Article Peer-Reviewed
Exploring the Criteria and Processes of Collaborative Governance for SDG Implementation in Portugal
1
Institute of Social and Political Sciences, Universidade de Lisboa, Rua Almerindo Lessa, 1300-663 Lisbon, Portugal
2
Centre for Public Administration and Public Policies, Institute of Social and Political Sciences, Universidade de Lisboa, Rua Almerindo Lessa, 1300-663 Lisbon, Portugal
*
For correspondence.
Academic Editor:
Received: 31 March 2025 Accepted: 12 January 2026 Published: 23 January 2026
Abstract
Sustainable development requires legitimate coordination of cross-sector trade-offs across environmental limits, social needs, and long-term economic viability. Because the implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) relies on multi-actor arrangements, collaborative governance (CG) design features may condition whether participation translates into joint decision-making. CG emerges from these dynamic strategies to produce public products and services with multiple stakeholders, aligning and integrating the various parties’ ambitions. Given the ongoing discussion on SDGs, marked by the complexity and interdependence of actors, innovative, collaborative solutions are needed to achieve the desired goals. This necessity is further underscored by introducing a goal related to partnerships and collaboration: “Partnerships for Development” (Goal 17), demonstrating that collaboration is a crucial element for sustainable development and the implementation of the SDGs and the 2030 Agenda. Thus, this study aims to explore how CG supports strategies to implement the SDGs. To this end, through content analysis, we examine four initiatives involving public and private actors related to the implementation of the SDGs in Portugal. We aim to analyze whether these meet the criteria of CG and the various dimensions anticipated for its process. Only one initiative meets the criteria for CG, and Portugal still needs an established collaborative governance arrangement for implementing the SDGs. Therefore, it is necessary to invest in collaborative arrangements initiated by public organizations that allow for participation in decision-making and greater consensus-building, preserving a real contribution to public policy and a better understanding of the impacts and benefits of collaboration. It is also necessary to discuss the need for metagovernance structures for sustainable development.
Keywords
post-new public management reforms; collaborative governance; Sustainable Development Goals; 2030 Agenda
Copyright © 2026
Sobral et al. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use and distribution provided that the original work is properly cited.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Cite this Article
Sobral, S., Ricardo Catarino, J., & Morais Nunes, A. (2026). Exploring the Criteria and Processes of Collaborative Governance for SDG Implementation in Portugal. Highlights of Sustainability, 5(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.54175/hsustain5010006
References
1.
Schaltegger, S., Beckmann, M., & Hockerts, K. (2018). Collaborative entrepreneurship for sustainability. Creating solutions in light of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 10(2), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEV.2018.092709
2.
Niesten, E., Jolink, A., Jabbour, A., Chappin, M., & Lozano, R. (2017). Sustainable collaboration: The impact of governance and institutions on sustainable performance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 155(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.085
3.
Fiorino, D. J. (2010). Sustainability as a conceptual focus for public administration. Public Administration Review, 70, s78–s88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02249.x
4.
Berceanu, I. B., & Nicolescu, C. E. (2024). Collaborative Public Administration—A Dimension of Sustainable Development: Exploratory Study on Local Authorities in Romania. Administrative Sciences, 14(2), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14020030
5.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2005). New Public Management Is Dead—Long Live Digital-Era Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mui057
6.
Christensen, T., & Lægreid, P. (2007). Transcending New Public Management. Aldershot.
7.
Reiter, R., & Klenk, T. (2019). The manifold meanings of ‘post-New Public Management’ – a systematic literature review. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 85(1), 11–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318759736
8.
Ansell, C., & Torfing, J. (2015). How does collaborative governance scale? Policy & Politics, 43(3), 315–329. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557315X14353344872935
9.
Blanco, I. (2015). Between democratic network governance and neoliberalism: A regime-theoretical analysis of collaboration in Barcelona. Cities, 44, 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.10.007
10.
Lima, V. (2021). Collaborative Governance for Sustainable Development. In W. L. Filho, A. Azul, L. Brandli, A. Salvia, P. Ozuyar, & T. Wall (Eds.), Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71066-2_2-1
11.
Sundqvist-Andberg, H., & Åkerman, M. (2022). Collaborative governance as a means of navigating the uncertainties of sustainability transformations: the case of Finnish food packaging. Ecological Economics, 197, 107455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2022.107455
12.
United Nations. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future.
13.
Kim, T. B. (2010). Collaborative Governance for Sustainable Development in Urban Planning in South Korea [PhD thesis, University of Birmingham]. The University of Birmingham eTheses Repository. http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/id/eprint/747 (accessed 28 January 2025).
14.
Purvis, B., Mao, Y., & Robinson, D. (2019). Three pillars of sustainability: in search of conceptual origins. Sustainability Science, 14(3), 681–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0627-5
15.
Hopwood, B., Mellor, M., & O’Brien, G. (2005). Sustainable development: mapping different approaches. Sustainable Development, 13(1), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.244
16.
Tichener, M., Merry, S. E., Grek, S., & Bandola-Gill, J. (2022). Global public policy in a quantified world: Sustainable Development Goals as epistemic infrastructures. Policy and Society, 41(4), 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac015
17.
República Portuguesa. (2023). 2023 Voluntary National Review.
18.
Bouckaert, G., Loretan, R., & Troupin, S. (2016). Public Administration and the Sustainable Development Goals (Written Statement by the International Institute of Administrative Sciences, Submitted to the 15th session of the United Nations Committee of Experts in Public Administration).
19.
Biermann, F., Kanie, N., & Kim, R. (2017). Global governance by goal-setting: the novel approach of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 26–27, 26–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.01.010
20.
Wibawa, S., & Nur’aini, D. (2020). Collaborative Governance in achieving Sustainable Development Goals: A Conceptual Framework. Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi dan Pemerintahan Indonesia, 1(1), 35–42.
21.
Vazquez-Brust, D., Piao, R., Melo, M., Yaryd, R., & Carvalho, M. (2020). The governance of collaboration for sustainable development: Exploring the “black box”. Journal of Cleaner Production, 256, 120260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120260
22.
Fowler, A., & Biekart, K. (2017). Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives for Sustainable Development Goals: The importance of interlocutors. Public Administration and Development, 37, 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1795
23.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mur011
24.
Doberstein, C. (2016). Designing Collaborative Governance Decision-Making in Search of a ‘Collaborative Advantage’. Public Management Review, 18(6), 819–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1045019
25.
Thomson, A. M., Perry, J. L., & Miller, T. K. (2007). Conceptualizing and Measuring Collaboration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 23–56. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum036
26.
Voets, J., Brandsen, T., Koliba, C., & Verschuere, B. (2021). Collaborative Governance. Oxford Research Encyclopedias. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.1419
27.
Bartenberger, M., & Grubmüller-Régent, V. (2014). The Enabling Effects of Open Government Data on Collaborative Governance in Smart City Contexts. eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government (JeDEM), 6(1), 36–48. https://doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v6i1.289
28.
Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032
29.
Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. (2012). Governance network theory: past, present and future. Policy & Politics, 40(4), 587–606. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557312X655431
30.
Chen, B. (2010). Antecedents or Processes? Determinants of Perceived Effectiveness of Interorganizational Collaborations for Public Service Delivery. International Public Management Journal, 13(4), 381–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2010.524836
31.
Huxham, C. (1993). Collaborative capability: An intra‐organizational perspective on collaborative advantage. Public Money & Management, 13(3), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540969309387771
32.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B., & Stone, M. (2006). The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature. Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x
33.
Batory, A., & Svensson, S. (2019). The fuzzy concept of collaborative governance: A systematic review of the state of the art. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 13(2), 28–39. https://doi.org/10.2478/cejpp-2019-0008
34.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design – Choosing Among Five Approaches. SAGE Publications.
35.
Ospina, S. M., Esteve, M., & Lee, S. (2018). Assessing Qualitative Studies in Public Administration Research. Public Administration Review, 78(4), 593–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12837
36.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research Design and Methods (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
37.
Bardin, L. (2016). Análise de Conteúdo (in Portuguese). Edições 70.
38.
República Portuguesa. (2017). Relatório nacional sobre a implementação da Agenda 2030 para o Desenvolvimento Sustentável (in Portuguese). Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros. https://sdgtoolkit.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Portugal-VNR-2017-Full-report_PT.pdf (accessed 7 February 2025).
39.
Global Compact Network Portugal. (n.d). Termos de Referência para a Aliança ODS Portugal (in Portuguese). https://globalcompact.pt/images/Alianca_ODS_Portugal_-_Termos_de_Referncia.pdf (accessed 7 February 2025).
40.
Conselho Nacional do Ambiente e do Desenvolvimento Sustentável. (2023). Plano de Atividades 2023 (in Portuguese). https://www.cnads.pt/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Plano-de-AtividadesCNADS23.pdf (accessed 7 February 2025).
41.
ODSlocal. (2022). Perguntas Frequentes (in Portuguese). https://odslocal.pt/perguntas-frequentes#O_que_e_a_plataformaODSlocal (accessed 7 February 2025).
42.
Business Council for Sustainable Development (2022). Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável (in Portuguese). https://ods.pt/ods (accessed 7 February 2025)
43.
Booher, D. (2004). Collaborative Governance Practices and Democracy. National Civic Review, 93(4), 32–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.69
44.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration, 87(2), 234–258. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2009.01753.x
45.
Sørensen, E. (2005). Metagovernance The Changing Role of Politicians in Processes of Democratic Governance. American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 98–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074005282584
46.
Bell, S., & Park, A. (2006). The Problematic Metagovernance of Networks: Water Reform in New South Wales. Journal of Public Policy, 26(1), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X06000432
47.
Fox, A., Law, J. R., & Baker, K. (2022). The case for metagovernance: The promises and pitfalls of multisectoral nutrition service delivery structures in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Public Administration and Development, 42(2), 128–141. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1974
48.
Stark, A. (2015). More micro than meta? Competing concepts of metagovernance in the European Union. Public Policy and Administration, 30(1), 73–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076714543862
49.
Beisheim, M., & Simon, N. (2018). Multistakeholder Partnerships for the SDGs: Actors’ Views on UN Metagovernance. Global Governance, 24(4), 497–515. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02404003
50.
Christopoulos, S, Horvath, B., & Kull, M. (2012). Advancing the governance of cross-sectoral policies for sustainable development: a metagovernance perspective. Public Admininistration and Development, 32(3), 305–323. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.1629
51.
Fiandrino, S., Trana, M. G., Tonelli, A., & Rizzato, F. (2023). Metagovernance forms for enhancing sustainability-oriented innovation in a knowledge ecosystem. Business Ethics, the Environment & Responsibility, 34, 215–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12635
52.
Meuleman, L., & Niestroy, I. (2015). Common But Differentiated Governance: A Metagovernance Approach to Make the SDGs Work. Sustainability, 7(9), 12295–12321. https://doi.org/10.3390/su70912295
Sustainable Development Goals
This work contributes to the following Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Journal Menu
Journal Contact
Highlights of Sustainability
Editorial Office
Highlights of Science
Avenida Madrid, 189-195, 3-3
08014 Barcelona, Spain
08014 Barcelona, Spain
Cathy Wang
Managing Editor
