The word ‘partnership’ was used 6,197 times in the UK Parliament in 1999, up from 38 times in 1989, Demos reported recently. ‘Let’s be clear what it actually means’, says Zurich Financial Services’ community affairs director.
The term ‘partnership’ is like ‘fat free’ in food. It guarantees a favourable reaction and rarely is a definition demanded. A trifle cynical, I know, but as CCI managers, we need to look behind the rhetoric and assess its role in achieving our objectives.
Research suggests there is added value in more equal relationships. In a critical look at foundations, The Harvard Business Review recently proposed they move from capital provider to fully engaged partner, prepared to work closely with grantees to improve performance, and to engage for the long term 1 .
From the voluntary sector perspective, ACENVO’s report, Who pays for core costs?2distinguishes between funders taking a long-term investment view, and those simply commissioning work. In our Zurich Financial Service Community Trust Social Account, 78% of voluntary sector respondents believed we should “build long-term relationships with the voluntary sector” 3 .
The CCI manager needs first to define ‘partnership’. We use the following as a reference point: “A jointly agreed and formal relationship between participants in a particular programme. All participants share a responsibility to achieve one or more agreed objectives for the disadvantaged 4 .” We use the partnership model increasingly, particularly with the India Programme. The partnership is agreed in a Memorandum of Understanding, which outlines the approach over the short and medium to long-term and defines roles, responsibilities, methodology, accountability, duration, outcomes and evaluation methods.
This may not work for everything but there are benefits if objectives are shared. Feedback suggests partnership is empowering. There is greater stability, scope to evaluate impact, and react to opportunities. Impact is also likely to be sustainable, with time for a proper exit strategy.
Business benefits flow from staff development and motivation, and community partners with a better understanding of the business objectives. There are clearer impacts and potential to achieve more. On-going dialogue allows programmes to be adjusted and involvement enhanced. Assignment opportunities and skills transfer develop. There are fewer relationships to manage.
Partnerships cannot be taken lightly. Resource has to be patiently committed – difficult, as budgets can be unpredictable. Risk management is essential, particularly given the need to accept mutual responsibility for outcomes.
‘Partnership’ is an overworked term but there are potential benefits. Can companies afford to ignore the opportunity to improve the quality of their community involvement?
Chris Staples has been Community Affairs Director for Zurich Financial Services (UKISA) Community Trust since January, overseeing partnership programmes in dementia, domestic violence, social inclusion and India. Prior to this he spent 10 years as a business consultant and IT project manager for Allied Dunbar and then Zurich Financial Services where he chaired the Staff Fund Independent Living Grants Committee and the Staff Fund Executive.
(1) Philanthropy’s New Agenda: Creating Value by Michael E. Porter and Mark R. Kramer, Harvard Business Review November-December 1999.
(2) Who pays for core costs? Neither rhetoric nor complaint – a proposal for modernisation by Julia Unwin for ACENVO (Association of Chief Executives of National Voluntary Organisations.)
(3) Measuring up ? Zurich Financial Services (UKISA) Community Trust Social Account.
(4) Leaflet about The Zurich Financial Services (UKISA) Community Trust approach to partnerships available from the author.
COMMENTS