the poor and hard-to-reach is on the rise. 10 In
global health in particular, PPPs have helped to streamline and rationalize resource
allocation, ensuring that money, medicine and doctors’ time go where they are needed
most. This has driven improvements in many health trends.11 Some or perhaps much
of this progress would have happened regardless, but PPPs helped to accelerate it.
While partnerships can generate substantial benefits, formalized, multi-stakeholder

arrangements also carry real costs. These can include:
Creating and maintaining infrastructure to service the partnership;
Delays inherent in decision-making and coordination between multiple partners;

and
The time and resources required from all partners to learn how to work together
and understand each other’s priorities.
7 Ibid
8 Buse, Kent and Harmer, Andrew. Seven habits of highly effective global public–private health
partnerships: Practice and potential. Social Science & Medicine, Vol 64: 259–271.
9 Ibid
10 Ibid
11 Lu, Chunling et al. Effect of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation on diphtheria,
tetanus, and pertussis vaccine coverage: an independent assessment. Lancet, Vol. 368:
1088–95. 2006; Lane, Christopher and Glassman, Amanda. Bigger And Better? Scaling Up And
Innovation In Health Aid. Health Affairs, Vol 26, no. 4: 935-948. 20071
10
These costs can be significant. For instance, the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
Tuberculosis and Malaria (“the Global Fund”) logged operating expenses of roughly
$117 million in 2007 (~4-7% of the $2.6 billion committed and $1.7 billion disbursed).12
It is therefore crucial to weigh any benefits against these transaction costs when
deciding whether to start a new PPP or to continue supporting an existing one.
As illustrated in Exhibit 3, there are many potential forms of public-private

collaboration. At one pole are loose, ad hoc associations centered on topics of mutual
interest, with each party’s activities remaining independent. At the opposite pole are
defined contractual or commercial arrangements in which one party provides the
other with services in return for payment.13
Exhibit 3: Partnership is one distinct method for the public and

private sectors to collaborate
Range of collaborations
From … … to
• loose, ad hoc • contractual or
association Partnerships are commercial
• discuss issues characterized by arrangements
of mutual interest • one party provides
• activities remain • An agreed common vision the other with
very independent • Shared, mutually agreed goals services in return
• Clear commitment and for payment
investment from all partners
Examples:
• Formalized collaboration and Examples:
• Chamber of shared decision making
Commerce • Outsourcing
• Trade association • Construction
project
PPPs are but one form of this collaboration but not always the most appropriate or cost-
effective one. Showing support for a cause, or occasionally sharing ideas and knowledge,
might best be achieved through a membership association, which allows partners with
similar interests to help their intended beneficiaries without incurring significant
governance or operational costs. Alternatively, if a non-profit only needs a discreet
product or service, a purely contractual relationship between buyer and seller is more
appropriate than a PPP – even if the product or service is provided at a discounted price.
Despite these costs, PPPs remain an important and popular tool for addressing
economic and social challenges. New partnerships continue to be proposed or
created to address specific issues. For instance, in October 2007, the US President’s
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and Becton Dickinson Diagnostics
launched the Public-Private Partnership to Strengthen Laboratory Systems to
improve medical labs in developing countries.
New ideas to leverage the PPP concept also continue to emerge. An April 2008 Wilton
Park Conference focused on the potential of public-private investment partnerships
12 The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Annual Report 2007. March 2008.
13 The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Developing Successful Global Health Alliances. April
2002
to “strengthen health systems in low and middle income countries through long-term
investment.” More broadly, calls on the private sector to do more in support of the
Millennium Development Goals continue to grow louder. Ahead of the 2008 Business
to Action Conference, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown called for greater efforts to
engage the “support and expertise of global business to develop new and innovative ways
to spread growth, prosperity and opportunity in poor countries around the world.”14
This proliferation of PPPs has led to some duplication of mandates and activities,
and to a level of complexity that can be difficult to manage. This problem has been
exacerbated by a degree of “mission creep” whereby some PPPs have broadened their
focus beyond their original objectives, either through a conscious strategic choice or
unwittingly through uncontrolled expansion of their activities. Dr. Margaret Chan,
on taking office as Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), neatly
summed up these concerns:
“If you look at the number of partnerships the Organization has, I’m just
surprised. How can we manage all these partnerships? The transaction costs
are very high. We need to be honest with ourselves and ask the question, are all
these partnerships still relevant? If not, either the partnerships have to change
or we have to change or both of us have to change to be more relevant.”15
Therefore, after 15 years of rapid PPP growth, many of those with the most experience
dealing with PPPs believe it is time to take stock of the landscape. Although we do not
anticipate widespread consolidation or termination of partnerships, we do believe
that some degree of “creative destruction” will occur. PPPs with overlapping missions
could potentially increase their impact by merging their organizations. More broadly,
we believe that the main focus in the coming years should and will be on increasing
the effectiveness of existing partnerships, rather than creating new ones. One way
to achieve this might be for PPPs to better leverage the potential contributions of
their private sector partners. As many PPPs undergo their first major external
evaluations, an early conclusion is that they would benefit from even greater private
sector participation. For example, the Global Fund’s 5-year external evaluation
concluded that it “should…attempt to engage the private sector to a larger extent,
partly by expanding the range and types of contributions, for example by emphasizing
co-investment over monetary contributions.” 16 The Global Fund’s Private Sector
Delegation agreed, arguing that “the private sector has played an important role in
the work of the Global Fund since its inception…yet we have only begun to realize
the full potential of private sector support for the Global Fund in terms of relevant
management expertise, technical assistance and broader resource mobilization.”17
14 http://www.wiltonpark.org.uk/themes/environment/pastconference.aspx?confref=WP909
15 http://www.who.int/dg/chan/interviews/taking_office/en/index.html15
16 Ryan, Leo et al. Evaluation of the Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Global
Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. Results from Study Area 1 of the Five-Year
Evaluation. Macro International Inc. October 2007.
17 The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Mobilizing Additional Resources
for the Global Fund: A Planning Guide for the Private Sector. Prepared by the Private Sector
Delegation to the Board of The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.
September 2005
12
Finding #1: Four archetypes

for PPPs are emerging
PPPs themselves vary widely.
Some are direct collaborations, without a dedicated secretariat – such as

DaimlerChrysler South Africa’s (DCSA) partnership with Gesellschaft für Technische
Zusammenarbeit (GTZ), the German international cooperation enterprise. Others
are autonomous organizations with permanent secretariats and budgets of tens of
millions of dollars – such as GAVI and the Global Fund.
Some involve as few as two organizations, such as Moving the World, a partnership
to fight hunger between the World Food Programme (WFP) and TNT, the Dutch
transportation and distribution company. Others, such as the Global Compact, are
large, complex multi-stakeholder partnerships.
PPPs may be time-limited like USAID’s NetMark project, a malaria prevention

effort in Africa, or of unspecified duration, like the Foundation for Innovative New
Diagnostics (FIND).
PPPs also vary in geographical scope. Some focus on a specific community or region –
the Sustainable Tree Crop Program (STCP) originally targeted five countries in West
Africa. Others, such as the Global Fund, are truly global in reach.
What all PPPs have in common, however, is a common vision, shared goals,
investment from all partners, and a formalized structure with shared decision-
making. We consider any arrangement between distinct organizations that fits
the above criteria to be a partnership. For example, we believe a fee-for-service
relationship between the private and public sector can be classified as a partnership,
and not merely a business arrangement, if either party make contributions that extend
beyond the specific product or service which they are contracted to provide (e.g.,
by lending their expertise in board discussions). Such situations, however, require
thoughtful mechanisms to avoid conflicts of interest.
Given their profusion and diversity, PPPs can be classified in multiple ways. For
example, they can be divided by focus area (e.g., health, education, or economic
development) or by the methods through which they do their work (e.g., fostering
innovation, negotiating affordable prices, or advancing or creating new markets).18
Our research led us to conclude that, for purposes of classification, a PPP’s overall
objectives are its most important distinguishing factors. This enabled us to identify
four distinct “archetypes” of PPP (see Exhibit 4; the organizations listed at the bottom
are examples and not comprehensive lists).
18 Martens 2007; Broadwater, Ian and Kaul, Inge. Global Public-Private Partnerships: The
Current Landscape Study Outline. Office of Development Studies United Nations Development
Programme. February 2005.
Exhibit 4: PPPs can be grouped into four archetypes
Coordination Funding Product development Delivery
Coordination PPPs seek to harmonize policies, objectives, messages and

relevant activities among a group of partners. An effective coordination
partnership helps produce clarity and consensus on what stakeholders are seeking
to achieve and what they need to do to get the job done. It also works to minimize
duplication. Such collaborations need not require members to subordinate
completely their own actions to those of the partnership; rather, they enable
partners to ensure that their different activities complement each other in building
towards a common objective.
Funding PPPs consolidate financing for a specific issue in a single organization.

Effective funding PPPs ensure resources are allocated effectively and strategically
and prevent duplication of spending. They also work to bring in new resources
by recruiting more partners to contribute funds or specific capabilities. Like
coordination PPPs, funding PPPs are often high-profile advocates for their cause.
Product development PPPs (often called PDPs) bring multiple stakeholders

together to develop products or processes that no one partner could develop alone.
For instance, the public sector may understand a given need but be unequipped to
meet it, while a private company with the technical know-how to develop products
for that need may have no understanding of the market or community where the
need is most acute. By pooling investment, sharing risk and combining knowledge
and expertise, PDPs enable successful research and development activities. PDPs
are also often extremely effective at fund-raising to support their programs.
Delivery PPPs combine the on-the-ground capabilities of different partners to

deliver products or services, often in remote locations. Successful delivery often
requires a combination of logistical capabilities, infrastructure, local networks,
and project management expertise that no single organization possesses alone.
We believe that the capabilities the private sector can most usefully contribute to a PPP
vary according to these archetypes; this will be discussed in more detail in subsequent
chapters. Although, some PPPs may have characteristics of more than one archetype
(see box), this framework, serves as a useful guide for both public and private sector
14
organizations in thinking about the types of partners and partnerships with which
they should engage, given their capabilities and objectives.
The evolving archetypes of PPPs

Not all PPPs fit neatly into one of these four archetypes, and indeed the archetypes
themselves are subtly changing. We believe that, at launch, most PPPs seek to fulfill
the objectives that define a single archetype. However, over time, they may develop
some of the characteristics of other archetypes, either through a conscious, strategic
choice to take on new challenges that support the overall mission, or as a result of
subconscious “mission creep.”
For these reasons, some PPPs are starting to blur the boundaries between the different
archetypes. For instance:
Medicines for Malaria Venture has extended its mission. Its “original business
plan focused on drug discovery and development. Over time, its stakeholders
encouraged MMV to move beyond the core functions of drug discovery and
development to include delivery to ensure that people in endemic countries have
access to new and more effective products”. 19 MMV is now exploring options to
work with private partners on downstream drug delivery as well as upstream
R&D.
GAVI’s primary focus is to increase access to immunization by financing the

accelerated introduction of other new and underused vaccines into developing
country markets. In the course of doing this work, GAVI expanded its programs
to include cash grants to strengthen their partner countries’ health systems in an
effort to make the delivery of vaccines more effective.
The Global Fund, while still primarily a funding PPP, is increasingly exploring
additional activities to increase the impact of its grants. Indeed, Secretariat
members we spoke with identified the Global Fund as today sharing
characteristics of three PPP archetypes – coordination, funding and delivery.
For example, the Global Fund is increasingly focused on improving delivery of
products and services and helping recipient countries better manage their grants
(e.g., by bringing in private sector partners with financial planning and project
management expertise).
19 Fairlamb, Alan et al. Independent Review of Medicines for Malaria Venture. dFID Health
Resource Centre. May 2005.
Finding #2: The private sector can

contribute to PPPs in five ways
PPPs can benefit from private sector contributions in five major areas (Exhibit 5).
Most of these areas of contribution are helpful for all types of PPPs. However, as
explained below, we found that some specific capabilities are particularly useful for
certain types of PPPs.
Exhibit 5: The private sector contributes to PPPs across 5 areas
Extending a PPP’s Expanding

reach and multiplying PPP resources
its impact • Cash or in-kind donations
• Modifying partners’
12
business behavior
• Catalyzing changes in
private sector behavior
more broadly
54 3
Providing institutional Strengthening a PPP’s
capabilities governance and
management
• Institutional capabilities
and capacities to • Expertise and disciplines
support PPPs’ which help strengthen
operations governance and
management
Adding a compelling
new voice
• New perspectives and
thinking
• Additional publicity and
credibility for PPPs’
mission or actions
Expanding PPP resources: Nearly all PPPs receive cash or in-kind donations
from the private sector, either directly or by leveraging private sector fund-raising
capabilities (e.g., innovative financing mechanisms). For example, since the inception
of the Mectizan Donation Program (MDP) in 1987, Merck has contributed 1.8 billion
Mectizan tablets (which treats onchocerciasis, an insect-borne disease that causes
a variety of conditions, including blindness, skin rashes, lesions, intense itching
and skin depigmentation) valued at roughly $2.7 billion.20 Similarly, through its
partnership with the World Health Organization and the United Nations Children
Fund (UNICEF), Novartis has provided 216 million treatments of Coartem on a
non-profit basis. However, private sector resource support of this magnitude is rare,
especially when it comes to cash, rather than in-kind, donations. For instance, in
2007 private sector contributions to the Global Fund totaled $45 million,21 or 2% of
total funding (including through Product RED and the TV show American Idol),22
20 Mectizan Donation Program website; http://www.mectizan.org

21 Global Fund defines private sector as all non-government donors. Taking this definition, the
private sector contributed ~5% of total income in 2007, including $100 million from the Gates
Foundation.
22 Global Fund website; http://www.theglobalfund.org
16
That compares to $2.5 billion contributed by governments and, although growing at

around 50% per annum, is still far below the long-term target for 10% of resources to
come from the private sector.23
Two major reasons explain the private sector’s limited contributions of resource.
First expectations about potential private sector contributions were often unrealistic.
Most companies leverage their equity for operations so direct cash donations for
philanthropic activities unrelated to their core business are a very expensive way to
contribute. Second, the private sector does not always see eye to eye with its public
and civil sector partners on how resource contributions should be made; these
partners often want something other than what the private sector is willing to give.
For example, many private companies are eager to make in-kind donations to the
Global Fund. Given its policy of “country ownership”, however, the Global Fund
would rather receive monetary support, which enables recipient countries to procure
products of their choice. At its November 2008 Board meeting, the Global Fund Board
recognized the value of contributions of “services” and requested that the Secretariat
prepare guidelines for accepting such donations. However, the Global Fund decided to
maintain its policy of not accepting in-kind product donations for the time being.
Strengthening a PPP’s governance and management: Most PPPs involve

their private sector partners in governance: private sector representatives serve on the
board or steering committee of more than 80% of the PPPs we examined. The portion
of private sector board members varies. For instance, private sector representatives
occupy only one of the 20 seats on the Global Fund Board but hold five of GAIN’s 14
Board seats. However, all of the PPP participants we interviewed agreed that private
sector involvement significantly improves the governance of their organizations,
bringing a greater focus on performance and accountability. In recognition of this,
some PPPs have taken the principle a step further, by mirroring the corporate practice
of appointing independent or unaffiliated members to their boards – a practice that
enables partnerships to benefit from the knowledge and expertise of business people
without necessarily having to affiliate formally with their companies. Unaffiliated
members also bring a neutral voice to the board, focusing their energies only on
improving the partnership’s performance rather than representing the interests of
their constituent organizations.
Individual experts – serving as board members, committee members, staff or even

volunteers – can also provide valuable advice on critical organizational functions
such as budgeting, human resources, strategic planning, legal, organization design,
cash management, and information technology. This help can range the gamut from
providing simple performance benchmarks to developing full scale operational plans
to reduce costs or improve performance. It does not always stop with advice, but can
also extend to implementation.
Private sector partners also bring a greater sense of urgency to the activities of PPPs.
Representatives of several large public sector organizations told us that their private
sector partners tend to work at a faster pace, and expect results sooner, than is typical
in the public sector. While clashes can and do occur – especially in the early days – our
interviewees judged that in most cases pushing partnerships to be more aggressive in
delivering on their goals is a net positive.
23 Ibid
Examples of private sector contributions to PPP governance

Members of the GAIN Board, serve only in their capacities as individuals, rather
than as representatives of their companies or organizations. This facilitates more
efficient decision-making by eliminating the complexity inherent in providing
board representation for all stakeholder organizations. GAIN officials have also
found that by attracting a more diverse membership to the board, this model helps
generate more dynamic discussions.
The GAVI Fund Board, comprised of a number of private sector members,

has challenged management to improve annual budget and project proposals
and pushed for a formal tender process to select GAVI’s procurement agent
for new vaccines. These “checks and balances” have produced more clearly
articulated objectives, risk assessments and definitions of expected outcomes.
The pharmaceutical industry also argued that the Chair of the new (merged)
GAVI Alliance Board should be independent rather than a representative of one
of GAVI’s partners. Although this specific proposal was not adopted, it did help
ensure that one-third of GAVI’s new Board is comprised of unaffiliated members.1
Private sector members of the Global Compact were a key force in improving the
accountability of the initiative, by pushing for improvements in the monitoring of
members’ activities and the creation of new integrity measures.
1 The GAVI Fund Board and GAVI Alliance Board were merged in October 2008. Two of the new
Board’s 28 seats are occupied by representatives of the vaccines industry and a further ten by
unaffiliated individuals.
Adding a compelling new voice: All PPPs face two key challenges of raising
awareness of their goals and efforts, as well as building a sense of legitimacy in the
public mind. Here, the private sector can provide invaluable help. The public and civil
sectors can be all too easily mischaracterized as anti-business or anti-growth. The
private sector has credibility with specific audiences and access to specific channels
that the public sector lacks, and that is invaluable for creating public support for a PPPs
goals and methods.
For example, when the Financial Times (FT) featured a full page article on the role
of Unilever in the Global Public-Private Partnership for Handwashing with Soap
(GPPPHW), the initiative received not just publicity, but much-needed credibility
with the FT’s business-oriented audience. In the case of the STCP, it was Mars’s role in
creating the partnership, which helped convince other players in the cocoa industry to
support it. Similarly, as CEO of Cisco, John Chambers was a key driving force behind
the creation of the Jordan Education Initiative (JEI) having proposed the idea during
a meeting of World Economic Forum (WEF) Governors. His strong support of this
initiative, industry credibility and networks helped to persuade other IT giants, such
as Intel and Microsoft, to support JEI.
Visible private sector support also helps new PPPs overcome the often significant
hurdles in getting started. When funders and policy makers see the private sector
taking an active role in a new endeavor, they often rally to the cause. TNT created the
vision for Moving the World. The company went so far as to prepare a full business
plan and sketch the specific characteristics of the type of partner with which it wanted
18
to work. It then went to the WFP and outlined its vision for how the two organizations
could work together. That early initiative from a private entity was essential to the
project’s launch.
Providing institutional capabilities: Private sector companies can also make a

major contribution to PPPs by applying their core institutional competencies to help
achieve a partnership’s objectives. The capabilities, which are most valuable to a PPP,
vary by archetype (see Exhibit 6). Identifying and securing access to the most relevant
private sector capabilities is an important element of a PPP’s success.
Exhibit 6: Operational contributions most specific by archetypes
PPP archetypes
Product
Coordination Funding Delivery
development
• Capabilities in • Capabilities in • R&D capacity • Supply chain

Private sector communication financial planning including access to expertise and
contribution design, marketing, and asset compounds capacity for
and management management • Market research for distribution
• Communication • Fund-raising product design and • Local presence
channels and capacity introduction • Project
networks management
• Unilever • GAVI • Roche Diagnostics • TNT

PPP example • Proctor & Gamble • IFFIm • FIND • World Food
• Colgate-Palmolive • Financial expertise • Technology Programme
• GPPPHW development • Moving the World
• Marketing expertise • Logistics
capabilties
Coordination PPPs tend to benefit most from the private sector’s marketing
capabilities, which they can harness to articulate and promote their mission. For
example, Unilever, Colgate-Palmolive and Procter & Gamble bring “the art of
creating automatic behaviors – habits – among consumers.”24 to the Global Public-
Private Partnership for Handwashing with Soap (GPPPHW). They help to promote
the positive health benefits of washing with soap by researching, designing and
supporting marketing efforts. For example, Unilever’s In Safe Hands program has
trained more than 200 stakeholders in capacity-building and advocacy techniques. In
addition, they have helped create monitoring mechanisms to evaluate the success of
these behavior change campaigns.
Funding PPPs, whose primary goal is to raise and disburse large sums of money,
generally find private sector capabilities in financial management, project planning,
project prioritization and revenue generation most useful. Knowledge and expertise
in investment banking, financial management, and capital markets can greatly
enhance the effectiveness of such partnerships. For example, some of the Global
Fund’s Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs: in-country committees made up of
local stakeholders who implement Global Fund programs) receive invaluable help in
grant management and other financial matters from private sector financial services
companies. In countries where the private sector has engaged with CCMs (e.g., the
CCM in Gambia was chaired by a representative of Standard Chartered Bank), the
24 “Warning: Habits May Be Good for You”, New York Times. July 13, 2008
Global Fund reports a dramatic improvement in grant performance. The private

sector has also been a powerful partner in helping PPPs raise funding from a broad
array of sources; well beyond straight cash donations and often in ways that leverage
a company’s core competencies and unique networks. For example, since its inception
Product RED has raised more than $115 million for the Global Fund through joint
branding with commercial partners. Similarly, over its life time, American Idol’s Idol
Gives Back initiative has helped raise more than $100 million through donations from
private individuals for organizations such as the Global Fund and Malaria No More.
Equally, GAVI Board members with financial backgrounds played a key role in helping
to establish the International Finance Facility for Immunization (IFFIm).
Product development PPPs, such as MMV and FIND, often have limited in-house
research and development (R&D) capabilities so they rely on the private sector to help
fulfill this central element of their mission. Indeed, MMV’s private sector partners not
only conduct research but they also support the entire product development process
by helping to plan the overall approach, determine development timelines, set key
milestones, facilitate product approval, and manage production and distribution. For
example, Novartis researchers helped MMV develop the recently launched pediatric
formulation of Coartem®, one of the most effective treatments available for malaria.
Novartis is also currently working on a joint project with MMV and the Wellcome
Trust to develop the next generation of malaria therapies.
Many delivery PPPs rely on private sector capabilities in managing supply chains,
logistics and distribution. Private sector companies often have more extensive
operations and infrastructure than PPPs and are more adept at getting goods and
services to the remote and resource-constrained areas that many PPPs seek to serve.
A common lament in the global health sector is that while Coca-Cola is available
in even the most remote villages of the world, governments and NGOs struggle to
get essential drugs, diagnostics and supplies to those same communities. PPPs can
benefit substantially from leveraging these private sector capabilities. For example,
through Moving the World, the WFP has gained access to TNT’s knowledge and
expertise in logistics as well as its overall infrastructure and institutional capabilities.
As a result, WFP’s ability to rapidly distribute food aid in response to humanitarian
emergencies has increased significantly. Equally, the Jordan Education Initiative
is built on a model that links the knowledge and expertise of large multinational
companies with the implementation capacity of the government and local IT players.
While the partnership was formed and managed by global firms and the Jordanian
government, the local IT sector was responsible for much of the day-to-day execution
and technology development (with financial and technical support from their global
partners). Similarly, USAID’s partnership with a number of private sector companies
to create Supply Chain Management Solutions (SCMS) has created a modern and
responsive supply chain infrastructure in parts of Africa, which integrates the
most up-to-date best practices in a way that USAID could not have achieved alone.
Therefore, PPPs can benefit extensively from leveraging the implementation and
delivery capabilities of their private sector partners. However, in general, these
remain relatively underexploited.
Extending a PPP’s reach and multiplying its impact: Private sector

involvement in PPPs often has unintended, but beneficial, consequences. Companies
become involved to support a specific cause or help with a specific task, but their
activities often create ripple effects that modify the company’s behavior and catalyze
changes in other organizations. For example, through its involvement in Product
20
RED, the Gap became more committed to tackling workplace HIV/AIDS issues,
and fundamentally altered the way it conducts business. Gap now actively promotes
socially responsible practices both among its own workers and its suppliers, urging
them to think about HIV/AIDS prevention and care measures. Equally, the success
of the Mectizan Donation Program (MDP) helped convince Merck to launch or join a
number of other public-private partnerships, including the African Comprehensive
HIV/AIDS Partnership (ACHAP) in Botswana. When companies engage in PPPs,
they serve as a role model or inspiration for other private sector players. Competitors
often respond to another company’s successful involvement in a PPP by seeking to
reproduce that success for themselves. For example, following DaimlerChrysler’s
collaboration with GTZ to address HIV/AIDS among its workforce in South Africa,
several other companies – including T-Systems, Roche and Volkswagen – established
similar programs. Individual private sector partners can also reach out to other
companies to solicit help in addressing a particular challenge. Mars proactively sought
to involve other multinational companies from the cocoa business in STCP, to ensure
industry-wide commitment and support for the partnership.
Most PPPs tend, at least at the beginning, to seek and receive benefits in only one or
two of these categories. Attempts to mobilize new resources are, not surprisingly, the
most common “gateway” to private sector involvement. Over time though, as a PPP’s
work grows and its relationship with its private sector partners deepens, private sector
contributions often broaden.
In almost all the cases we studied, we noticed a trend toward PPPs seeking – and
getting – more involvement from their private sector partners. For example,
interviewees at the Global Fund noted that they first reached out to the private sector
for help in improving their governance – especially vital given their emphasis on
performance-based funding. As the relationships developed, the Global Fund sought
increasingly to leverage the private sector as a potential source of resources. More
recently, they have looked to private sector partners to support countries in applying
for and implementing Global Fund grants. Indeed, to strengthen private sector
involvement in grant implementation, the Global Fund is now deploying dedicated
private sector officers in each of its regional teams.
We also found that partnerships initiated by the private sector – such as Moving
the World, MDP and STCP – do a better job of leveraging a broad range of private
sector capabilities from the outset. Often, these PPPs have a more focused mission
and fewer partners than public sector-initiated partnerships. As a result, the added
value of the private sector is more clearly defined and it plays a more integral role in
delivering the mission.
While this progress toward broader private sector involvement is encouraging, we

believe that PPPs could harness even greater contributions from their private sector
partners across all five areas outlined. In particular, we find that there is substantial
potential for PPPs to better leverage the institutional capabilities of the private sector,
especially for in-country delivery of products and services. Many partnerships can
make better use of the private sector’s capacity to strengthen supply chains at country-
level or leverage the existing in-country presence of their private sector partners.
Finding #3: How the private sector

wins with PPPs; recognizing mutual
benefits is key to success
Traditionally, companies think of public-private partnerships as part of their
corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy; a means of improving their public
image and reputation or a channel for philanthropy. However, companies are
beginning to realize that partnerships can be good for business too; aligning social
and profit motives to address vital global challenges while also positively impacting
corporate operations and creating business opportunities. Companies that engage in
partnerships solely out of a sense of social responsibility generally view PPP initiatives
as separate from their core profit-making activities and so relegate them to a minor
role in the organization. Our case studies, however, make clear that companies can
derive a wide range of business benefits from their involvement in PPPs. Our findings
highlight six major benefits, many of which extend beyond those traditionally
associated with corporate social responsibility (see Exhibit 7).
Exhibit 7: Private sector can benefit from engaging

with PPPs in 6 major ways
1
A better public image
• Grow trust in company
• Build public relations
• Strengthen market position
2
Bolstering knowledge and market understanding
• Access public know-how, experience and networks
• Exchange with competitors
3
A happier workforce
• Increase employee satisfaction
• Attract talent
4
Greater productivity and access to resources
• Increase workforce productivity
• Access raw materials
5
New demand for goods and service
• Market to existing markets
• Access and build new markets
6
Sharing risk and investment
• Make joint investments
• Reduce individual risk
Although many public and private sector stakeholders acknowledge that companies
can derive advantages from engaging in PPPs, the full extent of these potential benefits
is still not well understood. As a result, the PPP engagement of many companies is
driven solely or mostly by their CSR strategy. When that happens, PPP leaders report,
companies’ commitment to the partnership is all too often at the mercy of changing
corporate priorities and the company’s CSR budget limits the scale of its contribution.
By contrast, companies that view their PPP activities as part of their day-to-day
business are more likely to have a deeper, more sustained commitment to the
partnership’s mission. For many companies, this requires a change of mindset.
As Unilever noted, “the private sector needs to replace guilt as its motive with the
22
realization that it brings something valuable to the table.” Some companies, however,
have started to look at PPPs differently and are not bashful about expecting – and
receiving – tangible benefits from their involvement. As one interviewee put it, “For us
this has always been about the commercial benefit.”
Once all partners recognize the critical role the private sector plays in a PPP’s mission,
everyone becomes more comfortable when the private sector benefits. Unilever
observed that the attitude of its partners in the GPPPHW shifted over time as they
became more aware of the contributions it could make to the partnership. Similarly,
the Global Compact recognizes that those members who derive the clearest benefits
from their membership (networking opportunities, access to knowledge and best
practices, and a clear sign of their commitment to social causes) are often those who
engage most closely in the partnership and are most committed to its mission.
HOW THE PRIVATE SECTOR BENEFITS FROM PPPS

A better public image: Companies frequently engage in PPPs to improve their
reputation. For example, 63% of the Global Compact’s members said they joined to
boost trust in their company; nearly half also see membership as a way to improve
their public relations.25 Equally, many companies become members of the GAIN
Business Alliance because they believe GAIN can position the food industry more
positively as a part of the solution to malnutrition.
A happier workforce: PPP participation also tends to be a positive influence on

workforce morale and bolsters talent attraction and retention. For example, TNT
argues “the whole partnership [with the WFP] has given TNT a social soul.” 65% of
TNT’s employees have actively supported the partnership, which TNT believes has
improved employees’ perceptions of the company and reduced staff turnover.
Greater productivity and access to resources: By participating in PPPs, many

companies report having improved their own ability to supply goods and services.
Partnerships can help improve the health and productivity of an organization’s
workforce. Through its partnership with GTZ, for example, DaimlerChrysler South
Africa launched awareness campaigns, introduced HIV voluntary counseling and
testing and provided care and treatment to its workforce. This pro-active effort to
address HIV/AIDS helped maintain the health of its employees and prevent major
productivity losses in its South African operations. GTZ subsequently replicated this
model through partnerships with DaimlerChrysler in other countries, as well as a
number of other companies around the world.
PPPs can also help private sector companies improve their access to raw materials.
STCP, initiated by the cocoa industry in partnership with USAID, was a private-sector
response to concerns about the stability of cocoa harvests in West Africa. By working
with local producers, STCP has helped improve the reliability of cocoa supplies,
increase yields and introduce new quality standards. In turn, this has had a broader
positive impact on economic development in the region by helping to raise the incomes
of growers, and strengthen local infrastructure.
New demand for goods and services: PPPs can help create new markets or
expand existing ones, especially in areas where public and private sector partners
25 UN Global Compact. 2007 Global Compact Leaders Summit. June 2007

have a joint interest in increasing the use of certain products. For example, NetMark,
is a public-private partnership to prevent malaria by building sustainable markets for
bednets in a number of Africa countries. It works with public sector partners to create
favorable market conditions, such as by setting quality standards, removing trade
barriers and lowering customs duties. It also helps build private demand through
consumer research-based education and promotion campaigns. In order to ensure
universal access, it supports private sector companies to set up the distribution
infrastructure to reach consumers through retail channels, while also providing
free or subsidized nets to consumers who could not otherwise afford them. This
market segmentation ensures that NetMark-funded nets are targeted at the neediest
populations, while those who can afford to pay benefit from convenient access
through local retailers. Manufacturers such as Tana Netting say NetMark has been
critical in helping them build successful, sustainable markets and that this would
not have been possible without public sector support and co-investment. In short,
NetMark is successfully contributing to the fight against malaria by creating suitable
conditions for private companies to do business.
There are a number of cases of PPPs launching joint marketing and advocacy
campaigns to increase product demand. For example, the GPPPHW runs marketing
campaigns to encourage the use of soap and improve hygiene standards in developing
countries. This not only contributes to public sector efforts to improve health
outcomes, it also helps generate long-term growth in consumer demand for soap,
which can bolster the sales of GPPPHW’s private sector partners. Equally, GAIN
dedicates around a third of its national fortification grants for social marketing
campaigns explaining the benefits of fortified products. Again, this supports public
sector efforts to improve nutrition while also creating demand for new fortified
products from private sector food companies as well as vitamin and mineral
manufacturers and blenders.
PPPs can also help companies build brand trust and name recognition. Some
pharmaceutical companies note that by donating products, they raise their profile
among recipients who see the brand name and who may then favor the company’s
other products as paying customers.
More broadly, by engaging in PPPs, companies contribute to building stable, healthy

and prosperous societies, which, in an increasingly globalized world, may represent
long-term potential markets, wherever they are in the world. As USAID observes,
“international development is everybody’s business” because as “incomes, education,
and longevity rise in the developing world…the people at the origin of their supply
chains may soon become significant consumers of their products.” 26
Sharing risk and investment: Some opportunities are simply too risky, or the
required investment is too high, for individual companies to undertake alone. PPPs
enable companies, NGOs and government agencies to pool resources and share risks,
reducing uncertainty and making the expected return on investment more attractive.
The private sector also benefits from the public sector’s legal and policymaking powers
that minimize the investment’s inherent risks. Through GAVI, drug manufacturers,
philanthropists and public sector organizations such as UNICEF jointly invest in
the development and introduction of new vaccines in impoverished countries. The
26 USAID. The Global Development Alliance: Public-Private Alliances for Transformational

Development. Office of Global Development Alliances. January 2006.
24
Accelerated Development and Introduction Plans (ADIPs) program reduced the

risk of developing new products by expanding the evidence-base, communicating
the value of the vaccine and preparing the market for introduction. By providing
manufacturers with credible demand forecasting models, the ADIPs reduced one of
the major risks facing the vaccines industry.
GAIN is another partnership that is co-investing in product development with its

private sector partners. It is providing financial incentives to companies to launch
new complementary food products for infants and young children. Beyond sharing the
financial risk of product development, GAIN also helps reduce the reputational risk
for companies associated with “baby food” manufacturing.
NetMark is another case where public commitment spurred private investment

in a joint partnership. In response to a time-limited pledge of $74 million from
USAID, more than 35 companies have invested in new production and distribution
capabilities. Private sector investment currently totals ~$77 million, compared with
$54 million of USAID funding disbursed thus far, or $1.43 of leveraged investment for
every donor dollar. This is a win-win proposition for reducing malaria incidence on a
sustainable basis through shared risk and shared investment.
Bolstering knowledge and market understanding: In some cases, the public

sector has a better understanding of certain niche markets than the private sector.
For example, FIND provides its private sector partners with essential information on
specific product needs, specifications, and nuances around care-seeking behavior.
This helps them develop diagnostic products which best respond to patients needs and
market demand.
PPPs can also help the private sector to develop a better understanding of public
policymaking in order to better serve governments’ needs. For example, Cisco
Systems supports government efforts to develop their education strategy and use
technology to raise standards. By working with federal and state departments of
education, Cisco improves its own understanding of future trends in education
policy and the overall direction of 21st century learning. This in turn enhances the
credibility of Cisco’s sales teams, allowing them to tailor their marketing efforts and
speak authoritatively with school officials about the likely evolution of technology in
the classroom. Cisco believes a similar model could be beneficial internationally and
plans to begin rolling out similar partnerships in India and Africa.
Furthermore, PPPs provide access to networks and forums that companies can
leverage to strengthen their businesses. For example, GAIN has created multiple
forums that help companies learn about ongoing policy discussions, the needs of the
nutrition community and where companies along the entire value chain can share
their experiences in delivering nutrition to the poor. These forums allow members to
jointly develop innovative new business models able to give access to nutrition to the
poor. Similarly, officials at the Global Compact report being consistently told that a
key benefit of membership is companies’ ability to network with counterparts through
regional business coalitions. The opportunity to share knowledge and best practices
makes for smoother, more profitable transactions in local markets while helping
companies keep their Global Compact commitments.
Equally, STCP stakeholders say that the partnership provides them with a neutral
forum in which to discuss sensitive issues, with the International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture acting as host and honest broker. This minimizes misunderstanding

between the private sector and local governments and enables partners to have a much
greater impact on each other’s policies and behavior than would be possible otherwise.
For example, the cocoa industry has found that its efforts to promote changes in
government policy on cocoa production have been met with less suspicion since
industry efforts were supported by STCP’s objective research. Unilever finds that the
training it offers government officials, as part of its contribution to the GPPPHW, has
significantly strengthened its public sector networks.
More broadly, our case studies illustrate how working with the public sector to tackle
social challenges can reveal to private companies a wealth of new opportunities.
For example, private sector partners noted that through the STCP, they better
understood the value of engaging broadly in upstream development projects. Some
STCP companies are now seeking even broader social engagement with to further
improve cocoa supplies and raise quality. Other companies are now launching their
own projects, beyond the scope of STCP, to improve health and education in the
communities that produce cocoa.
It is important to note that the companies that benefit most from all of these
knowledge-related benefits are those that ensure key learnings from their PPP
involvement are communicated to the entire organization. This is most likely to
happen where a broad range of internal stakeholders engage with the PPP as opposed
to it being managed solely by the CSR department. Where this is not possible,
companies can benefit from creating a formal process to communicate new learnings
and opportunities across their organizations.
OVERCOMING STEREOTYPES AND FALSE PERCEPTIONS

There remains a perception among some stakeholders – and not limited to the civil or
public sectors – that private companies should not profit from their participation in
social initiatives. This view holds that the very nature of social responsibility is simply
incompatible with tangible commercial benefits. Our interviews suggest, however,
that this mindset is changing. Commercial benefits need not come at the expense of a
PPP’s mission. On the contrary, allowing private sector partners to reap commercial
benefits helps sustain their participation and bolsters their contributions.
However, hurdles to private sector engagement still exist. For instance, the set of
guiding principles recently developed by the UN Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs and the World Economic Forum states that “Collaborative
efforts with the humanitarian community to alleviate human suffering should not be
used for commercial gain.”27 Similarly, there are some in the private sector who argue
that any financial gain through PPPs would reverse hard-won gains in reputation
and public goodwill. TNT, for example, is keen to stress that it does not seek material
benefits from its partnership with the World Food Programme. There certainly is
a risk that direct business benefits could undermine the credibility of a company’s
philanthropic work. Pharmaceutical companies illustrate the dilemma well. Although
many provide essential life-saving drugs to developing nations for free, or at cost, such
work receives far less attention than efforts to defend patents in low income countries.
27 World Economic Forum and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs. Guiding Principles for Public-Private Collaboration for Humanitarian Action. december
2007.
26
Supporting its core business, in short, can distract attention from the contributions a
company makes in tackling major social problems.
Nonetheless, many of the public sector stakeholders we interviewed were adamant

that a strong business-oriented case is essential to secure strong private sector
participation in a PPP. As the Head of one PPP argued “If it does not make business
sense for the private sector to engage, then we will not have a good relationship.”
There is no intrinsic conflict between companies winning plaudits for helping tackle
social challenges and profiting at the same time. We believe that the stronger the
business case for a company to join a PPP, the broader and deeper their commitment to
ensuring the partnership’s success.
Win-win is increasingly the new order of the day.

Finding #4; Nine best practices to

help maximize the value of private
sector engagement and PPP impact
Many researchers have sought to define the factors that make PPPs succeed. Some
focus on success factors shared across all PPPs,28 while others target specific sectors,
such as public health,29 economic development30 or humanitarian relief.31 A number of
best practices consistently appear throughout these studies. In this section, we seek
not to duplicate existing literature or to provide a comprehensive set of criteria which
make partnerships successful. Rather, we aim to build on the literature and our own
case studies to identify the specific best practices which maximize the value of private
sector engagement in PPPs for all partners, and for the partnership itself.
The following nine best practices (see Exhibit 8) provide guidelines for maximizing
the added value of private sector engagement in PPPs, both for individuals partners
and, in more formalized partnerships, for the PPP’s management or secretariat.
1. “Partner with a purpose”

Partnerships often fail to leverage the full capabilities and expertise of their various
partners. This is most common in partnerships whose mission or objectives are
unclear, or ones that do not carefully define the specific contributions expected from
each partner. Therefore, PPPs should always “partner with a purpose”. Specifically,
they should:
Carefully judge whether partnership is the most appropriate form of collaboration.

Given the inherent transaction costs – not only financial but also measured in
time and talent – this is not always the case. Successful partnerships begin with a
clear understanding of why the partners are coming together, why their objectives
cannot be achieved (or not as effectively) through any other means, and why the
benefits will outweigh the costs.
Outline in specific terms what each partner will contribute in terms of resources,
expertise and institutional capability to help achieve the partnership’s objectives.
For PPPs with a broad mission, it may be easier to define partners’ contributions
narrowly, according to the specific sub-goals or issues to which they are expected
to bring their capabilities or expertise.
28 See, for example, World Economic Forum Global Corporate Citizen Initiative, Partnering for
Suc¬cess: Business Perspectives on Multistakeholder Partnerships; World Economic Forum,
Harness¬ing Private Sector capabilities to meet public needs: The potential of partnerships to
advance progress on Hunger, Malaria and Basic Education
29 See, for example, Buse. Global Health: Making Partnerships Work; Buse & Harmer, Seven
habits of highly effective global public–private health partnerships; Thomas & Curtis, Public-
Private Partnerships for Health: A Review of Best Practices in the Health Sector
30 See, for example, Unwin, Partnerships in Development Practice: Evidence from
Multistakeholder ICT4D Partnership Practice in Africa
31 See, for example, UN Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs & World Economic
Forum, Guiding Principles for Public-Private Collaboration for Humanitarian Action
28
The better partnerships go even further, and take steps to monitor whether
partners are living up to their commitments and to enforce discipline
Private companies should also be strategic in choosing which partnerships to engage

with. They should clearly identify the specific resources and capacities, which they
can bring to the table, and then seek out potential partners who need what they have
to offer. They should also be honest with themselves about what they hope to gain
from a partnership, and look for PPPs that can both provide what they want and are
comfortable doing so. The four PPP archetypes provide a good initial framework
to begin thinking through these issues, categorize potential partnerships and
understand the capabilities that each requires.
Exhibit 8: Best practices for maximizing private sector engagement
1 "Partner with a purpose" 2 “Contribute more than money" 3 “Manage down transaction costs "
• Define a clear mission for the • Recognize that the private sector’s • Minimize transaction costs to balance
partnership and the relevant and potential contribution goes far beyond public sector consensus building with
complementary roles each partner money private sector instinct to “get things
will play in achieving this mission • Ensure all partners commit not only done”
funds but also time and resources to
make PPP work
4 “Govern for the partnership" 5 "Cherish the difference" 6 “Help everybody win"
• Base board composition on • Value different perspectives • Create and communicate a virtuous
contribution private sector can make • Create processes to ensure all cycle of mutual benefit for all partners
to governance and not on quotas stakeholders’ views can be aired • Engage the business side of
• Ensure focus is on what is best for while not requiring consensus for the companies (not just CSR) to harness
the partnership not on compromise final decision their core competencies
7 "Share the love" 8 "Bring new partners to the dance " 9 “Evolution is essential"
• Identify passionate leaders with-in • Be creative in identifying which • Treat change as an opportunity rather
partners to champion the partnership capabilities the private sector could than a threat
• Broaden and deepen commit-ment to contribute to partnerships and pro- • Continually evaluate and evolve the
and involvement in the PPP in active in engaging private companies partnership in step with changing
partners’ organizations who possess those capabilities environment and new challenges
For example, when TNT decided to offer its logistics capabilities to help deliver relief
to crisis regions, its management conducted extensive internal discussions to make
absolutely clear what and how it expected to contribute, and what it expected those
contributions to accomplish. They prepared a business plan that detailed the expected
benefits and costs of a potential partnership. They also conducted detailed due
diligence on all the potential public sector organizations with which they considered
partnering. This elaborate process ensured that TNT’s subsequent discussions with
the WFP were based on a clear understanding of what the potential partnership would
do and should look like. The result was a mutual decision for a partnership that had a
clear purpose from the start.
2. “Contribute more than money”

Any PPP director will tell you that more money is always nice. However, many of the
most progressive ones will also say that money is, in some ways, the least important
contribution the private sector can make. Money is a welcome signal of commitment,
but it can be contributed by anyone and no matter where it comes from, its value is
always the same. A company’s products, services, and/or expertise are often unique
– and uniquely valuable to PPPs. Partnerships that don’t leverage the knowledge,
capabilities and expertise of their private partners fail to realize the full value of
private sector participation. Private companies should therefore prioritize non-
monetary contributions and constantly seek out new ways to leverage their specific
expertise, skills and institutional capabilities in support of the partnership.
For example, as GPPHW’s private sector partners immersed themselves in the PPP,
both sides realized that the companies had far more to offer than just money. Soon
the companies were helping to manage marketing campaigns, train stakeholders,
and conduct behavioral consumer research. Similarly, when the Global Fund began
operating, it looked to the private sector primarily for support in terms of governance
and financing. However, as it became more concerned with improving local delivery
of products and services, the Secretariat has increasing sought private sector partners
to help local Principal Recipients manage their grants, strengthen their capacity
and build their supply chains. This broader approach to partnership led to Chevron
becoming the Global Fund’s first “Corporate Champion”, committing $30 million in
cash as well as extensive additional resources and capabilities, while companies such
as Standard Chartered have become involved in managing grants at a local level.
3. “Manage down transaction costs”

The transaction costs inherent in PPPs can frustrate or discourage certain partners
– actual and potential – especially those in the private sector. Slow or time-intensive
processes can be off-putting to busy executives and can dissuade new members from
joining. Many business people also have a hard time adjusting to the public sector
instinct for extensive consensus building, believing it gets in the way of the private
sector’s focus on “getting things done”.
There is no getting around this; some partnering costs are inevitable, and will remain.
However, these costs can be managed – and they should be, both to improve a PPPs
performance, and to help attract more partners to the cause.
Some measures are relatively simple. For instance, just making board meetings run
more smoothly and quickly can have a huge impact, as can limiting their frequency.
Moving the World conducts only one or two board meetings per year, thereby keeping
the costs of involvement for senior management from both sectors low.
Others are more complex. A number of interviewees told us that clearly separating
governance and management, and leaving governance to the board and operational
management to the staff, greatly improves efficiency. It helps to focus board
discussions on strategic topics and avoid time consuming operational problem
solving. From the start, NetMark understood that the private sector would be far more
willing to embrace a partnership with lean, quick decision processes. Hence, they
set up direct lines of communication between their secretariat and partners, kept
governance meetings small and infrequent, and taught PPP management to speak
the private sector’s language. Further care was taken to formalize clear roles and
responsibilities as well as procedures in case of termination of the partnership. As a
result, governance and management responsibilities are well-defined, procedures are
efficient, and the partners trust each other and work well together.
4. “Govern for the partnership”

PPP board members are, in most cases, representatives of the various constituencies
in the partnership. This dual role creates a conflict among board members, who must
30
balance the interests of their company or organization with those of the partnership.
Moreover, it tends to restrict the private sector to a small number of board seats,
limiting the potential value and expertise that different industries could bring to the
governance process.
PPPs should move beyond this narrow model of board composition. They should
seek out a higher number of board members who bring the right skills and
knowledge to govern effectively, regardless of whether they are affiliated with a
partner organization or not. Equally, they should work to ensure that governance
processes and decisions focus on what is best for the partnership rather than seeking
compromise between the interests of different constituencies.
As part of its convergence with the GAVI Fund, the GAVI Alliance reviewed its
governance process. It concluded that the value of private sector voices and expertise
in its strategic decision-making was so compelling that it allocated one third of
its board seats to unaffiliated private sector members. For similar reasons, GAIN
allocates a large portion of its board seats to members from the private sector and all of
its board members act in their individual capacities rather than as representatives of
their organizations.
5. “Cherish the difference”

Almost all interviewees acknowledged the difficulty of overcoming the culture gap
that divides the public, civil and private sectors. The differences in beliefs and working
styles can create suspicion, mistrust and even hostility; significantly reducing the
effectiveness of a PPP.
The most effective PPPs, however, marshal these differences to their advantage. They
recognize that differing practices and perspectives are a significant part of the value
that different partners bring to a PPP, and that this helps to improve a partnership’s
deliberations, strategies and implementation plans. Therefore, they seek to ensure
that partners do not compromise their basic beliefs just because they are working
with different cultures, while also maintaining the necessary flexibility to bridge the
cultural divide. A number of interviewees insisted, for example, that it is critical for
private sector members to maintain the same emphasis on performance that they
bring to their own businesses.
PPPs need to develop board, management and operational processes that welcome
a variety of inputs but do not require total consensus on the final decision. This
combines the best of both approaches – everyone has a say, but once all perspectives
have been heard, a final decision is made in a timely manner. The discussions will
sometimes be intense but the process itself is a chance for partners to get to know one
another better and learn to share each other’s concerns. Both the public and private
sector partners of STCP argued, for example, that working together on a shared
topic has provided them with powerful insights into how the other side operates and
thinks. Enabling this mutual understanding has made STCP much more effective
at its core mission. In the end, embracing cultural differences can often lead to the
establishment of real friendships that transcend the work at hand – an experience
reported by both TNT and WFP leaders as a result of working together their Moving
the World partnership.
6. “Help everybody win”

The old attitude that it is wrong or at least unseemly for private companies to benefit
from their philanthropic activities is outdated and needs to go. In fact, the stronger
the business rationale for private sector involvement in public causes, the more likely
private partners will dedicate and sustain support for achieving a PPP’s objectives.
PPPs should seek to create a virtuous cycle of mutual benefit for all partners. They
should not be shy about understanding, and articulating to potential private sector
partners, the “business rationale” for engaging in the PPP. And they should ensure that
their contact is not relegated to the CSR backwater, but that they work directly with the
profit-generating segments of their private sector partners so they have access to each
companies’ most valuable capabilities.
NetMark realized from the start that committed private sector partners could
make a substantial contribution to the fight against malaria, and that to attract such
partners, the business-related benefits would have to be clear. When approaching
potential partners, NetMark candidly discussed not only the public health work of the
partnership itself, but also sought to understand how they could support companies to
build sustainable bednet businesses and went into detail about what those companies
could expect to gain. Similarly, the GTZ-and DaimlerChrysler partnership was born
out of the realization that the public sector’s interest in improving health and the private
sector’s interest in maintaining a healthy and productive workforce strongly overlap.
The step from mutual interest towards mutual benefit is a short and rewarding journey.
However, getting the mix right is the responsibility of the private sector as well. Private
companies need to demonstrate to their public and civil sector partners that, whatever
benefit may accrue to their bottom line from participating in a PPP, that benefit is
never accrued at the expense of the PPP’s mission.
7. “Share the love”

Without passionate individuals, few partnerships would get off the ground. However,
relying too heavily on the passion of a few individuals leaves PPPs vulnerable to
personnel changes at partner organizations.
Sustaining a partnership’s energy level over time requires engaging passionate

individuals, not just on the PPP staff or management, but also throughout all partner
organizations. This creates a large pool of people ready to step in and help, as well as
broadens and deepens the involvement of partners’ organizations, which helps ensure
the commitment of those organizations is sustainable. It also helps maximize the value
of the partnership. On the one hand, it ensures PPPs benefit from the widest possible
range of capabilities and expertise among their partners’ employees. On the other hand,
it ensures that the knowledge and networks to which companies gain access through
PPP membership can be leveraged across their organization. Finally, everyone involved
needs to learn to share the credit and promote the achievements of their PPP colleagues.
Every cause needs heroes. Individuals at organizations – public, civil or private
sector – contributing to a PPP should be recognized and rewarded for doing so, both to
encourage them to continue and to help them serve as role models for others.
Peter Bakker is certainly a passionate man – and he has channeled that passion into
building Moving the World, a partnership between TNT, the company he leads, and
the WFP to deliver emergency food supplies to the world’s crisis regions. However,
32
he knew from the beginning that he couldn’t do it alone. One of his first actions after
launching the new PPP was to take several of his direct reports on a field mission to
Tanzania. Seeing firsthand both the populations in need of help and the partnership’s
on-the-ground impact, galvanized his staff and further increased their commitment to
the cause. Many senior TNT executives are now fully engaged in the partnership with
the WFP, and the two organizations work together at virtually every level across the
operations of Moving the World. TNT makes it easy for its employees to volunteer for
WFP school feeding programs, assist the WFP logistically in the field, and contribute
to fundraising activities like Walk the World. As a result, TNT employees identify
strongly with the mission of the partnership and 67% of TNT’s employees serve either as
volunteers or fundraisers. Peter Bakker himself has become something an anti-hunger
icon – at TNT, within the WFP, and among hunger activists around the world.
8. “Bring new partners to the dance”

At present, PPPs tend to involve only a small fraction of the private sector companies
that could add value to their efforts. As a result, they miss out on a wealth of
beneficial private sector knowledge and capabilities. For example, coordination
PPPs could benefit from working with large media companies or advertising
agencies to improve their advocacy and communications, but few such partnerships
exist. Therefore, PPPs should constantly evaluate the capabilities and expertise they
need and make an effort to seek out new partners accordingly. It’s not enough to wait
for organizations to come knocking.
It’s also important to look beyond the “usual suspects” (i.e., the same set of large
multinationals that tend to be involved in these issues) to other potential partners,
both large and small. For example, while big companies certainly have a lot to offer,
smaller ones will often be able to offer unique products, services or expertise which
no Fortune 500 giant can match. Moreover, smaller companies are likely to have a
better understanding of the local market. While they may not get the same amount of
publicity as the big guys, they may have just what a PPP needs – and they may be eager
for an opportunity to help their local communities.
As described above, the Global Fund started with a relatively narrow scope, as a
funding mechanism for global efforts to fight major HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and
malaria. However, as its objectives broadened to include improving local delivery
of health products and services, it needed to find partners with a local presence in
recipient countries. Chevron is one of the companies which it identified and the two
have since built a strong relationship to improve local healthcare delivery.
9. “Evolution is essential”
The world that PPPs exist to serve is continually changing. So are the priorities,
capabilities and outlooks of partner organizations. PPPs must learn to change
with them.
Therefore, turnover among partners should be seen as normal. As the mission,

context and goals of a PPP evolve, the organization will require new capabilities from
new partners. At the same time, the contributions of its existing partners may become
less relevant. While we have stressed the importance of seeking, and securing, more
private sector involvement in PPPs, ultimately quality is much more important than
quantity. PPPs should keep careful track of their needs and be prepared to seek new
partners, and end relationships with old ones, as circumstances warrant. Respect
for a person or organization’s past good work is admirable, but it should supersede
maximizing the partnership’s ability to fulfill its mission. Equally, private sector
partners should be clear and transparent on their own exit criteria. They should
be ready to leave a PPP if they can no longer maintain a sufficiently high level of
commitment (e.g., due to changing corporate priorities) or if the contributions they
bring to the table are no longer relevant to the mission and needs of the partnership.
When the Global Village Energy Partnership (GVEP) launched in 2000, its mission
was to help governments develop plans to increase access to energy in remote rural
areas. Through the course of their work, officials came to realize that providing
technical assistance to small and medium businesses was more pressing, and more
impactful in the near term, than formulating central plans. Therefore, GVEP changed
its mission and its organizational structure and began to seek out new private sector
partners with whom it could engage. Today, all of GVEP’s partners embrace this
change, despite perceiving it as radical it was when announced in 2006.
34
Conclusion:
The evolving PPP landscape
The public-private partnership model – a relative newcomer in efforts to address
social challenges – has already proven its worth. All evidence suggests that the use of
PPPs will, and should, continue.
Yet concerns about the viability of the model, at least as implemented today, are not
totally misplaced. PPPs emerged as an innovative way to meet real needs. Innovation
and flexibility must continue to be hallmarks of the PPP model if it is to continue to
maximize its value. However, we are concerned that the very success of the model
may become a liability, if the explosion in the number of partnerships leads to a glut of
overlapping organizations and a great deal of duplication. This appears a very real risk.
We believe that stakeholders will become increasingly discriminating in their use

of PPPs and will seek out other mechanisms for public-private collaboration. While
partnership is a powerful tool to address social challenges, it has perhaps been
over-emphasized in recent years and – as the transaction costs involved becoming
increasingly clear – players on all sides are likely to explore other, less costly, ways to
work together.
The degree to which partnerships have truly taken to heart private sector best practice
will be tested by their willingness to submit to the forces of creative destruction that
continually reinvigorate free markets. In an increasingly crowded landscape, we hope
to see the less effective partnerships ceasing operation or merging with more effective
ones. We also hope to see, for instance, good PPPs with related missions merging to
pool their resources and capabilities and achieving synergies, in much the same way
as when private sector companies merge. At the moment such market pressure for
creative destruction does not seem to exist in the PPP landscape. However, a strong
donor push to fund only the most effective PPPs could help drive future consolidation.
Equally, we hope to see PPPs that accomplish their original mission, or create self-
sustaining mechanisms to do so (such as a well-functioning private market), declare
“mission accomplished” and cease operating. Although many PPPs were intended to
be time-limited, many now seem to have become permanent institutions. It’s difficult
to see good things come to an end but hard as it is, most partnerships should see
success as equivalent to obsolescence.
These caveats aside, we expect to see continued growth in PPP formation and activity,
and we judge that growth to be broadly positive. We do, however, predict that the
landscape will change somewhat. As one interviewee put it, “we are on the cusp of a
change in mindset” and a growing number of stakeholders are realizing the full extent
of the contributions that the private sector can provide. We also believe that one of
the keys to ensuring future success is to increase, deepen, and broaden private sector
involvement in PPPs and urge all PPP leaders – from all sectors – to embrace the best
practices outlined as a means of doing so. As partnerships increase the scope of the
private sector’s role, this should create a virtuous cycle, demonstrating to other PPPs
the benefits of greater engagement with the private sector. In particular, we believe
that PPPs will increasingly seek help from the private sector in delivering services and
products, improving their logistical operations, and scaling-up existing initiatives.

Inevitably, as partnerships look to involve the private sector in new areas, they will
need to seek out additional partners who can bring new skills and capabilities. Local
talent (both local subsidiaries of large multinationals and smaller, local companies) is
a large and relatively untapped source of potential help that we expect to see become
more involved. This change may require partnerships to adapt the way in which they
engage and manage their partners. It may also require them to think more creatively
about how they can create meaningful benefits for private companies at the local level.
Furthermore, we expect that large, trans-national, multi-stakeholder partnerships

will become more common in sectors beyond global public health – where most are
now concentrated. There is no equivalent of the Global Fund or GAVI for economic
development or for education. If the large PPP model proves effective as a means
of scaling up and accelerating efforts to achieve the health-related Millennium
Development Goals, we see no reason why it could not be replicated in other areas. The
same principles of centralizing resources, reducing duplication, creating markets and
performance-based funding that underlie the large health partnerships have equal
relevance in other areas.
Finally, as the private sector increasingly comes to appreciate and be comfortable with
the value of PPPs in achieving their own business goals, we expect to see companies
making more strategic use of PPPs. As demonstrated by NetMark, partnerships can
be very effective means for companies to create well-functioning and sustainable
markets. Going forward, we hope to see more companies looking to partner with the
public and civil sectors to create such markets. As companies begin to identify and
realize these opportunities, we expect to see a shift in the private sector mindset –
from viewing their resource contributions to PPPs as “donations” to regarding them
more as strategic investments. While we would not wish to see the private sector lose
all sense of the social value of their contributions, we believe that this shift in mindset
can only help strengthen the focus on “mutual benefit” as an underlying principle of
strong partnerships.
However the development landscape evolves in the future, it seems likely that the
public-private partnership will remain an essential and powerful tool. We believe that
such partnerships will do even more good in the future than they have done to date.
And we are certain that the private sector has an increasingly significant role to play in
tackling major societal challenges.
36
Appendix 1:
List of interviewees
Ms. Sarah Adams CEO, GVEP International
Mr. Geoff Adlide Head of Advocacy and Public Policy, GAVI Alliance
Dr. Mercy Ahun33 Head of Country Support, GAVI Alliance
Ms. Alice Albright33 Chief Financial & Investment Officer, GAVI Alliance
Mr. Baschar Al-Frangi Communications Manager, Center for Cooperation with
the Private Sector/Public-Private Partnership, GTZ
Mr. Rajesh Anandan Former Head of Private Sector Partnerships, the Global
Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Mr. Ross Andrews Head of Programme, SEED Initiative
Ms. Jaya Banerji Communications Manager, Medicines for Malaria
Venture
Ms. Debby Bielak Manager, Bridgespan
Dr. John Borrazzo Senior Environmental Health Advisor, USAID
Dr. Richard Feachem Director, Global Health Group at UCSF Global Health
Sciences Foundation, Former Executive Director, Global
Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Dr. Silvio Gabriel Executive Vice President Malaria Initiatives, Novartis
Mr. Ashutosh Garg Chairman and Managing Director, Guardian Lifecare
Mr. Shawn Gilchrist *
Senior Madical Advisor Public Policy, Sanofi Pasteur
Dr. Alan Gillespie* Chairman of the Board, IFFIm
Mr. Ken Gustavsen Director of Health Partnerships, Merck
Mr. Bill Guyton President, World Cocoa Foundation
Dr. Harish Hande Managing Director, SELCO
Mr. David Hayward Manager, Private Sector Resource Mobilization, The
Evans Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Ms. Berthilde Communication Manager, TNT
Heijmeskamp
Dr. Chris Hentschel CEO, Medicines for Malaria Venture
Mr. Marc Hofstetter *
Deputy Executive Secretary, GAVI Alliance
Mr. Hugh Jagger Independent Consultant for Jordan Education Initiative
Ms. Lene Jensen Interim Coordinator, Global Public-Private Partnership
for Handwashing with Soap
Ms. Sonali Korde Bureau for Global Health, USAID
Dr. Julian Lob-Levyt *
Executive Secretary, GAVI Alliance
Mr. Matt Lonner Manager, Global Partnerships, Chevron
Mr. John Lunde Director International Networks, Mars
Dr. Bérangère Senior Manager, Investments and Partnerships
Magarinos Program, GAIN
Dr. Jacques-François President, Parteurop

Martin
Ms. Carol McCauley Community Engagement Specialist, Chevron
Mr. David McGuire Project Director, NetMark
Mr. Bruce McNamer CEO, Technoserve
Ms. Laura Melo Private Sector Donor Relations Officer, World Food
Programme
Dr. Stefanie Meredith Director of Public Health Partnerships, International
Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers
Dr. Neeraj Mistry VP of Knowledge, Evaluation and Performance, Global
Business Coalition
Mr. Nadim Mohr Director, Marketing and Sales, Tana Netting
Mr. Alex Palacios33 Director of external relations, GAVI Alliance
Ms. Melissa Powell Project Manager, Private Sector Relations, Global
Compact
Ms. British Robinson Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, USAID
Dr. Georgio Roscigno CEO, FIND
Ms. Nina Schwalbe *
Deputy Executive Secretary, GAVI Alliance
Dr. Myriam Sidibe Lifebuoy Global Social Mission Manager, Unilever
Mr. Michael Stevenson VP, Global Education, Cisco
Ms. Lakshmi Sundaram Associate Director, Global Health Initiative, World
Economic Forum
Ms. Kathryn Taylor* Vice President, Head of Market Access, GSK Vaccines
Prof. Tim Unwin Professor, Royal Holloway, University of London
Mr. Juan Manuel Deputy Director, Netmark
Urrutia
Ms. Lori Warrens Executive Director, Partnership for Quality Medical
Donations
Dr. Stephan Weise Manager, the Sustainable Tree Crops Program
Mr. George Wellde* Vice Chairman of Fixed Income, Goldman Sachs
The team also leveraged the expertise of McKinsey & Company’s internal network,
interviewing numerous individuals with experience working with PPPs.
* Interviewed in the context of work conducted for GAVI on the added value of its public-private
partnership in 2008 - titles and roles of some individuals have since changed however, they are
listed here based on their titles in the context of that work.
38
Appendix 2: Bibliography
Bekefi, Tamara. Business as a Partner in Tackling Micronutrient Deficiency: Lessons
in Multisector Partnership. The Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, Harvard
University. 2006.
Broadwater, Ian and Kaul, Inge. Global Public-Private Partnerships: The Current
Landscape Study Outline. Office of Development Studies United Nations
Development Programme. February 2005.
Buse, Kent and Harmer, Andrew. Seven habits of highly effective global public–
private health partnerships: Practice and potential. Social Science & Medicine, Vol 64:
259–271. 2007.
Buse, Kent and Lee, Kelley. Business and Global Health Governance. Centre on Global
Change & Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Dept of Ethics,
Trade, Human Rights and Health Law, WHO. december 2005.
Buse, Kent. Global Health Partnerships: Increasing their Health through Improved
Governance. dFID Health Resource Centre. 2004.
Buse, Kent. Global Health: Making Partnerships Work. Overseas Development

Institute. January 2007.
Caines, Karen and Lush, Louisiana. Impact of Public-Private Partnerships

Addressing Access to Pharmaceuticals in Selected Low and Middle Income Countries.
Initiative on Public-Private Partnerships for Health (IPPPH). September 2004.
Caines, Karen. Assessing the Impact of Global Health Partnerships. dFID Health
Resource Centre. 2004.
Commission on the Private Sector and Development. Unleashing Entrepreneurship:

Making the Private Sector Work for the Poor. Report to the Secretary General of the
United Nations. March 2004.
Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy. Business’s Social Contract:

Capturing the Corporate Philanthropy Opportunity. Based on research by McKinsey
& Company. Forthcoming.
Department for International Development. Business Call to Action. Accessed 15 May,

2008 at: http://www.dfid.gov.uk/mdg/call-to-action-business.asp
Economist. “United Nations Global Compact: Third world way.” July 20, 2007.
Fairlamb, Alan et al. Independent Review of Medicines for Malaria Venture. dFID
Health Resource Centre. May 2005.
Global Forum for Health Research. Health Partnerships Review: Focusing

collaborative e¬fforts on research and innovation for the health of the poor. Stephen
Matlin, Andrés de Francisco, Lakshmi Sundaram, Hannah-Sarah Faich, Monika
Gehner (eds.). May 2008.
The Global Fund. Annual Report 2006. March 2007.
Harvard School of Public Health, the Harvard Business School, UNAIDS and the
World Economic Forum. HIV/AIDS and Business in Africa and Asia: A Guide to
Partnerships. November 2003.
Helinski Process Review Conference 2007. “Inclusive Governance: Bridging Global

Divides.” November 2007.
Jopson, Barney. “Unilever looks to clean up in Africa.” Financial Times. 15 November

2007.
Kaul, Inge. “Exploring the Policy Space Between Markets and States: Global Public-
Private Partnerships.” In The New Public Finance: Responding to Global Challenges.
Inge Kaul and Pedro Conceição, eds. United Nations Development Programme.
Oxford University Press. 2006.
Kelly, Michael and Schaan, Jean-Louis. Strategic Alliances that Work: Should you
Build a Strategic Alliance? Richard Ivey School of Business. University of Western
Ontario. March 2005.
Lane, Christopher and Glassman, Amanda. Bigger And Better? Scaling Up And
Innovation In Health Aid. Health Affairs, Vol 26, no. 4: 935-948. 2007.
Lu, Chunling et al. Effect of the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation on
diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis vaccine coverage: an independent assessment.
Lancet, Vol. 368: 1088–95. 2006.
Martens, Jens. Multistakeholder Partnerships – Future Models of Multilateralism?

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung Dialogue on Globalization. January 2007.
McKinsey & Company for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Global Health
Partnerships: Assessing Country Consequences. December 2005.
McKinsey & Company. Independent External Evaluation of the Stop TB Partnership.

April 2008.
Moran, Mary et al. The New Landscape of Neglected Disease Drug Development.
Pharmaceutical R&D Policy Project, the Wellcome Trust. September 2005.
40
Pearson, Mark. Economic and Financial Aspects of the Global Health Partnerships.
dFID Health Resource Centre. 2004.
Richter, Judith. ‘We the Peoples’ or ‘We the Corporations’? Critical reflections
on UN-business ‘partnerships.’ Geneva Infant Feeding Association (GIFA) and
International Baby Food Action Network (IBFAN). January 2003.
Ryan, Leo et al. Evaluation of the Organizational Effectiveness and Efficiency of the
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. Results from Study Area 1 of
the Five-Year Evaluation. Macro International Inc. October 2007.
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. developing Successful Global Health Alliances.
April 2002.
The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Annual Report 2006.
March 2007.
The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Mobilizing Additional
Resources for the Global Fund: A Planning Guide for the Private Sector. Prepared by
the Private Sector Delegation to the Board of
The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. September 2005.
The International Finance Corporation, the World Bank. The Business of Health in
Africa: Partnering with the private Sector to Improve People’s Lives. december 2007.
Thomas, Ann and Curtis, Valerie. Public-Private Partnerships for Health: A Review of
Best Practices in the Health Sector. Water and Sanitation Program, World Bank. July
2003.
UN Global Compact. 2007 Global Compact Leaders Summit. June 2007.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. Governance in Public-Private

Partnerships for Infrastructure Development. 2004.
Unwin, Tim. Partnerships in Development Practice: Evidence from multi-stakeholder

ICT4D partnership practice in Africa. UNESCO Publications for the World Summit on
the Information Society. 2005.
USAID. The Global Development Alliance: Public-Private Alliances for

Transformational Development. Office of Global Development Alliances. January
2006.
Vian, Taryn et al. Public-private partnerships to build human capacity in low income
countries: findings from the Pfizer program. Human Resources for Health, 5:8. 2007.
Widdus, Roy. Public-Private Partnerships: An Overview. Initiative on Public-Private

Partnerships for Health (IPPPH), Global Forum for Health Research. June 2005.
Williams, Oliver F. The UN Global Compact: The Challenge and the Promise. Business
Ethics Quarterly, Volume 14, Issue 4. 2004.
Wilton Park. Public-Private Investment Partnerships in Health System

Strengthening. Programme for 909th Wilton Park Conference. 9 – 11 April 2008.
Witte, Jan Martin and Reinicke, Wolfgang. Business Unusual: Facilitating United
Nations Reform through Partnerships. Global Public Policy Institute for the United
Nations Global Compact Office. 2005.
World Economic Forum and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs. Guiding Principles for Public-Private Collaboration for
Humanitarian Action. December 2007.
World Economic Forum Global Corporate Citizen Initiative. Partnering for Success:
Business Perspectives on Multistakeholder Partnerships. January 2005.
World Economic Forum Global Health Initiative. Public-Private Partnerships in

Health: The Private Sector’s Role in Public-Private Partnerships. 2007.
World Economic Forum Global Health Initiative. Private Sector Intervention Case
Examples. Accessed at: http://www.weforum.org/en/initiatives/globalhealth/
Case%20Study%20Library/index.htm
World Economic Forum. Harnessing Private Sector Capabilities to Meet Public Needs:
The Potential of Partnerships to Advance Progress on Hunger, Malaria and Basic
Education. January 2006.
Zhang, Xueqing. Critical Success Factors for Public–Private Partnerships

in Infrastructure Development. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management. Vol. 131, No. 1. January 2005.
42
Appendix 3: PPP profiles
Public-Private Foundation for Innovative New Webpage www.finddiagnostics.org

Partnership Diagnostics (FIND)
Mission To drive the development and implementation of accurate and affordable
diagnostic tests, that are appropriate to patient care in low-resource settings
PPP history
Founding year 2003
History/ Founded at the 2003 World Health Assembly in Geneva.
evolution
PPP set-up and activities
Organizational FIND is an independent, non-profit organization based in Geneva, Switzerland.
set-up Its board is composed of public health experts, business leaders, and influential
scientists. It is administered by a secretariat of ~40 staff in Geneva with another
~20 staff located in Uganda and India. FIND partners with specialized agencies,
academia, civil society and industry to invest in improved diagnostic tests and
services for health systems in developing countries.
Sector Global Health Primary Product Budget n/a

archetype development
Secondary n/a
archetype
Description of FIND seeks to develop new diagnostic approaches that are in principle and to
activities transform them into effective products for detecting poverty-related diseases.
FIND utilizes best practices from the private sector in its operations; a separate
business unit manages each project portfolio with product lines, well-defined
targets and timing at each state of the R&D process. Clinical trials evaluate
potential new diagnostic products for efficacy, cost effectiveness, ease of use and
public health impact.
Role of private sector in PPP
Private sector BD; Tauns; Cepheid; Other Ministries of Health, CDC; various
partners Chemogen; Eiken Chemical partners health foundations; public research
Co. Ltd.; Google USA; Hain institutes; universities
Lifescience; bioMérieux; Zeiss
Private sector FIND has 5 Board members; two are from the private sector. Further, the private
contribution to sector is involved through a scientific advisory committee.
governance and
management
Private sector FIND liaises on research and development of novel diagnostic technologies with
contribution of both public and private sector partners. On the development, evaluation and
capabilities to demonstration FIND then forms PPPs. Private sector partners supply primarily
PPP operations R&D, manufacturing and distribution capabilities. The subsequent clinical testing
is carried out at FIND testing sites. Further, private sector contributions include
financing and technical experience.
Public-Private GAIN (Global Alliance for Webpage www.gainhealth.org

Partnership Improved Nutrition)
Mission To reduce malnutrition through the use of food fortification and other strategies
aimed at improving the health and nutrition of populations at risk.
PPP history
Founding year 2002
History/ GAIN is a foundation under Swiss law founded at a special session on children at
evolution the United Nations in 2002. GAIN originally started in Atlanta University with Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation support. GAIN formed its first private sector partner-
ships in 2005
Organizational The GAIN secretariat has ~50 staff who manage day-to-day operations of the
set-up foundation. GAIN is headquartered in Geneva, with regional offices in New Delhi,
Beijing and Johannesburg. The GAIN Business Alliance is a global network dedi-
cated to finding market-based solutions to address the critical issue of malnu-
trition worldwide. Further, GAIN works with a range of organizations, including
businesses and civil society groups, to build partnerships on specific projects that
contribute to improved nutrition.
Sector Global Health Primary Coordination Budget GAIN expenditure for

archetype 2007-2008 was USD 22.8
Secondary n/a million. To date, GAIN has
archetype provided grants totaling
USD 40 million.
Description of GAIN provides financial and technical support through a three-fold approach:
activities building partnerships, enabling innovation and improving nutrition. GAIN uses
markets to deliver improved nutrition based on public health objectives in
countries with populations at risk. GAIN’s focus is on Asia, in particular China and
India, Sub-Saharan Africa and Latin America.
Private sector Group Danone; TetraPak; Other Helen Keller International; Micronu-
partners Unilever; Cargill Inc., PepsiCo,, partners trient Initiative; National Fortification
Mars Inc., Firmenich, DSM, Alliance; UNICEF; World Bank Insti-
Ajinomoto Group, Britannia tute; World Food Program; World
Industires Ltd Health Organization; CDC Atlanta
Private sector GAIN has 17 Board members, of which currently 5 are from the private sector. The
contribution to private sector contributes to strategy development through the GAIN Business
governance and Alliance; within individual partnerships there is close collaboration on project gov-
management ernance and management.
Private sector Private sector engagement with GAIN includes companies sending staff to GAIN
contribution of for competence sharing and individual partnerships with companies on specific
capabilities to projects, e.g., working with Tetra Pak on school feeding projects in Nigeria; working
PPP operations with Danone and the Grameen Bank on Grameen Danone Foods Ltd, which forti-
fies yogurt for the poor in Bangladesh; working with Cargill, a leading producer and
trader of agricultural, food and risk management products and services, to transfer
procurement best practices to GAIN.
44
Public-Private GAVI Alliance Webpage www.gavialliance.org

Partnership
Mission To save children’s lives and protect people’s health by increasing access to immu-
nization in poor countries.
PPP history
Founding year 2002
History/ GAVI launched at the 2000 World Economic Forum with an initial grant from the Bill
evolution & Melinda Gates Foundation. The first GAVI-supported vaccines were provided in
April 2001. Since 2006, GAVI has been engaging in health system strengthening to
address health system barriers to improving immunization.
Organizational The GAVI Alliance Board establishes all policies, oversees the operations of the Al-
set-up liance and monitors program implementation. GAVI also relies on two other boards
- the IFFIm Board and GAVI Fund Affiliate Board - who administer the International
Finance Facility for Immunisation (IFFIm). The GAVI Secretariat is responsible for day-
to-day operations, including: mobilizing resources; coordinating program approval and
disbursement; legal and financial management; and administration for the two govern-
ing Boards. Offices are located in Geneva, Switzerland and Washington, DC, USA.
Sector Global Health Primary Coordina- Budget To date, GAVI has ap-
archetype tion proved a total of USD 3.7
Secondary n/a billion in support to 75
archetype countries. GAVI expendi-
ture in 2007 was USD 1.2
billion
Description of GAVI was designed to improve access to new and underused vaccines and has
activities since become a leader in supporting cutting-edge innovations in vaccine financing
and delivery. Its activities include support to eligible developing countries who wish
to introduce new and underused vaccines and/or target health system barriers to
improved immunization.
Private sector Developed country vaccine Other World Bank (WB); UNICEF; The Bill
partners manufacturers (e.g., GSK, Merck partners & Melinda Gates Foundation; World
and Crucell) and developing Health Organization; Governments;
country industry (such as SSI and Civil Society Organizations; Research
Bio-Manguinhos/Fiocruz) and technical health institutes
Private sector The GAVI Alliance Board has a total 38 members who meet twice per year. Two
contribution to Board members are from the private sector, representing the developed and
governance and developing world vaccine industry, and there are a further 10 unaffiliated Board
management members. In addition, over one third of the members of the GAVI Fund Board,
which is responsible for setting policies and strategies for investment, fundraising
and financial management, have a private sector background and all members
serve in their personal capacity (i.e., unaffiliated with any organization).
Private sector The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations (IF-
contribution of PMA) provides a forum for representation of the industrialized country vaccine
capabilities to industry in GAVI. Through the Alliance, member partners address ways to ac-
PPP operations celerate the development and introduction of new vaccines specifically needed by
developing countries with a particular focus on the poorest people and countries.
The Developing Country Vaccine Manufacturers Network (DCVMN), which repre-
sents the developing country vaccine manufacturers, is also an important partner
for GAVI.
Public-Private The Global Public-Private Webpage www.globalhandwashing.org

Partnership Partnership for Handwashing
with Soap
Mission To reduce the incidence of diarrheal diseases in poor communities through Public-
Private Partnerships (PPPs) promoting handwashing with soap; to implement large
scale handwashing interventions and use lessons to promote the approach at
global level.
PPP history
Founding year 2001
History/ In April 2000 the World Bank (WB) and the Water and Sanitation Program orga-
evolution nized an international forum on “Investing in Sanitation in Developing Countries.”
The Rural Water and Sanitation Thematic Group of the WB contracted the London
School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine to lead sessions on hygiene and sanitation
promotion. Many agencies contributed with their case studies. One of the Forum’s
main conclusions was that partners working in development assistance need to
explore new ways of joining forces to satisfy a huge unmet need for sanitation and
handwashing in developing countries. As a result the Global PPP for Handwashing
with Soap was formed.
Organizational The Partnership does not have an independent secretariat; World Bank staff coor-
set-up dinate daily operations.
Sector Global Health Primary Coordination Budget n/a

archetype
Secondary n/a
archetype
Description of The aim of the partnership is to encourage private industry and the public sector
activities to work together with other partners to develop programs to promote handwash-
ing. Non-branded programs are open to all interested parties, both public and
private, targeting those most at risk across the whole population. The programs
reach out to target audiences through mass media, direct consumer contact and
government channels of communication. The programs also gather knowledge
through detailed monitoring and evaluation.
Private sector Unilever; P&G; Colgate- Other USAID; WHO; London School of
partners Palmolive partners Hygiene & Tropical Diseases; CDC;
UNICEF; World Bank
Private sector There is limited involvement of the private sector in the Partnership’s governance
contribution to and management.
governance and
management
Private sector The private sector supports the Partnership in developing local markets for
contribution of handwashing, thereby changing hygiene behavior through the promotion of soap.
capabilities to Beyond financing, the private sector provides expertise and training programs for
PPP operations large-scale awareness campaigns and is responsible for monitoring and reporting
of program success, which is crucial to the Partnership’s advocacy efforts.
46
Public-Private GTZ & DaimlerChrysler Webpage n/a

Partnership Partnership
Mission Prevention of further HIV infection among employees and their families and man-
agement of HIV positive employees through: 1) Education/awareness 2) Integrated
healthcare 3) Risk management 4) Community involvement.
PPP history
Founding year 2001
History/ DaimlerChrysler South Africa and GTZ developed a partnership to address the
evolution growing challenge of HIV/AIDS prevalence within the DaimlerChrysler workforce.
This four-year program has since inspired several other private sector companies
in South Africa to initiate similar collaborations with GTZ.
Organizational DaimlerChrysler conducts program management, while GTZ takes an advisory
set-up role.
Sector Global Health Primary Delivery Budget The original four-year bud-
archetype get totaled approx.
Secondary n/a USD 600,000. Daim-
archetype lerChrysler SA (80%)
and GTZ (20%) fund the
interventions through
guaranteed minimum
expenditures.
Description of DaimlerChrysler SA and GTZ established a PPP to prevent new infections and
activities provide care, support and treatment for HIV infected employees and dependants.
The partnership also played an advocacy role regarding at the workplace and in
the broader community.
Private sector DaimlerChrysler SA Other GTZ
partners partners
Private sector DaimlerChrysler was fully involved in governance and management of the project,
contribution to with high-level endorsement by the CEO and country head.
governance and
management
Private sector DaimlerChrysler SA provided most of the resources for the daily operations, as
contribution of well as all project relevant expertise, e.g. project management, HR, employee
capabilities to communication. Contributions were agreed based on GTZ’s input.
PPP operations
Public-Private Mectizan Donation Program Webpage www.mectizan.org

Partnership (MDP)
Mission To provide Mectizan for onchocerciasis treatment to all who need it for as long
as needed and to provide Mectizan and albendazole for the elimination of lym-
phatic filariasis (LF) in areas that are co-endemic for onchocerciasis and lymphatic
filariasis.
PPP history
Founding year 1988
History/ Created in 1988 to provide medical, technical and administrative oversight of Mer-
evolution ck’s donation of Mectizan for treatment of onchocerciasis. In 1998, its mandate
was broadened to include donations of Mectizan for the elimination of lymphatic
filariasis in areas that are co-endemic. Mectizan is co-administered with albenda-
zole, which is donated by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), in these settings.
Organizational MDP serves as the secretariat (4 staff) for both the Mectizan Expert Committee
set-up (MEC) and the Mectizan Expert Committee/Albendazole Coordination (MEC/AC).
The Mectizan Expert Committee is an independent body of seven public health
experts that meets at least annually, established by Merck & Co., Inc., providing
technical and medical oversight to the Mectizan Donation Program.
Sector Global Health Primary Funding Budget n/a

archetype
Secondary n/a
archetype
Description of The Mectizan Donation Program ensures that: Mectizan is available for the treat-
activities ment and prevention of blindness and skin disease caused by onchocerciasis
worldwide; coordinates combination therapy of Mectizan and albendazole is avail-
able for the interruption of transmission of LF in countries where onchocerciasis
and LF are co-endemic; good medical practice and approved prescribing proce-
dures are used when albendazole and/or Mectizan are distributed.
Private sector Merck & Co., Inc.; GlaxoS- Other CDC; UNICEF; World Bank; WHO;
partners mithKline (GSK) partners several NGOs; national Ministries
of Health
Private sector The private sector provides in-country advocacy for MDP, reviews new applica-
contribution to tions for Mectizan, reviews processes for drug delivery and monitoring, develops
governance and policies on the administration and appropriate use of the drug, discusses and
management develops policies on other issues as needed and helps build relationships and alli-
ances with MDP partners.
Private sector The private sector donates drugs for distribution and provides oversight and plan-
contribution of ning expertise for managing local distribution as well as for developing successful
capabilities to communication programs for proper drug application. Further, Merck & Co, Inc.
PPP operations has a volunteering program offering employees the opportunity to actively partici-
pate in the local drug-delivery.
48
Public-Private Medicines for Malaria Venture Webpage www.mmv.org

Partnership (MMV)
Mission To bring public, private and philanthropic sector partners together to fund and
manage the discovery, development and registration of new medicines for the
treatment and prevention of malaria in disease-endemic countries.
PPP history
Founding year 1999
History/ Established as a Swiss Foundation in 1999, MMV arose from discussions between
evolution the WHO and the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers As-
sociations (IFPMA). Early partners were the Global Forum for Health Research, the
Rockefeller Foundation, the World Bank, the Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the Well-
come Trust. The rationale for PPP structure included: (1) flexibility in governance
and management, allowing objectives to be met efficiently and rapidly; (2) lower
set-up costs than for a stand-alone R&D institution. Originally focusing on drug
development, since 2006 MMV has been engaging in drug delivery, realizing its
importance in achieving its overall mission of tangible health impact.
Organizational The MMV office in Geneva comprises of ~35 staff responsible for management of
set-up daily operations.
Sector Global Health Primary Product Budget Total expenditure in 2007

archetype development was USD 48 million of
Secondary n/a which related R&D expen-
archetype diture was USD 41 million.
Description of MMV has more than 40 projects in its portfolio, which it states is largest antimalar-
activities ial drug research portfolio ever. Projects are distributed across the three main stag-
es of drug research and development: early discovery projects and mini-portfolios;
projects in translational research; and clinical development projects.
Private sector International Federation of Other World Bank; UK DFID; Swiss Gov-
partners Pharmaceutical Manufactur- partners ernment; USAID; Government of
ers Associations (IFPMA); Spain; Netherlands Government;
GSK,; Novartis; Shin Nippon Irish Aid,; US National Institutes of
Biomedical Laboratories; Health; WHO/RBM; Rockefeller
Sigma-Tau Industrie Farma- Foundation; Wellcome Trust; The
ceutiche; Holley Pharm; Shin Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Poong Pharma; Ranbaxy
Laboratories; BHP Billiton and
Exxon Mobil
Private sector A Board, of a maximum of 12 members, which meets twice a year, governs the
contribution to MMV. The Board also has several sub-committees. The private sector currently
governance and holds 2 seats.
management
Private sector The pharmaceutical industry provides knowledge and expertise in drug discov-
contribution of ery and development, physical assets such as laboratory facilities, compound
capabilities to libraries, and more recently, know-how on drug distribution. Other private sector
PPP operations partners contribute, apart from financial resources, their marketing and commer-
cialization experience
Public-Private NetMark Webpage www.NetMarkafrica.org

Partnership
Mission Reduce malaria in Africa on a sustainable basis by making insecticide-treated nets
(ITNs) more widely available, affordable and desirable through the building of viable
markets and improved targeting of subsidized and free nets under a comprehen-
sive shared risk/shared investment PPP.
PPP history
Founding year 1999
History/ NetMark, a time-limited investment to stimulate long-term private sector involve-
evolution ment in malaria prevention and improved cost-effectiveness of donor investment
includes more than 35 African and 9 international commercial partners. NetMark
was established by USAID for 10 years as public-private partnership with the aim
of creating a sustainable source of and demand for ITNs as part of the global fight
against malaria in Africa.
Organizational The partnership has a global secretariat (7 staff) in Washington DC and 6 local
set-up offices (2-7 staff each) in South Africa, Ethiopia, Ghana, Nigeria, Senegal, and
Uganda.
Sector Global Health Primary Delivery Budget Total budget of USD 74.5
archetype million, of which 75% has
Secondary n/a been disbursed.
archetype
Description of NetMark aims to reduce the burden of malaria in sub-Saharan Africa by increasing
activities the commercial supply of and public demand for insecticide treated nets (ITNs).
This is achieved primarily through partnerships with commercial companies and
national malaria control programs and national scale public education and promo-
tional efforts.
Private sector 44 commercial partners in- Other CARE; International Federation of
partners cluding: A-Z Textiles, Clarke partners the Red Cross (IFRC); Roll Back
Mosquito Control, BestNet, Malaria; UNICEF; WHO; World
TanaNetting; Syngenta; Bank; USAID/ President’s Malaria
BASF; BAYER; Exxon Mobil; Initiative; local governments; Acad-
Vestergaard Frandsen; Sun- emy for Educational Development
flag Nigeria; FCB Advertising; (AED); London School of Hygiene &
Exp Momentum, and 3-5 Tropical Medicine; Johns Hopkins
African distributors in each University, Department of Interna-
country. tional Health
Private sector The private sector has limited involvement in NetMark’s governance and manage-
contribution to ment; they participate mainly in the Technical Advisory Group.
governance and
management
Private sector The private sector provides manufacturing and distribution capacity, production
contribution of technology, local access through a multitude of retail outlets, brand campaigns, lo-
capabilities to gistical support for distribution of free and subsidized ITNs, and assistance to local
PPP operations partners on technical issues and training to improve management and marketing
capacity.
50
Public-Private The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Webpage www.theglobalfund.org

Partnership Tuberculosis and Malaria
Mission To dramatically increase resources to fight three of the world’s most devastating
diseases, and to direct those resources to areas of greatest need.
PPP history
Founding year 2002
History/ The need for resources for AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria was highlighted by the
evolution leaders of G8 countries in their 2000 meeting in Okinawa, Japan and by Afri-
can leaders in Abuja, Nigeria in April 2001. In Abuja, UN Secretary General Kofi
Annan called for the creation of a global fund to channel additional resources. A
UN General Assembly Special Session on AIDS in June 2001 concluded with a
commitment to create such a fund, which the G8 endorsed and helped finance at
their meeting in Genoa in July 2001. A Transitional Working Group was formed to
develop a framework for how the Global Fund would be structured and operate on
an ongoing basis. A permanent secretariat was established in January 2002 and
three months later, the board approved the first round of grants to 36 countries.
Organizational The Global Fund’s secretariat is responsible for day-to-day operations, including
set-up mobilizing resources from the public and private sectors, managing grants, provid-
ing financial, legal and administrative support, and reporting information on the
Global Fund’s activities to the Board and the public. The secretariat’s staff, based
in Geneva, comprise of ~370 employees representing ~80 nationalities.
Sector Global Health Primary Funding Budget To date, the Global Fund
archetype has committed USD 15
Secondary Delivery billion in funding
archetype
Description of The Global Fund was designed as a financing PPP. Local oversight is undertaken
activities by Country Coordinating Mechanisms (CCMs), which are committees consisting
of local stakeholder organizations in-country that include government, NGO, UN,
faith-based and private sector players.
Private sector (PRODUCT)RED, Chevron Other The Bill and Melinda Gates Founda-
partners Corporation, Standard Bank partners tion; Governments; GBC; WEF;
of South Africa, M.A.C. Aids UNAIDS; Stop TB Partnership;
Fund, Anglo American PLC RBM Partnership; United Nations
Foundation; World Bank; WHO;
International HIV/AIDS Alliance, Ma-
laria No More
Private sector The private sector has a full seat on the Global Fund Board, which is supported by
contribution to a ‘Private Sector Delegation’ of around 50 companies. A significant proportion of
governance and the Secretariat is also recruited from the private sector while over 80% of CCMs
management include private sector representatives.
Private sector On a global level, the private sector contributes to the management of the Global
contribution of Fund, e.g., through financial expertise for fund management. On a local level, the
capabilities to private sector is involved in some CCMs, contributing expertise and capacity for
PPP operations financial planning and project management. The Global Fund is currently building
a new global partnership with Chevron that is to become its first global corpo-
rate champion. In addition, the Global Fund works with private sector Local Fund
Agents to oversee, verify and report on grant performance in each country.”.
Public-Private Global Village Energy Partner- Webpage www.gvepinternational.org

Partnership ship (GVEP)
Mission To connect a wide network of partners to facilitate delivery of the finance, skills
and knowledge they need to provide sustainable modern energy services in rural
and peri-urban areas of the developing world.
PPP history
Founding year 2000
History/ The origins of GVEP lie in the 1990s Village Power Conferences, which brought
evolution together international participants to share lessons and best practices to meeting
rural energy needs. In 2000, organizations including the World Bank, bilateral do-
nors, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Winrock International and private
companies set up a 10 year program to increase modern energy access, the
GVEP. Initially established as Type 2 Initiative at 2005 World Summit on Sustain-
able Development, the GVEP Partnership Board decided a new legal entity, GVEP
International, to increase funding opportunities and in July 2006 a new manage-
ment team and office were established.
Organizational The secretariat of ~16 staff coordinates activities globally; the Partnership Board
set-up provides guidance and input. Regional offices are in South Asia and East Africa
(mid 2008), and local coordinators are in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Sector Economic Primary Coordination Budget n/a

development archetype
Secondary n/a
archetype
Description of GVEP was established as a 10 year program to increase modern energy access.
activities Since 2006, GVEP has also provided financial support, capacity building and tech-
nical assistance to energy SMEs in developing countries.
Private sector GVEP currently has ~2,000 Other World Bank; United Nations De-
partners registered partners from over partners velopment Programme; bilateral
128 countries, including Shell donors; the National Renewable
Foundation, Selco, Essent, Energy Laboratory
EDF Energy and hundreds of
beneficiary SMEs.
Private sector The Partnership Board serves in an advisory capacity to provide guidance to the
contribution to Trustees and Management Team of GVEP International. It consists of 16 mem-
governance and bers, of which 3 are from the private sector.
management
Private sector Private sector partners provide local project support both through capacity and
contribution of expertise initiated and coordinated through GVEP International.
capabilities to
PPP operations
52
Public-Private SEED Initiative Webpage www.seedinit.org

Partnership
Mission To inspire, promote and build capacity to support innovative ways in which diverse
groups are working together to achieve sustainable development.
PPP history
Founding year 2005
History/ SEED was founded by International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), UN
evolution Environmental Program (UNEP) and UN Development Program (UNDP) to deliver
concrete progress towards the internationally-agreed, aspirational goals in the
UN’s Millennium. Declaration and the commitments made at the World Summit on
Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in 2002.
Organizational Secretariat for global coordination comprises an Executive Director. A Program
set-up Head manages service providers for research, capacity building and awards
programs.
Sector Economic Primary Funding Budget n/a

development archetype
Secondary All archetypes
archetype
Description of SEED focuses on locally-driven, entrepreneurial partnerships for sustainable devel-
activities opment in developing countries. It has an annual, global awards scheme for prom-
ising enterprises that then receive tailored support to help them become estab-
lished and increase their impact. The research program seeks to develop generic
tools and increase technical knowledge and understanding to inform practitioners
and policy-makers. SEED then uses its extensive network, publications and events
to promote these innovative approaches.
Private sector SwissRe (until May 2008) Other United Nations Development Pro-
partners partners gramme; United Nations Envi-
ronment Programme; IUCN; US
State Department; governments of
Germany, the Netherlands, South
Africa, Spain, and the UK.
Private sector Private sector partners have the option of a place on the Governing Board, though
contribution to Swiss Re chose not to exercise this option.
governance and
management
Private sector Local private sector usually involved as partners in winners of the SEED Award,
contribution of and offer local support.
capabilities to
PPP operations
Public-Private Sustainable Tree Crops Pro- Webpage www.treecrops.org

Partnership gram (STCP)
Mission To improve the economic and social wellbeing of smallholders and their communi-
ties and ensure the environmental sustainability of tree crop systems.
PPP history
Founding year 2000
History/ Founded in 2002 as a pilot by USAID and the chocolate industry with the support
evolution of national cocoa authorities, a 2005 external review recommended that the STCP
expand within an institutional framework and increase engagement with the public
sector. Original focus countries for cocoa were Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana,
Guinea and Nigeria; Liberia are now included. A new 5-year phase was initiated
in late 2006, focusing on identifying how a healthy cocoa sector can contribute
to rural incomes and structural transformation of the rural cocoa communities;
and supporting this process through the introduction of innovations and capacity
strengthening. STCP now also works on other tree crops like smallholder oil palm
and rubber.
Organizational The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) manages STCP.
set-up
Sector Economic Primary Product Budget Several million USD per

development archetype development year.
Secondary Coordination
archetype
Description of STCP is a public-private partnership and innovation platform that seeks to gener-
activities ate growth in rural income among tree crop farmers in an environmentally and
socially responsible manner in West/Central Africa. This is achieved by introducing
innovation to enhance productivity, increase marketing efficiency, diversify farmer
income, and strengthen the institutional and policy environment. STCP provides
a framework for collaboration between farmers, the global cocoa industry, local
private sector, national governments, NGOs, research institutes, and development
investors.
Private sector Archer Daniels Midland Co- Other USAID; International Institute of
partners coa; Barry Callebaut; Blom- partners Tropical Agriculture; World Cocoa
mer; Cadbury Schweppes; Foundation; Cocoa Producers Al-
Ferrero; Guittard; Hershey liance; local country governments,
Company; Kraft; Lindt; Mars research institutions and NGOs
Incorporated; Nestle; OLAM
Private sector A steering group meets bi-annually with both public and private sector members
contribution to to provide input to STCP’s strategy and activities.
governance and
management
Private sector The private sector is involved mostly in the operations of the partnership, with
contribution of members bringing technical agriculture and cacao market expertise. They provide
capabilities to expertise and capacity for local farmer training programs, e.g. curriculum develop-
PPP operations ment using a broad base of experience from international partners, such as CABI
Bioscience and the World Cocoa Foundation, and national partners from the
region. They also contribute to policy discussions on topics of regional relevance,
e.g. market efficiencies. The private sector co-finances the program.
54
Public-Private Jordan Education Initiative Webpage www.jei.org.jo

Partnership
Mission To accelerate education reform through a public-private partnership model that
drives innovation and capability.
PPP history
Founding year 2003
History/ The foundation for the Jordan Education Initiative (JEI) was laid at the Annual
evolution Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland in January 2003,
when the Governors of IT and Telecommunications agreed to sponsor an initia-
tive for education reform in a developing country. Jordan was chosen as the pilot
country and was challenged with developing a proposal “of significant scope and
size” that would catalyze a process of change and create value that transcends its
borders. The JEI was formally launched at the meeting of World Economic Forum
at the Dead Sea, Jordan in June 2003.
Organizational The JEI was originally setup as a program coordinating office primarily embedded
set-up within Jordanian Government structures. In January 2008, it was registered as a
not for profit organization.
Sector Education Primary Delivery Budget Total budget of USD 27

archetype million
Secondary Coordination
archetype
Description of
activities
Private sector Various international and local Other Government of Jordan (Ministry of
partners companies with CISCO, Mi- partners Education, Ministry of ICT, Ministry
crosoft, Intel, CA, ZAIN (previ- of Planning); USAID; WEF.
ously Fastlink) and France
Telecom/Jordan Telecom as
largest drivers. Local private
sector firms include Rubicon,
Menhai, Jordon Teleco and
ITG.
Private sector The Board comprises 8 members, evenly split between private and public sector.
contribution to
governance and
management
Private sector The private sector provides financing including in-kind donations of ICT hardware
contribution of and software as well as capacity and expertise for electronic curriculum develop-
capabilities to ment, project management and infrastructure management.
PPP operations
Public-Private Moving the World Webpage www.movingtheworld.org

Partnership
Mission To help accelerate and improve the distribution of humanitarian food relief in emer-
gency situations.
PPP history
Founding year 2002
History/ Realizing TNT’s potential contribution to distribute food globally, TNT’s CEO Peter
evolution Bakker initiated the partnership in 2001 based on mutual fit with WFP.
Organizational Program coordinating staff comes from both TNT and WFP. There is no secretariat
set-up but TNT has a dedicated programming office.
Sector Humanitarian Primary Delivery Budget ~USD 9 million per year

archetype from TNT
Secondary n/a
archetype
Description of TNT aims to support WFP in four forms of support: knowledge transfer; hands-
activities on support in emergency operations; awareness and fundraising; and sustainable
long-term assistance. TNT offers practical support by providing human resources
and equipment for specific projects. In addition, the company offers vital know-how
for logistics, warehousing and distribution systems. TNT also organizes fundraising
activities at both corporate and employee levels. Finally, TNT supports WFP by rais-
ing awareness of the hunger issue, bringing this to the attention of the public, world
leaders and the leaders of industry.
Private sector TNT Other WFP
partners partners
Private sector TNT runs its side of the partnership like any other business unit with the same
contribution to stringent requirements in terms of transparency and accountability.
governance and
management
Private sector TNT provides three areas of support to the partnership: supporting WFP in the
contribution of field to improve distribution; sending specialist employees to transfer skills; and
capabilities to knowledge and raising awareness and funds. Overall, 65% of TNT employees
PPP operations have participated in or donated to projects related to the partnership, adding both
funding and capacity for operations.
56
Public-Private UN Global Compact Webpage www.unglobalcompact.org

Partnership
Mission The UN Global Compact is a purely voluntary initiative with two objectives: 1)
mainstream the ten principles in business activities around the world; 2) catalyze
action in support of broader UN goals, such as the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs)
PPP history
Founding year 2000
History/ The UN Global Compact launched in 2000 in response to Kofi Annan’s chal-
evolution lenge to business to contribute more to tackle social issues. The Global Compact
launched with ~50 companies and has experienced massive growth since then,
now comprising over 5000 companies and stakeholders from more than 120
countries
Organizational The UN Global Compact Office (GCO) employs ~20 staff and provides support
set-up and overall management of the Global Compact initiative. The GCO is responsible
for advocacy and issue leadership, network development and Global Compact
communications infrastructure. The GCO plays a central role in advancing the
partnership agenda across the UN system and has overall responsibility for brand
management and implementation of the integrity measures.
Sector Other Primary Coordination Budget n/a

archetype
Secondary n/a
archetype
Description of Participation in the Global Compact is voluntary. Companies, civil society and
activities other non-business organizations commit to implement a framework to align their
operations and strategies with 10 principles in the areas of human right, labor, the
environment and anti-corruption. The partnership engages its participants in policy
dialogues, local networks and partnership projects. Companies also commit to pro-
vide annual updates on implementation, or risk being delisted.
Private sector The partnership consists of Other Office of the High Commissioner for
partners almost 5000 participations partners Human Rights (OHCHR); Interna-
including tional Labour Organization (ILO);
over 4700 companies. UN Environmental Program (UNEP);
UN Office on Drugs and Crime; UN
Development Program (UNDP), UN
Industrial Development Organiza-
tion (UNIDO) and many sub-national
public sector organizations.
Private sector The Global Compact Board comprises 20 members, half of whom are private sec-
contribution to tor representatives.
governance and
management
Private sector n/a
contribution of
capabilities to
PPP operations
Social Sector Office
December 2009
Designed by New Media Australia
Copyright © McKinsey & Company
sso.mckinsey.com

Public Private Partnerships Enhancing Social Impact

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Public Private Partnerships Enhancing Social Impact

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Social Sector Office

Cover Photography: WHO/P. Virot (Far left and far right).

Finding #1: Four archetypes for PPPs are emerging 12

Conclusion: The evolving PPP landscape 34

Appendix 1: List of interviewees 36

Appendix 3: PPP profiles 42

Many for-profit companies tend to approach participation in PPPs as a purely

Since this realization is growing, we expect private sector involvement in PPPs to

1. Four archetypes of public-private partnerships have emerged from the recent

2. The private sector can contribute to PPPs in five major ways

MOTIVATION, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY OF STUDY

We developed case examples of 15 specific global or transnational PPPs from public

Exhibit 1: PPPs reviewed for this work

Global Public Health Economic development

• Prevention and treatment of HIV among Education

OVERVIEW OF THE PPP LANDSCAPE

Recent History of PPPs

Exhibit 2: History of private sector involvement

<1990 1990–2000 2000–today

Rio conference 1992: UN emphasizes role

BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PPP GROWTH

production sites or as rapidly growing markets) so it is in their interest to help address

 Avoiding duplication of investment or activities;

 Increased economies of scale;

 Sharing or reducing risks;

 Sharing knowledge and resources to improve effectiveness;

 Attracting funding and publicity by building a common “brand”.

While partnerships can generate substantial benefits, formalized, multi-stakeholder

 Creating and maintaining infrastructure to service the partnership;

 Delays inherent in decision-making and coordination between multiple partners;

As illustrated in Exhibit 3, there are many potential forms of public-private

Exhibit 3: Partnership is one distinct method for the public and

Finding #1: Four archetypes

Some are direct collaborations, without a dedicated secretariat – such as

PPPs may be time-limited like USAID’s NetMark project, a malaria prevention

Exhibit 4: PPPs can be grouped into four archetypes

Coordination Funding Product development Delivery

 Coordination PPPs seek to harmonize policies, objectives, messages and

 Funding PPPs consolidate financing for a specific issue in a single organization.

 Product development PPPs (often called PDPs) bring multiple stakeholders

 Delivery PPPs combine the on-the-ground capabilities of different partners to

The evolving archetypes of PPPs

 GAVI’s primary focus is to increase access to immunization by financing the

Finding #2: The private sector can

Exhibit 5: The private sector contributes to PPPs across 5 areas

Extending a PPP’s Expanding

20 Mectizan Donation Program website; http://www.mectizan.org

That compares to $2.5 billion contributed by governments and, although growing at

Strengthening a PPP’s governance and management: Most PPPs involve

Individual experts – serving as board members, committee members, staff or even

Examples of private sector contributions to PPP governance

 The GAVI Fund Board, comprised of a number of private sector members,

Providing institutional capabilities: Private sector companies can also make a

Exhibit 6: Operational contributions most specific by archetypes

• Capabilities in • Capabilities in • R&D capacity • Supply chain

• Unilever • GAVI • Roche Diagnostics • TNT

Global Fund reports a dramatic improvement in grant performance. The private

Extending a PPP’s reach and multiplying its impact: Private sector

While this progress toward broader private sector involvement is encouraging, we

Finding #3: How the private sector

Exhibit 7: Private sector can benefit from engaging

HOW THE PRIVATE SECTOR BENEFITS FROM PPPS

A happier workforce: PPP participation also tends to be a positive influence on

Greater productivity and access to resources: By participating in PPPs, many

Finding #1: Four archetypes for PPPs are emerging 12

Conclusion: The evolving PPP landscape 34

Appendix 1: List of interviewees 36

Appendix 3: PPP profiles 42

Avoiding duplication of investment or activities;

Increased economies of scale;

Sharing or reducing risks;

Sharing knowledge and resources to improve effectiveness;

Attracting funding and publicity by building a common “brand”.

Creating and maintaining infrastructure to service the partnership;

Delays inherent in decision-making and coordination between multiple partners;

Coordination PPPs seek to harmonize policies, objectives, messages and

Funding PPPs consolidate financing for a specific issue in a single organization.

Product development PPPs (often called PDPs) bring multiple stakeholders

Delivery PPPs combine the on-the-ground capabilities of different partners to

GAVI’s primary focus is to increase access to immunization by financing the

The GAVI Fund Board, comprised of a number of private sector members,

Carefully judge whether partnership is the most appropriate form of collaboration.