Stakeholders, critical success factors, and value creation in public-private partnerships

Abstract

This study analyzes the role of stakeholders in the value creation in public-private partnerships in Brazil, considering their motivations and the critical factors that determine the success of this type of collaboration. We analyzed partnerships between federal, state, and local governments through content analysis of documents and interviews with representatives of the public and private sectors involved in such partnerships. Stakeholders identification was conducted through the simultaneous use of models that allow demonstrating the multiple roles played by the actors, i.e. the role in public policies formulation and implementation (R. C. Gomes et al., 2010), their potential for threat or cooperation (Savage et al., 1991), and salience degree (Mitchell et al., 1997). In addition, the most recurrent critical success factors, value elements, and determining factors for cooperation in such partnerships were identified. Furthermore, an analytical model is proposed to identify such elements so that decision-makers can devise a strategy to deal with them.

Keywords:
public-private partnerships; stakeholders; critical success factors; determinants of cooperation; value creation

Resumo

Este estudo tem como objetivo analisar o papel dos stakeholders na geração de valor em parcerias público-privadas no Brasil, considerando suas motivações e os fatores críticos que determinam o sucesso desse tipo de colaboração. Para tanto, foram analisadas parcerias dos governos federal, estaduais e municipais por meio da análise de conteúdo de documentos e entrevistas com representantes dos setores público e privado envolvidos. A identificação dos stakeholders foi feita mediante a utilização simultânea de modelos que permitem demonstrar os múltiplos papéis desempenhados pelos atores na formulação e na implementação de políticas públicas (R. C. Gomes et al., 2010), seu potencial de ameaça ou de cooperação (Savage et al., 1991) e seu grau de saliência (Mitchell et al., 1997). Além disso, foram identificados os fatores críticos de sucesso, os elementos de valor e os fatores determinantes para a cooperação mais recorrentes nessas parcerias. Ademais, foi proposto um modelo de análise que permite a identificação de tais elementos, a fim de possibilitar que o tomador de decisão trace uma estratégia para lidar com eles.

Palavras-chave:
parcerias público-privadas; stakeholders; fatores críticos de sucesso; determinantes da cooperação; geração de valor

Resumen

Este estudio tiene como objetivo analizar el papel de los stakeholders en la generación de valor en las alianzas público-privadas en Brasil, considerando sus motivaciones y los factores críticos que determinan el éxito de este tipo de colaboración. Con este fin, se analizaron las asociaciones entre los gobiernos federal, estatales y municipales, a través del análisis de contenido de documentos y entrevistas con representantes de los sectores público y privado involucrados en tales asociaciones. La identificación de los stakeholders se realizó mediante el uso simultáneo de modelos que permiten demostrar los múltiples roles que desempeñan los actores en la formulación e implementación de políticas públicas (R. C. Gomes et al., 2010), su potencial de amenaza o de cooperación (Savage et al., 1991) y su grado de notoriedad (Mitchell et al., 1997). Además, se identificaron los factores críticos de éxito más frecuentes, los elementos de valor y los factores determinantes para la cooperación en tales alianzas. Asimismo, se propone un modelo de análisis que permite la identificación de dichos elementos para que el tomador de decisiones pueda diseñar una estrategia para tratar con ellos.

Palabras clave:
alianzas público-privadas; stakeholders; factores críticos de éxito; determinantes de la cooperación; generación de valor

1. INTRODUCTION

Although investment in infrastructure is relevant for economic growth, governments do not always have the necessary resources. For this reason, public managers seek to make partnerships with the private sector, as is the case of the public-private partnership (PPP), which has been used both to overcome public resources’ constraints and to achieve the benefits that result from private companies’ abilities and resources (Quelin, Cabral, Lazzarini, & Kivleniece, 2019).

In Brazil, PPP is an instrument for the implementation of public policies defined by Law No. 11,079 (Lei nº 11.079, de 30 de dezembro de 2004), as a contract through which public administration hires a private entity for service provision, and the private partner can be paid only by the public entity (administrative), or by the public body and users (sponsored).

However, PPPs are not always successful. There are ‘critical success factors’ (CSF), a term used to name elements that affect PPPs’ performance, facilitating or hindering this partnership (Firmino, 2018).

This study intends to identify actors and critical factors involved in PPPs’ value creation in Brazil. In addition, it examines the determining factors for making this type of partnership and creating value for its stakeholders. Therefore, the general objective of this research is to analyze how stakeholders act towards value creation in PPPs, taking into account their motivations and critical success factors.

To this end, we propose an approach that combines stakeholder analysis models (R. C. Gomes, Liddle, & L. D. O. M. Gomes, 2010; Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997; Savage, Nix, Whitehead, & Blair, 1991), and the literature on critical success factors in PPPs (Thamer & Lazzarini, 2015), determinants of interorganizational relationships (Oliver, 1990), and value creation (Quelin et al., 2019).

We used a multiple case study that examined PPPs from all public entities in the country, which is timely. Although PPPs are useful instruments for adding value to public policies (Kivleniece & Quelin, 2012), little is known about how stakeholders create this value (Villani, Greco, & Philips, 2017). Thus, there is a gap in the literature on how public and private organizations interact for value creation (Quelin et al., 2019). On the other hand, Freeman, Phillips, and Sisodia (2020) observe that studies on stakeholders can contribute to examine this phenomenon.

Other motivation for the paper is the lack of information on the performance of PPP projects and their constraints (Reis & Cabral, 2017), which leads to CSFs, on which there are few articles that analyze PPPs in Brazil (Thamer & Lazzarini, 2015).

In addition to this Introduction, the paper has four other topics. Section 2 presents the theoretical foundations. Section 3 shows the methodological procedures employed. Section 4 presents the results, followed by the final remarks.

2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In this chapter, we initially present PPPs’ characteristics, as well as stakeholder analysis models and the determinants for collaboration between the partners. Next, we describe the concepts of critical success factors, of value, and other elements necessary to understand value creation in PPPs.

2.1 Public-Private Partnerships

The use of PPPs grew in a context of reduced state intervention in the economy, and as a way to overcome the lack of public resources for infrastructure investments. Thus, governments began to induce private investment, due to the small fiscal space and increasing social demands (Thamer & Lazzarini, 2015).

In this scenario, the PPP emerged; it is a hybrid organizational arrangement, based on collaborative contractual relationships (Thamer & Lazzarini, 2015), long-term (Firmino, 2018), built between the public and private sectors, which operate to achieve common objectives (Hodge & Greve, 2007), in order to provide infrastructure and related services to the population.

In addition, PPP can be considered an institutional arrangement (Firmino, 2018), since it is based on a regulation mark, under Law No. 11,079 (Lei nº 11.079, de 30 de dezembro de 2004). This is because institutions are the rules of the game, formal rules that define behaviors and social and economic structures (North, 1991). The enactment of that law established the institutional environment to start applying the PPPs model in Brazil, by defining the modes (administrative and sponsored) and the characteristics of PPPs’ contracts (Thamer & Lazzarini, 2015). The implementation of this partnership involves a set of stages, as described in Box1.

BOX 1
STAGES OF A PPP

2.2 Stakeholders’ Analysis Models and Determinants of Collaboration in PPPs

PPP is a cooperative arrangement, composed of public and private partners, which affects other players, and refers to the Stakeholder Theory. According to Freeman and Reed (1983, p. 91), stakeholder is “any group or person that can affect and be affected by the achievement of the organization’s goals”. Considering that these actors may affect the organization’s activities, it is necessary to identify them. Therefore, we next present the stakeholder identification models used in this research.

Savage et al. (1991) classify the actors according to their potential for threat or cooperation with the organization. If the organization depends on the stakeholder, he/she/it will have the potential to threaten it. On the other hand, if the actor depends on the organization, he/she/it will tend to cooperate. According to this model, actors can be: (i) supporters, when they offer a low potential threat to the organization, and a high potential for cooperation; (ii) marginal, when they are neither highly threatening nor cooperative; (iii) non-supporters, when they represent a great potential threat and low potential for cooperation; and (iv) mixed blessing, when they have a high potential to threaten and to cooperate.

Mitchell et al. (1997) rank stakeholders based on the following attributes: power to influence the organization, legitimacy of the relationship with the organization, and urgency in meeting their interests.

These authors divide the actors in 3 groups. The first comprises those that have only one of the attributes: dominant (power), arbitrary/discretionary (legitimacy), or claimer (urgency). The second includes those that have two attributes: dominant (power and legitimacy), dependent (urgency and legitimacy), and dangerous (power and urgency). And the third refers to the definitive, which is the most important stakeholder, with the three attributes, thus receiving priority attention.

The other model used in this study (R. C. Gomes et al., 2010) contributes to the current stakeholder research agenda, as it describes the type of influence that actors can exercise on government decision-making. This is because one of the mentioned gaps arises from the fact that “some of these influences are not yet addressed in the literature”. Thus, it is necessary to develop ways to analyze the determining performance factors of public organizations (R. C. Gomes, Osborne, & Guarnieri, 2020, p. 463).

R. C. Gomes et al. (2010) classify stakeholders in five categories: regulator, collaborator, legitimizer, controller, and agenda setter. The “regulator” category comprises actors who have the capacity to include institutional and technical requirements in the decision-making process. The “collaborator” includes actors that help the local government to provide public services. The “legitimizer” comprehends citizens and the local community, who are the users of public services. The “controller” is composed of control bodies and other actors that have the power of holding the public manager accountable and forcing him/her to comply with rules related to the efficient use of public resources. Finally, the “agenda setter” refers to the actors whose influence stems from the power to define the agenda that the government must follow.

Vieira (2020) proposes a procedure based on the simultaneous application of stakeholder analysis models. This approach allows the identification of the most relevant stakeholders, based on their willingness to cooperate or harm a particular organization or public policy; it also takes into account the institutionally formalized role of each actor involved. In this research, we adopted a similar approach together with the attributes described by Mitchell et al. (1997).

2.2.1 The determinants of collaboration between stakeholders in PPPs

An important aspect about the performance of stakeholders in PPPs regards the reasons that lead partners to cooperate for the partnership’s development, which we can analyze through the theoretical lens of interorganizational relationships (Oliver, 1990). IOR are lasting resource transactions between two or more organizations, and in PPPs such transactions occur between public and private organizations.

The author explains that the determinants that drive organizations into an interorganizational relationship are need, asymmetry, reciprocity, efficiency, stability, and legitimacy.

BOX 2
COOPERATION DETERMINANTS

Finally, the decision to establish a relationship with another organization is generally based on some of the above-mentioned determinants; therefore, they should not be analyzed individually (Oliver, 1990).

2.3 Critical Success Factors in PPPs

These factors refer to those areas of activities where favorable results are necessary for the manager to achieve his/her goals (Rockart, 1982). These events require the manager’s attention, can be internal or external to the organization, and are relevant to the progress of PPPs projects (Thamer & Lazzarini, 2015).

They involve economic, political, administrative, environmental, cultural, and regulatory aspects, so they can be classified in such categories (Menezes, Hoffmann, & Zanquetto, 2019). Some factors regard the project’s adherence to the guidelines of high government levels and other aspects of a political nature (political). Others relate to the work developed by government officials and to the administrative structure of the bodies responsible for structuring and managing PPPs (administrative).

There are also elements related to meeting the environmental guidelines applicable to PPP (environmental), to the relationship between partners (cultural), to the economic situation or to economic aspects associated with the partners (economic), and to aspects related to project regulation, such as the appropriate legislation (regulatory).

Thus, support or political will (Kyie & Chan, 2015) is a political factor. The PPP unit (Firmino, 2018) is an administrative factor, as it relates to the administrative structure of the bodies responsible for organizing and managing the PPP. In the ‘cultural’ category are the factors concerning the relationship between the partners, as is the case of their culture in relation to the PPP (Cutrim, Tristão, & Tristão, 2017). In the ‘environmental’ category is the ‘environmental regularization’ factor (Kyie & Chan, 2015). In the ‘economic’ category are factors such as economic stability (Firmino, 2018). Finally, in the ‘regulatory’ category, there is the appropriate regulation mark (Kyie & Chan, 2015).

2.4 Value Creation in PPPs

Caldwell, Roehrich, and George (2017) define value as the sum of the benefits achieved through the partnership. The interaction between partners in a PPP is due to the search for value creation. Barney (2018) states that the partnership between public and private entities creates value because it gathers complementary resources and organizational capacities to create a new source of value that could not exist if organizations acted separately.

Such partnerships have become a fundamental way of value creation in the public interest (Quelin, Kivleniece, & Lazzarini, 2017). This refers to its social value, created when the PPP generates benefits not only for the partners, but also for other stakeholders, which are positive externalities that result from the PPP.

PPPs should be the preferred option when there are positive externalities (Luo & Kaul, 2019). Hence, the analysis of this partnership’s performance requires an understanding of aspects that go beyond the gains of the private partner, as it should include notions of social value. These social results must consider the benefits and costs involved in implementing the partnership (Quelin et al., 2017). Thus, the ‘value for money’ study should involve an analysis of costs and benefits for society resulting from the PPP option, against those resulting from other forms of service provision (Governo de São Paulo, 2020

Although the literature highlights the elements that make up the value (benefits and costs), and their beneficiaries (partners and other players), there is a complementary aspect that, although addressed in the literature on public value (Benington, 2015), was not identified in studies on PPPs in Brazil. It is the value perceived by the actors; that is, the value is their perception of the benefits, costs, and risks resulting from the partnership, as we show in the results of this research.

In addition, it is important to analyze value creation, since the development of an organization depends on its capacity to create value for satisfying stakeholders’ interests; therefore, value is the central issue of the Stakeholder Theory (Freeman et al., 2020). A modern definition of stakeholder refers to the actor that creates and captures economic value in his/her/its interactions with the organization (Garcia-Castro & Aguilera, 2015).

Value creation can occur in different ways, considering that PPP performance can be expressed through financial values, or equality in access and the quality of public service, or even through users’ satisfaction with the service (Wang, Xiong, Wu, & Zhu, 2018). Other dimensions of this value are social relationships (Quelin et al., 2019), operational efficiency (Caldwell et al., 2017), and externalities and resource complementarity (Kivleniece & Quelin, 2012). Therefore, value can have an intangible dimension - it cannot be measured in monetary terms -, or tangible, when it does.

Finally, in Figure 1, we propose an analysis model for PPPs’ stakeholders that shows the theoretical constructs explained above and facilitates achieveing potential answers to the questions that guide this research; it enables the identification of the main actors, the critical factors associated to them, and the determining factors for collaboration and value creation in PPPs.

FIGURE 1
ANALYSIS MODEL

3. METHOD

We carried out the research through multiple case studies, to analyze five PPPs, selected by criteria of geographic location, sector, and government level. In Brazil, states and cities use PPPs more - the city of Belo Horizonte and the states of São Paulo, Minas Gerais, and Bahia are the federation entities that most hired PPPs (Radar PPP, 2020). Therefore, we examined PPPs from these bodies, besides the only federal government’s PPP underway.

Box 3 shows general information on the examined PPPs.

BOX 3
PPPS ANALYZED

We collected data through documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews. We got official documents, such as PPPs’ contracts, reports, and additional information at PPPs’ units and on the sites of the public and private partners.

BOX 4
INTERVIEW SCRIPT

The group of interviewees comprises government officials and representatives of the private partners, Accounting Courts, and funders. We chose them for their practical knowledge, for their involvement in PPPs implementation. In addition, we adopted the “snowball” technique, and conducted new interviews with persons indicated by a previous interviewee. This was the case with the representative of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), suggested by the National Bank for Economic and Social Development (BNDES) representative.

Interviewing public and private managers involved with the implementation of PPPs is a usual research method in Brazil (Cabral et al., 2016; Reis & Cabral, 2017). We also interviewed representatives of Accounting Courts and funders, because of their role and researchers’ easy access to them.

The interviews took place from July to October 2019, and were by telephone (13) and in person (6), recorded and later transcribed. Altogether, we did 19 interviews, with an average duration of 25 minutes. We stopped the interviews according to the principle of theoretical saturation, when new participants started to repeat almost the same information.

Box 5 presents information on interviewees’ profile, identified by a number (1 to 19) that indicates the chronological order of the interviews.

BOX 5
INTERVIEWEES’ PROFILE

After transcribing the interviews, we did a content analysis according to Bardin’s protocol (2011). We created a system composed of ex ante categories of analysis, based on our theoretical framework. Some categories are of the ex post type, since the field trip brought new information on some constructs. This was the case of the categories proposed for value creation, where benefits and costs were associated with the determinants of interorganizational relationships, in order to build a dialogue between the two theoretical approaches.

BOX 6
ANALYSIS CATEGORIES

Finally, to increase research quality, we used data triangulation (Derzin & Lincoln, 2005), to compare data from the interviews with those from bibliographical and documentary survey.

4. RESULTS

In this section, we present the results from the comparative analysis of PPPs, in order to identify the most important actors, critical factors, determinants of cooperation, and the most recurrent elements of value in these partnerships, as well as the association between stakeholders and the most relevant critical factors.

4.1 Stakeholders

From the analysis of the aforementioned PPPs, we observed more than 50 stakeholders, which work in the public and private sectors, in the three levels of the federation and in the third sector, as is the case of civil associations. After this identification stage, we followed a procedure similar to that proposed by Vieira (2020) for stakeholder analysis, in order to apply simultaneously the models of Savage et al. (1991), Mitchel et al. (1997), and R. C. Gomes et al. (2010). This procedure enabled identifying the actors with the greatest influence capacity, according to their willingness to cooperate or harm the PPP, also considering the type of institutional role.

For Mitchell et al. (1997), stakeholders with the highest influence capacity are those classified as definitive, since they have power, legitimacy, and urgency in demand. Box 7 shows only the definitive stakeholders observed in the examined PPPs.

BOX 7
STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLES

Due to the criterion adopted for actor’s selection - only definitive actors -, Box 7 does not mention some identified stakeholders. This is the case, for example, of regulatory agencies, which inspect the service provision object of PPPs, and of the federal, state, or local representatives whose performance involves budget approval - resources for the payment of the public consideration - and formatting the PPP regulation mark.

In addition, we identified actors that assist partners through the contractual relationships they have with them. These are consulting companies that collaborate in the development of technical studies, suppliers of the private partner, and banks that provide the necessary resources to the private partner for implementing the partnership. We observed that the implementation of a PPP involves a network of contracts comprised by the main contract, signed by the partners, and by contracts between the partners and other actors that collaborate with them.

Box 7 shows that some identified actors confirm the results of other studies (Cabral et al., 2016), as is the case of the partners, the PPP Management Committee (CGPPPs), users, and local residents. On the other hand, we identified new actors, such as the head of the Executive Branch and the Autonomous Social Service of Hospital Metropolitano (SSAHM), whose peculiarity we explain ahead.

The categorization presented in the box also allows identifying similarities and differences in actors’ roles. For example, there is a similarity in the performance of public and private partners in these PPPs, since they act, respectively, as agenda setters and collaborators. The same occurs with CGPPP and the chief of the Executive Branch, who act as controllers. The head of the Executive Branch also acts as a regulator, as he is responsible for formatting PPPs’ normative framework, whose example is Law No. 11,079 (Lei nº 11.079, de 30 de dezembro de 2004), which resulted from a federal bill.

On the other hand, there is a difference between users and local residents. Regarding the former, the divergence stems from the fact that, in MG-050, Hospital Metropolitano, and Casa Paulista PPPs, this actor was considered definitive, for holding the urgency attribute. This is because one of the performance indicators regards the treatment given to users, so that their demands receive the partners’ attention. In Datacenter and Jaguaribe PPPs, as there is no similar indicator, only the attributes ‘legitimacy’ and ‘power’ were considered; therefore, these PPPs’ users were classified as dominant.

In addition, although not described in Box 7, we identified a set of actors that seem to be unique to some of the PPPs studied. This is the case of the Central Bank (Bacen), which regulates the banking sector, and where the public partners of the Datacenter PPP operate. In the case of the MG-050 PPP, civil associations of the cities crossed by the highway, whose requests changed the PPP object, stand out, as the Commercial Association of Divinópolis’ claim regarding the highway duplication. Another example refers to the Casa Paulista PPP, where civil associations benefited from the delivery of housing units.

Stakeholders’ identification shows that a PPP is a complex institutional arrangement, whose implementation involves not only public and private partners, which have more visibility for being the actors that celebrate the PPP contract. It also involves actors that benefit from the partnership’s implementation, which have functional attributions that lead them to supervise the work, as is the case of Bacen (regulatory agent), and actors that participate in this stage for other functional reasons, such as CGPPP and the head of the Executive Branch.

Furthermore, through Box 7, we bring theoretical contributions to R. C. Gomes et al. (2010) model, since some actors that we identified have additional functions to those provided in that model. This occurs with the local community representatives (civil associations), which act as legitimizers and agenda setters, as they make requests to partners that imply a partial modification of the PPP object. This was the case of Highway MG-050, where civil associations in the cities crossed by it requested works not initially planned.

Box 8 presents comments on the classification of the mentioned actors as definitive.

BOX 8
DEFINITIVE STAKEHOLDERS

BOX 8
continuation

4.2 Critical Success Factors

We compared the identified factors to those found in the literature review, in order to detect new critical success factors of PPPs, and classified them according to the categories proposed by Menezes et al. (2019). Box 9 shows the factors identified and we underlined the most important, which we found in most of the analyzed PPPs (three or more).

BOX 9
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS

BOX 9
continuation

BOX 9
continuation

As shown in Box 9, some factors identified confirm the results of other studies that analyzed PPPs in Brazil (Cutrim et al., 2017; Menezes et al., 2019; Reis & Cabral, 2017; Thamer & Lazzarini, 2015). On the other hand, we identified new factors, such as the appropriate time to prepare the project, the adoption of alternative means of conflict resolution, the maturity of society to choose long-term alternatives, land regularization, and the good relationship of the partners with the Accounting Court.

Furthermore, we observed that some factors are present in most PPPs, while others seem to be unique to a few of them. This is the case of compliance with the construction schedule, highlighted in the MG-050 PPP, due to works’ delays. Another example is the ideological resistance to PPP, mentioned by E11, which stems from the fact that there is a line of thinking which values the State; thus, the idea of using PPPs would face resistance from “these statist government officials”.

Next, we present some opinions on the relevance of the most recurrent factors, given their impact on PPPs.

BOX 10
RELEVANCE OF CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR PPPS

BOX 10
continuation

4.3 Association between Critical Success Factors and Stakeholders

PPPs’ analysis identified associations between stakeholders and the most relevant (definitive) critical factors, as shown in Box 11. The examination of the collected data suggests that stakeholders qualify a critical factor as capable of facilitating or hindering the PPP. As interviewee 17 observes, stakeholders “make critical factors help or hamper partnership’s implementation”.

We grouped the actors that play the same role into a single category. This is the case of the ‘private partner’ category, which includes GBT S.A., BRK Ambiental, AB Nascentes das Gerais S.A., Canopus S.A., and Novo Metropolitano S.A.

BOX 11
ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN ACTORS AND THE MOST RELEVANT CRITICAL FACTORS

We do not explain some associations because they were expected, due to the role played by the actors (in blue), or due to the factors’ own nomenclature (in red). Thus, we sought to explain associations that we found in this research, shown in Box 12.

In addition, we included an actor, the Autonomous Social Service Hospital Metropolitano (SSAHM), given the peculiarity of that hospital’s PPP. It is an actor distinct from the public partner (Health Department) and the private partner (Novo Metropolitano S.A). This actor is responsible for providing medical services (assistance) to hospital users, and it is up to the private partner to provide non-assistance services (cleaning, administrative management, etc.). The performance of this actor is ruled by a management contract signed with the Health Department.

Since it is a partner of that department, we assigned some factors associated with the private partner to this actor. Others were not associated, as, in its relationship with the Health Department, we did not identify any guarantees in the event of default of payment due to SSA. The “appropriate risk allocation” factor cannot be associated with SSAHM, since the management contract signed with the Belo Horizonte Health Department does not provide for a risk allocation. The factor “availability of financing” was also not associated with this actor, given that Law No. 10,754 (Lei nº 10.754, 19 de setembro de 2014), which authorizes its creation, does not include the possibility of obtaining bank financing as a source of revenue.

BOX 12
OPINIONS ON THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN ACTORS AND CRITICAL FACTORS

Box 12
continuation

The examples above show that the analysis of these associations is relevant, as it allows identifying the actors related to the critical success factors that can facilitate or hinder PPPs’ implementation. Furthermore, this approach contributes to the Stakeholder Theory, since it highlights a new dimension to the analysis models of such actors. This is because the existing models, although allowing the identification of the most relevant actors, do not consider the critical factors associated with them. Thus, the inclusion of this new dimension would consider such factors as a mechanism of interference of an actor on public policies implemented through partnerships between the public and private sectors.

4.4 Determining Factors for the Partnership

Oliver (1990) argues that the determinants for making a partnership are need, asymmetry, reciprocity, efficiency, stability, and legitimacy.

The analysis of the cases allowed us to identify determining factors, which we classified according to the categories proposed by Oliver (1990), shown in Box 13. We highlighted (underlined) those that seem to be the more relevant, since they are present in most of the PPPs analyzed.

BOX 13
SUMMARY OF THE DETERMINANTS FOR COOPERATION

Next, we make some observations on the relevance of the most recurrent determinants.

BOX 14
MOST RECURRENT DETERMINANTS

4.5 Value creation

This section contributes to the Stakeholder Theory, by providing elements that increase the understanding of stakeholders on the meaning of value (Harrison, Freeman, & Abreu, 2015). Since social value comprises benefits and costs (Quelin et al., 2017), we identified those that result from PPPs’ implementation, from the perspective of partners and other actors. As we argue in this paper, value is the result of actors’ perception on such elements of value.

An example of benefit is the speed of delivering the asset, with the consequent faster service provision to the population, mentioned by E9, who stressed that one of the benefits of the Jaguaribe PPP was “the speed of construction of the submarine outfall”. Another example is the use by the private partner of more flexible contracting procedures than those traditionally used by public administration, mentioned by E4.

On the other hand, PPP presents costs related to construction and operation, which are reimbursed by public consideration (administrative PPPs), or by the referred consideration plus the toll paid by users (sponsored PPPs). Box 15 summarizes these benefits and costs, with emphasis (underline) on the most important elements of value, which are present in most PPPs studied.

BOX 15
SUMMARY OF BENEFITS AND COSTS

BOX 15
continuation

Although evaluating PPPs’ value for money was not the object of this research, the elements of value identified are convergent with papers that had this goal. Reis and Cabral (2017) state that PPPs generate value for money because they are faster to implement and have lower costs when compared to the traditional public provision modality. The shorter implementation term was also observed in another study with the same goal (Rodrigues & Zucco, 2018), where the authors concluded that PPPs had a shorter delivery time and a more predictable delivery.

Reis and Cabral (2017) further explain that PPP should be the option if the aforementioned value analysis shows the following advantages: reduced costs, shorter implementation time, better quality, and better risk allocation. These elements of value are described in Box 15, considering the decrease of public spending, a faster asset delivery, and a quality service provision. Improvement in risk allocation was also a determining factor. In addition, Box 15 shows other elements of value that should be considered in future analyses.

We also carried out a risk analysis. This examination is timely because risks can reduce benefits or increase costs. E2 says, “depending on risk-sharing, there will be significant costs”. Thus, the identification of risks can contribute to value analysis, which in general considers only benefits and costs (Quelin et al., 2017). Box 16 shows the identified risks.

BOX 16
SUMMARY OF RISKS

BOX 16
continuation

Some of the risks described in Box 16 confirm those found in other studies that analyzed PPPs in Brazil (Lima & Coelho, 2015). These are demand, force majeure and fortuitous events, climate phenomena, and construction delays or failures, as well as changes in the project at partners’ request, increase in costs resulting from changes in tax legislation or cost of capital, fiscal risk, and failure to obtain financing. On the other hand, we identified new risks, such as structuring the PPP project quickly at the expense of quality, non-compliance with the construction schedule, change of government, and inappropriate inspection.

The results are shown in the proposed model of stakeholder analysis (Figure 2). Due to limited space, we decided to prioritize the definitive actors, who were the object of associations with critical success factors, as well as mentioning those factors through their categories. In the case of the elements of value and determinants, we mentioned only the most recurrent, emphasized in previous tables.

In addition, considering that the value analysis must include benefits and costs (Quelin et al., 2017), Box 15 shows the benefits and costs, and Box 16 shows the risks of construction and operation that may affect such costs. Thus, the analysis model provides information that advances knowledge on the meaning of value for PPPs’ stakeholders (Cabral, Mahoney, McGahan, & Potoski, 2019).

FIGURE 2
APPLICATION OF THE PROPOSED ANALYSIS MODEL

5. FINAL REMARKS

This research aimed to identify stakeholders, critical success factors, determinants of cooperation, and value creation in PPPs. Thus, we identified the most relevant actors, which were classified according to their role in the implementation of the partnership (R. C. Gomes et al., 2010), their willingness to cooperate or threaten (Savage et al., 1991), and their degree of relevance (Mitchell et al., 1997).

Furthermore, we identified factors that facilitate or hinder partnership implementation and the actors associated with it. Regarding the determinants of cooperation between the partners, although they are distinct, there seems to be a relative predominance of the determinant ‘efficiency’, which is convergent with the fact that the reason for making PPPs stems from a potential cost reduction (Thamer & Lazzarini, 2015), and higher efficiency and quality in the provision of public assets and services (Reis & Cabral, 2017).

Regarding value creation, we identified benefits, costs, and risks, thus contributing for advancing scientific knowledge on the subject, in view of a gap in the literature on how public organizations interact with private companies to create value (Cabral et al., 2019).

The research also suggests future studies. To this end, we recommend that critical success factors should be an analytical dimension in the models that identify stakeholders in interorganizational partnerships. These factors, which can facilitate or hamper partnerships, relate to these actors’ performance, and can be mechanisms of interference in public policies or government programs implemented through PPPs.

Another research suggestion regards the dialogue between the Stakeholder Theory and the body of knowledge on value creation, which seems to be the state of the art of that theory (Freeman et al., 2020). We recommend that future studies not only analyze the meaning of value for different actors, which we did, but also evaluate the distribution of this value among such actors in PPPs (Cabral et al., 2019). In addition, it is necessary to propose improvements in the methods for measuring value (Brito & Fazoli, 2019).

In addition, we consider that the analysis of actors’ influence on government decision-making is part of the current research agenda on stakeholders (R. C. Gomes et al., 2020); that PPPs have been used by governments (Villani et al., 2017); and that there is still no appropriate understanding of how public and private organizations interact to create value (Cabral et al., 2019). Therefore, we suggest using the analysis model and other proposals made in this paper, in order to fill the literature gap.

This research has limitations, since we did not interview relevant stakeholders, such as users. For this reason, we suggest the inclusion of these actors in the group of interviewees for future analyses, and of a larger number of PPPs, from different government levels (federal, state, local

REFERÊNCIAS

• Bardin, L. (2011). Análise de conteúdo São Paulo, SP: Edições 70.
• Barney, B. J. (2018). Why resource-based theory’s model of profit appropriation must incorporate a stakeholder perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 39(13), 3305-3325.
• Benington, J. (2015). Public value as a contested democratic practice In J. M. Bryson, B. C. Crosby, & L. Bloomberg (Eds.), Creating public value in practice: advancing the common good in a multi-sector, shared-power, no-one-wholly-in-charge world New York, NY: Routledge.
• Brito, S. C., & Fazoli, D. A. (2019). Measuring value creation for stakeholders: a contribution from the empirical research. Revista Brasileira de Estratégia, 12(2), 136-153.
• Cabral, S., Fernandes, A., & Ribeiro, D. (2016). Os papéis dos stakeholders na implementação das parcerias público-privadas no estado da Bahia. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, 14(2), 325-339.
• Cabral, S., Mahoney, J. T., McGahan, A. M., & Potoski, M. (2019). Value creation and value appropriation in public and non-profit organizations. Strategic Management Journal, 40(4), 465-475.
• Caldwell, N. D., Roehrich, J. K., & George, G. (2017). Social value creation and relational coordination in public-private collaborations. Journal of Management Studies, 54(6), 906-928.
• Castro, R. G., & Aguilera, R. V. (2015). Incremental value creation and appropriation in a world with multiple stakeholders. Strategic Management Journal, 36(1), 137-147.
• Cutrim, S., Tristão, J. A. M., & Tristão, V. T. V. (2017). Aplicação do método Delphi para identificação e avaliação dos fatores restritivos à realização de parcerias público-privadas (PPPs). Revista Espacios, 38(22), 29-43.
• Derzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Introduction: the discipline and practice of qualitative research. In N. K. Derzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (4a ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
• Dorobantu, S., & Odziemkowska, K. (2017). Valuing stakeholder governance: property rights, community mobilization, and firm value. Strategic Management Journal, 38(13), 2682-2703.
• Firmino, S. I. (2018). Fatores críticos de sucesso das parcerias público-privadas: aspetos político-institucionais. Estudo de caso das rodovias em Portugal. Revista de Administração Pública, 52(6), 1270-1281.
• Freeman, R. E., Phillips, R., & Sisodia, R. (2020). Tensions in stakeholder theory. Business & Society, 59(2), 213-231.
• Freeman, R. E., & Reed, D. L. (1983). Stockholders and stakeholders: a new perspective on corporate governance. California Management Review, 25(3), 88-106.
• Gomes, R. C., Liddle, J., & Gomes, L. D. O. M. (2010). A five-sided model of stakeholder influence: a cross-national analysis of decision making in local government. Public Management Review, 12, 701-724.
• Gomes, R. C., Osborne, S. P., & Guarnieri, P. (2020). Influências dos stakeholders e desempenho do governo local: uma revisão sistemática da literatura. Revista de Administração Pública, 54(3), 448-467.
• Governo de São Paulo. (2020). Manual de Parcerias do Estado de São Paulo Recuperado de http://www.parcerias.sp.gov.br/parcerias/docs/manual_de_parcerias_do_estado_de_sao_paulo.pdf
  » http://www.parcerias.sp.gov.br/parcerias/docs/manual_de_parcerias_do_estado_de_sao_paulo.pdf
• Governo Federal. (2015). PPP Datacenter - Relatório circunstanciado 2º semestre de 2015 Recuperado de http://www.planejamento.gov.br/assuntos/desenvolvimento/parcerias-publico-privadas/projetos/projetos-federais
  » http://www.planejamento.gov.br/assuntos/desenvolvimento/parcerias-publico-privadas/projetos/projetos-federais
• Harrison, J., Freeman, E., & Abreu, M. C. S. (2015). Stakeholder theory as an ethical approach to effective management: applying the theory to multiple contexts. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 17(55), 858-869.
• Hodge, G., & Greve, C. (2007). Public-private partnerships: an international performance review. Public Administration Review, 67, 545-558.
• Kivleniece, I., & Quelin, B. V. (2012). Creating and capturing value in public-private ties: a private actor’s perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 37(2), 272-299.
• Kyie, R. O., & Chan, A. P. C. (2015). Review of studies on the critical success factors for public-private partnership projects from 1990 to 2013. International Journal of Project Management, 33, 1335-1346.
• Lei nº 8.987, de 13 de fevereiro de 1995 (1995). Dispõe sobre o regime de concessão e permissão da prestação de serviços públicos previsto no art. 175 da Constituição Federal, e dá outras providências. Brasília, DF. Recuperado de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L8987cons.htm
  » http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/L8987cons.htm
• Lei nº 10.754, 19 de setembro de 2014 (2014). Autoriza o Poder Executivo a instituir o Serviço Social Autônomo Hospital Metropolitano Doutor Célio de Castro e dá outras providências. Belo Horizonte, MG. Recuperado de http://portal6.pbh.gov.br/dom/iniciaEdicao.do?method=DetalheArtigo&pk=1129133
  » http://portal6.pbh.gov.br/dom/iniciaEdicao.do?method=DetalheArtigo&pk=1129133
• Lei nº 11.079, de 30 de dezembro de 2004 (2004). Institui normas gerais para licitação e contratação de parceria público-privada no âmbito da administração pública. Brasília, DF. Recuperado de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2004/lei/l11079.htm
  » http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2004-2006/2004/lei/l11079.htm
• Lima, C. M. C., & Coelho, A. C. (2015). Alocação e mitigação dos riscos em parcerias público-privadas no Brasil. Revista de Administração Pública, 49(2), 267-291.
• Luo, J., & Kaul, A. (2019). Private action in public interest: the comparative governance of social issues. Strategic Management Journal, 40(4), 476-502.
• Menezes, D. C., Hoffmann, V. E., Z Filho, H. Z. (2019). Stakeholders and critical factors in the Brazilian government’s public private partnerships. Revista do Serviço Público, 70(3), 371-401.
• Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of the who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22, 853-886.
• North, D. (1991). Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 97-112.
• Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration and future directions. The Academy of Management Review, 15(2), 241-265.
• Quelin, B. V., Cabral, S., Lazzarini, S., & Kivleniece, I. (2019). The private scope in public‐private collaborations: an institutional and capability‐based perspective. Organization Science, 30(4), 647-867.
• Quelin, B. V., Kivleniece, I., & Lazzarini, S. (2017). Public-private collaboration, hybridity and social value: towards new theoretical perspectives. Journal of Management Studies, 54(6), 763-792.
• Radar PPP. (2020). Resumo dos contratos de PPPs Recuperado de https://www.radarppp.com/resumo-de-contratos-de-ppps
  » https://www.radarppp.com/resumo-de-contratos-de-ppps
• Reis, C. J. O., & Cabral, S. (2017). Parcerias público-privadas (PPP) em megaeventos esportivos: um estudo comparativo da provisão de arenas esportivas para a Copa do Mundo Fifa Brasil 2014. Revista de Administração Pública, 51(4), 551-579.
• Rockart, J. F. (1982). The changing role of the information systems executive: a critical success factors perspective. Sloan Management Review, 24(1), 3-13.
• Rodrigues, B., & Zucco, C. (2018). Uma comparação direta do desempenho de uma PPP com o modelo tradicional de contratação pública. Revista de Administração Pública, 52(6), 1237-1257.
• Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. 2of Management Executive, 5(2), 61-75.
• Thamer, R., & Lazzarini, S. (2015). Projetos de parceria público-privada: fatores que influenciam o avanço dessas iniciativas. Revista de Administração Pública, 49(4), 819-846.
• Vieira, D. M. (2020). The discourse and coordination among advocacy coalitions: the case of Belo Monte. Rausp - Management Journal, 55(1), 86-99.
• Villani, E., Greco, L., & Phillips, N. (2017). Understanding value creation in public-private partnerships: a comparative case study. Journal of Management Studies, 54(6), 876-905.
• Wang, H., Xiong, W., Wu, G., & Zhu, D. (2018). Public-private partnership in public administration discipline: a literature review. Public Management Review, 20(2), 293-316.
• Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction cost economics: the governance of contractual relations. The Journal of Law and Economics, 22, 233-261.

• [Translated version] Note: All quotes in English translated by this article’s translator.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  21 Mar 2022
• Date of issue
  Jan-Feb 2022

History

• Received
  31 July 2020
• Accepted
  06 Feb 2021