Business and Public–Private Partnerships for Sustainability: Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility?

This article analyses public–private partnerships (PPPs) in the field of sustainable development from an international relations perspective with insights from the business and ethics literature. We argue that the role of business in these types of arrangements has not been sufficiently explored. After presenting three ways of approaching PPPs to stress the many facets of partnerships across the public–private divide, we discuss the emergence of these novel forms of governance from a demand side and contrast such a functionalist reading with the supply side. Then we look at the micro-economic incentives for corporations to engage in such endeavours. We develop arguments derived from the dominant literature to provide an analytical framework for explaining business participation. Finally, we discuss the role of PPPs in light of input and output legitimacy. We conclude by alluding to the emergence of an expectation-capacity gap and normative issues related to the global PPP architecture.

Global Change and Sustainable Development: A Synthesis of Regional Experiences from Research Partnerships

Humankind today is challenged by numerous threats brought about by the speed and scope of global change dynamics. A concerted and informed approach to solutions is needed to face the severity and magnitude of current development problems. Generating shared knowledge is a key to addressing global challenges. This requires developing the ability to cross multiple borders wherever radically different understandings of issues such as health and environmental sanitation, governance and conflict, livelihood options and globalisation, and natural resources and development exist. Global Change and Sustainable Development presents 36 peer-reviewed articles written by interdisciplinary teams of authors who reflected on results of development-oriented research conducted from 2001 to 2008. Scientific activities were – and continue to be – carried out in partnerships involving people and institutions in the global North, South and East, guided by principles of sustainability. The articles seek to inform solutions for mitigating, or adapting to, the negative impacts of global dynamics in the social, political, ecological, institutional and economic spheres.

Life partnerships in childhood cancer survivors, their siblings, and the general population

Background: Life partnerships other than marriage are rarely studied in childhood cancer survivors (CCS). We aimed (1) to describe life partnership and marriage in CCS and compare them to life partnerships in siblings and the general population; and (2) to identify socio-demographic and cancer-related factors associated with life partnership and marriage. Methods: As part of the Swiss Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (SCCSS), a questionnaire was sent to all CCS (aged 20–40 years) registered in the Swiss Childhood Cancer Registry (SCCR), aged <16 years at diagnosis, who had survived ≥5 years. The proportion with life partner or married was compared between CSS and siblings and participants in the Swiss Health Survey (SHS). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with life partnership or marriage. Results: We included 1,096 CCS of the SCCSS, 500 siblings and 5,593 participants of the SHS. Fewer CCS (47%) than siblings (61%, P < 0.001) had life partners, and fewer CCS were married (16%) than among the SHS population (26%, P > 0.001). Older (OR = 1.14, P < 0.001) and female CCS (OR = 1.85, <0.001) were more likely to have life partners. CCS who had undergone radiotherapy, bone marrow transplants (global PTreatment = 0.018) or who had a CNS diagnosis (global PDiagnosis < 0.001) were less likely to have life partners. Conclusion: CCS are less likely to have life partners than their peers. Most CCS with a life partner were not married. Future research should focus on the effect of these disparities on the quality of life of CCS.

Social Meets Molecular: Combining Phylogenetic and Latent Class Analyses to Understand HIV-1 Transmission in Switzerland

Switzerland has a complex human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) epidemic involving several populations. We examined transmission of HIV type 1 (HIV-1) in a national cohort study. Latent class analysis was used to identify socioeconomic and behavioral groups among 6,027 patients enrolled in the Swiss HIV Cohort Study between 2000 and 2011. Phylogenetic analysis of sequence data, available for 4,013 patients, was used to identify transmission clusters. Concordance between sociobehavioral groups and transmission clusters was assessed in correlation and multiple correspondence analyses. A total of 2,696 patients were infected with subtype B, 203 with subtype C, 196 with subtype A, and 733 with recombinant subtypes (mainly CRF02_AG and CRF01_AE). Latent class analysis identified 8 patient groups. Most transmission clusters of subtype B were shared between groups of gay men (groups 1-3) or between the heterosexual groups "heterosexual people of lower socioeconomic position" (group 4) and "injection drug users" (group 8). Clusters linking homosexual and heterosexual groups were associated with "older heterosexual and gay people on welfare" (group 5). "Migrant women in heterosexual partnerships" (group 6) and "heterosexual migrants on welfare" (group 7) shared non-B clusters with groups 4 and 5. Combining approaches from social and molecular epidemiology can provide insights into HIV-1 transmission and inform the design of prevention strategies.

Social networks, mobility, and exchange systems during the Neolithic and Bronze Age of the Swiss Plateau

Excavations of Neolithic (4000 – 3500 BC) and Late Bronze Age (1200 – 800 BC) wetland sites on the northern Alpine periphery have produced astonishing and detailed information about the life and human environment of prehistoric societies. It is even possible to reconstruct settlement histories and settlement dynamics, which suggest a high degree of mobility during the Neolithic. Archaeological finds—such as pottery—show local typological developments in addition to foreign influences. Furthermore, exogenous lithic forms indicate far reaching interaction. Many hundreds of bronze artefacts are recorded from the Late Bronze Age settlements, demonstrating that some wetland sites were centres of bronzework production. Exogenous forms of bronzework are relatively rare in the wetland settlements during the Late Bronze Age. However, the products produced in the lake-settlements can be found widely across central Europe, indicating their continued involvement in interregional exchange partnerships. Potential motivations and dynamics of the relationships between sites and other regions of Europe will be detailed using case studies focussing on the settlements Seedorf Lobsigensee (BE), Concise (VD), and Sutz-Lattrigen Hauptstation innen (BE), and an initial assessment of intra-site connectivity through Network Analysis of sites within the region of Lake Neuchâtel, Lake Biel, and Lake Murten.

Ethics in science: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production and the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal. This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface. UNESCO points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer. Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity. To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach, I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.

Knowledge as a resource: enhancing the democratisation of knowledge production in transdisciplinary research partnerships for sustainable development

Better access to knowledge and knowledge production has to be reconsidered as key to successful individual and social mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change. Indeed, concepts of sustainable development imply a transformation of science (Lubchenco 1998; WBGU 2011 and 2012) towards fostering democratisation of knowledge production as a contribution to the development of knowledge societies as a strategic goal (UNESCO 2005). This means to open the process of scientific knowledge production while simultaneously empowering people to implement their own visions for sustainable development. Advocates of sustainability science support this transformation. In transdisciplinary practice, they advance equity and accountability in the access to and production of knowledge at the science–society interface (Hirsch Hadorn et al 2006; Hirsch Hadorn et al 2008; Jäger 2009; Adger and Jordan 2009; KFPE 2012). UNESCO (2010) points to advancements, yet Northern dominance persists in knowledge production as well as in technology design and transfer (Standing and Taylor 2007; Zingerli 2010). Further, transdisciplinary practice remains experimental and hampered by inadequate and asymmetrically equipped institutions in the North and South and related epistemological and operational obscurity (Wiesmann et al 2011). To help identify clear, practicable transdisciplinary approaches, I recommend examining the institutional route (Mukhopadhyay et al 2006) – i.e., the learning and adaptation process – followed in concrete cases. The transdisciplinary Eastern and Southern Africa Partnership Programme (1998–2013) is a case ripe for such examination. Understanding transdisciplinarity as an integrative approach (Pohl et al 2008; Stock and Burton 2011), I highlight ESAPP’s three key principles for a more democratised knowledge production for sustainable development: (1) integration of scientific and “non-scientific” knowledge systems; (2) integration of social actors and institutions; and (3) integrative learning processes. The analysis reveals ESAPP’s achievements in contributing to more democratic knowledge production and South ownership in the realm of sustainable development.