t nearly every United Nations Climate Conference, nations have promised collective climate action through a growing list of pledges and coalitions. Yet global emissions continue to rise, and fossil fuel subsidies remain deeply rooted. The problem lies not only in a lack of coordinated climate action, but in the persistence of outdated practices shaping national and institutional behavior. Ministries still operate in silos, climate negotiators prioritize short–term interests, and investment agencies measure success by GDP growth rather than ecological wellbeing. Despite the proliferation of partnerships and coalitions for sustainability, transformation remains slow. What if the missing link is not a lack of collective action, but the momentum of outdated practices?
Rather than asking “why aren’t commitments being met?,” it is time to ask “what practices are preventing change, and how can they evolve?”
Rethinking the “How” of Collaboration
Sustainability discussions often focus on what needs to change: energy systems, supply chains, or finance. But lasting transformation depends on how we work together. Change happens, according to Social Practice Theory, when three things evolve together: (a) Materials—the tools, rules, and infrastructures that make up our systems; (b) Competences—the skills and capacities of the people within those systems; and (c) Meanings—the shared values and narratives that guide decisions. This framework has been widely applied in the context of sustainability to explain why some practices persist—such as commuting by car—and how more sustainable practices, like waste minimization, can be encouraged and embedded.
If this is true, then climate cooperation’s continued reliance on outdated materials (ie: economic growth–driven institutions), competencies (ie: siloed negotiation and partnerships), and meanings (ie: “success” as national gain), then no agreement will deliver real transformation. Viewing global partnerships through this lens suggests that real progress emerges not from policies alone but from how these three elements evolve together. Some initiatives stay symbolic because their practices remain unchanged, while others achieve systemic impact by aligning values, skills, and structures. It is therefore imperative to reframe partnerships as social ecosystems of evolving practice, a shift that may be among the most urgent of our time, considering the following three insights:
- From Fragmentation to Collective Flourishing
The 21st century’s “polycrisis” overlapping ecological, social, and geopolitical breakdowns exposes the limits of fragmented action. The Copenhagen Climate Summit made this painfully clear: it collapsed under positional bargaining, as nations prioritized economic self-interest and the demands of high–emitting industries over their collective responsibility to protect the climate. True partnerships are not coordination tables where governments negotiate positions. They are ecosystems of evolving practice that bridge divides and nurture experimentation.When we align diverse interests around shared challenges (e.g., climate change) sustainability partnerships can transcend geopolitics. By rethinking financing models, redefining what success means, and cultivating the skills needed for collaboration, we can move from competition toward collective flourishing.
- Practicing a Just Transition
Economic inequality remains the deepest fault line in sustainability. But a just transition won’t come about from financing alone—justice is also about practice. The Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs)—between the G7+ members and South Africa, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Senegal—illustrates how practice can be embedded in policy with country–owned investment plans and discussion of just transition frameworks being part of what differentiates JETPs from other energy transition partnerships show that justice is not only about financing but also about practice.
- Governance That Learns
Partnerships often falter because governance focuses on reporting rather than relating. Real progress emerges from feedback, trust, and learning, not from perfect structures or glossy dashboards. The most effective collaborations are living systems where governments, businesses, and communities continually ask, “What does success mean now, and how should we adapt?” A clear example is the Netherlands’ Delta Programme, where government, technical experts, and communities reassess flood–risk strategies each year and update budgets and infrastructure plans based on new data and experience, allowing the system to evolve as conditions change. These adaptive practices keep partnerships alive and responsive rather than rigid and performative.
Partnerships as the New Diplomacy
If we see partnerships as evolving ecosystems rather than transactional projects, they become a new form of diplomacy, one rooted in empathy, learning, and care. In a world marked by polarization and ecological urgency, this kind of diplomacy is transformative. It challenges the old logic of doing more with less and replaces it with doing more good together. The world does not need more memoranda of understanding or symbolic coalitions. It needs partnerships that breathe, adapt, and regenerate—partnerships that change how we practice change itself.
a global affairs media network
Rethinking sustainability partnerships for real change
Photo by Ken Cheung on Unsplash
November 19, 2025
While the various COPs have resulted in a growing collection of promises on collective action, those commitments are far from being met. One core issue hampering progress is how we go about building sustainability partnerships, writes Dr. Sadaf Taimur.
A
t nearly every United Nations Climate Conference, nations have promised collective climate action through a growing list of pledges and coalitions. Yet global emissions continue to rise, and fossil fuel subsidies remain deeply rooted. The problem lies not only in a lack of coordinated climate action, but in the persistence of outdated practices shaping national and institutional behavior. Ministries still operate in silos, climate negotiators prioritize short–term interests, and investment agencies measure success by GDP growth rather than ecological wellbeing. Despite the proliferation of partnerships and coalitions for sustainability, transformation remains slow. What if the missing link is not a lack of collective action, but the momentum of outdated practices?
Rather than asking “why aren’t commitments being met?,” it is time to ask “what practices are preventing change, and how can they evolve?”
Rethinking the “How” of Collaboration
Sustainability discussions often focus on what needs to change: energy systems, supply chains, or finance. But lasting transformation depends on how we work together. Change happens, according to Social Practice Theory, when three things evolve together: (a) Materials—the tools, rules, and infrastructures that make up our systems; (b) Competences—the skills and capacities of the people within those systems; and (c) Meanings—the shared values and narratives that guide decisions. This framework has been widely applied in the context of sustainability to explain why some practices persist—such as commuting by car—and how more sustainable practices, like waste minimization, can be encouraged and embedded.
If this is true, then climate cooperation’s continued reliance on outdated materials (ie: economic growth–driven institutions), competencies (ie: siloed negotiation and partnerships), and meanings (ie: “success” as national gain), then no agreement will deliver real transformation. Viewing global partnerships through this lens suggests that real progress emerges not from policies alone but from how these three elements evolve together. Some initiatives stay symbolic because their practices remain unchanged, while others achieve systemic impact by aligning values, skills, and structures. It is therefore imperative to reframe partnerships as social ecosystems of evolving practice, a shift that may be among the most urgent of our time, considering the following three insights:
- From Fragmentation to Collective Flourishing
The 21st century’s “polycrisis” overlapping ecological, social, and geopolitical breakdowns exposes the limits of fragmented action. The Copenhagen Climate Summit made this painfully clear: it collapsed under positional bargaining, as nations prioritized economic self-interest and the demands of high–emitting industries over their collective responsibility to protect the climate. True partnerships are not coordination tables where governments negotiate positions. They are ecosystems of evolving practice that bridge divides and nurture experimentation.When we align diverse interests around shared challenges (e.g., climate change) sustainability partnerships can transcend geopolitics. By rethinking financing models, redefining what success means, and cultivating the skills needed for collaboration, we can move from competition toward collective flourishing.
- Practicing a Just Transition
Economic inequality remains the deepest fault line in sustainability. But a just transition won’t come about from financing alone—justice is also about practice. The Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs)—between the G7+ members and South Africa, Indonesia, Vietnam, and Senegal—illustrates how practice can be embedded in policy with country–owned investment plans and discussion of just transition frameworks being part of what differentiates JETPs from other energy transition partnerships show that justice is not only about financing but also about practice.
- Governance That Learns
Partnerships often falter because governance focuses on reporting rather than relating. Real progress emerges from feedback, trust, and learning, not from perfect structures or glossy dashboards. The most effective collaborations are living systems where governments, businesses, and communities continually ask, “What does success mean now, and how should we adapt?” A clear example is the Netherlands’ Delta Programme, where government, technical experts, and communities reassess flood–risk strategies each year and update budgets and infrastructure plans based on new data and experience, allowing the system to evolve as conditions change. These adaptive practices keep partnerships alive and responsive rather than rigid and performative.
Partnerships as the New Diplomacy
If we see partnerships as evolving ecosystems rather than transactional projects, they become a new form of diplomacy, one rooted in empathy, learning, and care. In a world marked by polarization and ecological urgency, this kind of diplomacy is transformative. It challenges the old logic of doing more with less and replaces it with doing more good together. The world does not need more memoranda of understanding or symbolic coalitions. It needs partnerships that breathe, adapt, and regenerate—partnerships that change how we practice change itself.
