DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
CENTRE FOR EUROPEAN STUDIES (CES)
OUTSOURCING THE LEVIATHAN
Causes for and Consequences of the arrival of public-private
partnerships in the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM)
Cora Catharina Casimir
Master’s thesis: 30 credits
Programme: Master’s Programme in European Studies
Level: Second Cycle
Semester year: Spring 2024
Supervisor: Victor Lapuente Gine, Department of Political Science
Abstract
This thesis investigates the integration of public-private partnerships (PPPs) within
the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM), focusing on their emergence during
Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. As the first study to explore this topic,
it breaks new ground in understanding the drivers behind this strategic shift, assess-
ing the impact of PPPs on the UCPM’s perceived effectiveness, and identifying the
legal and operational challenges associated with incorporating private sector resources
into a traditionally state-centric framework. The theoretical framework study employs
Hastily Formed Networks and Resource Dependency Theory to assess the causes and
Success Factors identified in the literature to assess the consequences of PPP involve-
ment. The qualitative research draws on 17 interviews with representatives from Member
and Participating States, DG ECHO, the private sector, and civil protection experts.
The findings reveal that the unprecedented scale of the Ukraine crisis necessitated rapid
mobilization of resources beyond the public sector’s capacity, leading to the engagement
of private entities. While this integration significantly enhanced response capabilities, it
also introduced complex challenges that must be carefully managed for successful future
institutionalization. The research underscores the potential of PPPs to address critical
resource gaps in disaster response while highlighting the need to preserve the UCPM’s
core principles of solidarity and public accountability. As the European Commission
continues to explore this strategic shift, a balanced approach will be essential to ensure
that PPPs contribute to a more resilient and effective civil protection framework.
Master’s thesis: 30 credits
Programme: Master’s Programme in European Studies
Level: Second Cycle
Semester year: Spring 2024
Supervisor: Victor La Puente Gine
Keyword: Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM), public-private partnerships, rescEU
Wordcount: 21.987
Contents
1 Introduction 2
2 Background 4
2.1 EU Disaster Management and Civil Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Structure of the UCPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.3 Scope and activation of the UCPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3 Previous research and aim 9
3.1 Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1.1 Cross-sector collaboration and public-private partnerships . . . . . 9
3.1.2 The emergence of PPPs: motivations and consequences . . . . . . 11
3.1.3 Success factors of public-private partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.1.4 Enhancing Disaster Response: An integral Role of PPPs . . . . . . 13
3.1.5 Case Studies: PPPs at Work in disaster response and Management 15
3.2 Problem, aim and research questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4 Theory 19
4.1 Framework for Assessing the Causes of PPP involvement in the UCPM . 19
4.1.1 Hastily Formed Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.1.2 Resource Dependency Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2 Framework for Assessing the Consequences of PPP involvement in the
UCPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3 Interlinking of theories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5 Method and material 24
5.1 Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.2 Operationalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.3 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.4 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.5 Ethical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.6 Limitations, Generalization and Robustness of the study . . . . . . . . . . 31
6 Results and Discussion 32
6.1 Causes of PPP Evolution within the UCPM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.1.1 Discussion: driving factors for PPP emergence . . . . . . . . . . . 37
6.2 Consequences of the UCPM’s Strategic Shift Towards PPP involvement . 40
6.2.1 Current State: immediate consequences of Private Sector Integra-
tion with the rescEU Donation Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.2.2 Discussion: immediate consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
6.2.3 Future prospects: institutionalization of PPPs within the UCPM
Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6.2.4 Discussion: Future Prospects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
7 Conclusion 50
7.1 Synthesis of findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
7.2 Broader implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
7.3 Limitations and future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
7.4 Final thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
List of references 54
Appendix 61
Appendix 1: Contacted and interviewed Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Appendix 2: Interview Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Appendix 3: Codes for the Codebook approach and Inductive Codes . . . . . . 71
Abbreviations
CECIS Common Emergency Communication and Information System
CGF Collaborative Governance Framework
CP Civil Protection
CPM Community Civil Protection Mechanism
DG ECHO Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid
Operations
EERC European Emergency Response Capacity
EIB European Investment Bank
ERCC Emergency Response Coordination Centre
EU European Union
EUCom European Commission
HFNs Hastily Formed Networks
MIC Monitoring and Information Centre
PPP Public-Private-Partnership
rescEUDS rescEU Donation Scheme
RDT Resource Dependency Theory
UCPM Union Civil Protection Mechanism
1
1 Introduction
In an era marked by an increasing number of crises and disasters, the importance of ef-
fective crisis management and civil protection (CP) has become more pronounced within
the European Union (EU) (Widmalm et al., 2019, pp. V–VI; Gestri, 2012, p. V). The
Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM), a crucial component of the EU’s crisis man-
agement and CP framework, has evolved significantly over the years, adapting to the
growing complexity and frequency of emergencies that transcend national borders (Eu-
ropean Parliament and the Council, 2021). The mechanism enables swift coordination,
information exchange, and mobilization of assistance during emergencies (European Par-
liament and the Council, 2021, No. 3). The UCPM’s effectiveness is exemplified by its
role in critical interventions during both natural and man-made disasters. From assisting
in search and rescue operations after the 2020 Beirut explosion, to mobilizing in-kind
assistance such as shelter, mattresses, hygiene and medical kits during the cyclone Idai
in Mozambique in 2019, and providing vital support during the 2021 floods in Western
Europe, the UCPM has demonstrated its capacity to manage diverse emergencies (Emer-
gency Response Coodination Center (ERCC), 2024). The mechanism was activated over
480 times alone from 2019 to 2023, underscoring its pivotal role in crisis response (Euro-
pean Commission, 2024b). Established in 2001 and significantly reinforced in 2013, the
UCPM operates under the European Commission’s (EUCom) Directorate-General for
European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) (European Com-
mission, 2013, DG ECHO, 2023). At its core, the UCPM fosters a collaborative frame-
work for disaster prevention, preparedness, and response (DG ECHO, 2023), uniting the
resources and expertise of Member and Participating States (MPS) 1. If the response
capacities of an EU member state, a participating state or any other state are exhausted
in an emergency, they can request assistance through the UCPM (European Parliament
and the Council, 2021, No. 3). Historically, the UCPM’s operational ethos has been
grounded in public-public relationships, where MPS voluntarily contribute capacities
such as rescue or medical teams, experts, specialized equipment, or transportation (DG
ECHO, 2024b). This state-to-state support (ICF S.A., 2024, p. 360) has been founda-
tional to the UCPM’s operations. However, recent crises like Russia’s war of aggression
against Ukraine have exposed the limitations of these traditional approaches, stretching
national capacities to their limits (ICF S.A., 2024, p. 117, 176, 360). At the onset of
these emergencies, various private sector entities proactively reached out to DG ECHO,
offering to donate goods (ICF S.A., 2024, p. 121). Normally, national CP authorities
would channel such donations, but they were overwhelmed by the unprecedented scale
of the crisis. In response, the Commission established the rescEU Donation Scheme
(rescEUDS). In conjunction with Belgian and Polish authorities two rescEU hubs to
streamline the management of private sector donations were established and assistance
of more than 10 million Euros was channeled (Cristian Gimenez, personal communica-
tion, August 19, 2024). The response to the Ukraine crisis has been its largest operation
1The UCPM consists of both Member and Participating states. While some interviewees followed this
pattern, some only referred to Member States, which in most cases also includes the Participating
States.
2
to date, involving all 27 EU countries and six participating states in providing a wide
range of ‘in-kind assistance ranging from medical supplies and shelter items to vehicles
and energy equipment’ (DG ECHO, 2023d).
The integration of the private sector into the UCPM has generated a certain dis-
cussion among states, experts, and stakeholders. Already during Sweden’s presidency
of the Council of the European Union, the topic of society and resilience was a key
priority. Sweden emphasized the importance of a whole-of-society approach, involv-
ing various stakeholders, including the private sector in resilience, preparedness, and
response efforts. While the potential for broader public-private partnerships was ex-
plored and Council Conclusion 10048/23 on strengthening whole-of-society resilience in
the context of Civil Protection was concluded, no significant progress has been seen - un-
til 2022. Interestingly, the Commission’s cooperation initiatives initiated during the war
in Ukraine have brought this topic back to the forefront. The Interim Evaluation of the
Implementation of Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism
(UCPM) covering the period from 2017 to 2022, underscored the significant advance-
ments in public-private cooperation within the UCPM. This evaluation pointed out that
the UCPM had successfully leveraged private sector contributions to fill assistance gaps
and broaden available capacity during Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. Pro-
ponents argue that it enhances response capabilities, offers specialized expertise, and
ultimately benefits disaster response and receivers of assistance. Some countries, which
have long engaged with the private sector, see this cooperation as a natural extension
of their CP strategies on EU-level. On the other hand, critics warn that this shift could
undermine the UCPM’s foundational principles. They stress the need for thorough and
deliberate discussion, fearing that rushed changes might compromise the system’s ef-
fectiveness. There are concerns about quality assurance, liability and the monetary
motivations of private companies and a lot of open questions yet to be answered when it
comes to the practical long-term implementation. Some might fear that the involvement
of the private sector could be perceived as an indication of the public sector’s inability
to respond adequately on its own. These critics argue that CP should remain primarily
a government responsibility, with private contributions limited to supplementary roles.
As indicated in the evaluation, the Commission seems to aim to further develop co-
operation with the private sector. Interviews and discussions at the Civil Protection
Forum in June this year, where a panel session was dedicated to private sector coop-
eration, underline that PPPs are a highly pertinent topic in the EU CP field. Diving
into this current debate, this thesis aims to uncover the causes and consequences of this
development of the UCPM. It seeks to elucidate the drivers behind the emergence of
the cooperations with the private sector, assess the impact of them on the mechanism’s
perceived effectiveness, and identify the legal and operational challenges accompanying
the incorporation of private sector resources and expertise.
Given that this topic is relatively new and the discussion has so far happened through
bilateral channels without publicly accessible documents, this explorative research uti-
lizes 17 interviews with representatives from MPS, DG ECHO and private sector as
well as other experts. The thesis is structured as following: The background chapter
3
offers essential context on EU disaster management, detailing the structure, scope, and
activation of the UCPM. A thorough literature review follows, exploring cross-sector
collaboration, the emergence and motivations behind PPPs, success factors, and rele-
vant case studies, culminating in the presentation of the research problem, aim, and
questions. The theoretical framework chapter employs Hastily Formed Networks and
Resource Dependency Theory to assess the causes and Success Factors identified in the
literature to assess the consequences of PPP involvement. The methodology chapter
outlines the research design, operationalisation, data collection and analysis methods,
and ethical considerations. The results and discussion chapter presents and analyzes the
findings on the evolution and impact of PPPs within the UCPM, discussing immedi-
ate consequences and future prospects. Given its single-case nature, this thesis cannot
completely corroborate a theory, but can provide supporting empirical evidence of the
mechanisms of those theoretical expectations.
The thesis reveals that the integration of PPPs within the UCPM was largely driven
by the unprecedented scale of the crisis in Ukraine, which necessitated rapid mobiliza-
tion of resources and specialized expertise beyond the capacities of the public sector
alone. The findings indicate that while the immediate incorporation of private sector
contributions significantly enhanced the UCPM’s response capabilities, it also introduced
complex legal and operational challenges that require careful consideration if PPPs are
to be institutionalized within the UCPM. The research underscores the benefits of these
partnerships in addressing resource gaps, but also highlights the need for a balanced
approach to ensure that the foundational principles of the UCPM are preserved as the
EU continues to explore and institutionalize this strategic shift.
2 Background
This chapter provides an overview of the UCPM, tracing it’s development from early
cooperative efforts to the establishment until recent developments of private sector co-
operation. It delves into the structure and operational aspects of the UCPM, including
its key components and activation process and delivers further examples of activations.
2.1 EU Disaster Management and Civil Protection
The European Union’s disaster management is built on two main principles: the respon-
sibility of states to protect their citizens and solidarity among MPS to assist each other
in disasters. This collective ethos was initiated in the 1980s, with the ministerial meet-
ings in Rome in 1985 being a key catalyst for cooperative CP frameworks. These early
efforts were non-binding but laid the groundwork for enhanced disaster preparedness
and response (European Council, 2010, p. 25; Gestri, 2012, p. 105). To improve co-
operation and disaster protection, the Community Civil Protection Mechanism (CPM)
was established in 2001 (Gestri, 2012, p. 121). Key developments of the following years
included the introduction of the Monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) and the
Common Emergency Communication and Information System (CECIS, for explanation
see the next subsection) for better disaster response coordination (European Council
4
(Euratom), n.d., 2001, No. 5; Morsut, 2014, p. 145) as well as new training programs
and expert exchanges (European Commission, 2003, (12)). The CPM’s capabilities were
demonstrated during the 2004 South Asia Tsunami, highlighting the need for a robust
mechanism to manage large-scale emergencies (Morsut, 2014, p. 143). The Treaty of
Lisbon further formalized CP as a policy area, introducing Articles 6 and 196 TFEU to
support, coordinate, and supplement MPS’ disaster management actions (Morsut, 2014,
p. 143). Article 222 TFEU, known as the Solidarity Clause, emphasized joint action dur-
ing emergencies (Barnier, 2006; Myrdal & Rhinard, 2010). In response to the increasing
frequency and severity of disasters, the EU revised its civil-protection legislation in 2013
with Decision No 1313/2013/EU, transforming the CPM into the Union Civil Protec-
tion Mechanism (European Parliament and the Council, 2013; Widmalm et al., 2019,
p. 11). This revision emphasized a more unified approach among the MPS to disaster
response (Decision 1313/2013/EU, (1)). In 2019, the EUCom upgraded the UCPM by
creating rescEU, which serves as a reserve of European capacities, fully funded by the
EU. Regulation (EU) 2021/836, effective from January 2021, further enhanced cooper-
ation and coordination, particularly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (European
Parliament and the Council, 2021, Rec. (3)). Throughout the various developments
and amendments of the UCPM, it is evident that a central focus is on enhancing co-
operation between MPS. According to the Interim Evaluation of the Implementation
of Decision No 1313/2013/EU on a UCPM, 2017-2022, the period from 2017 to 2022
stands out in the history of the UCPM for the significant rise in the activations, driven
by an unprecedented wave of complex disasters (ICF S.A., 2024, p. 5; DG ECHO,
2023a). While the focus has traditionally been on fostering cooperation and solidarity
among MPS, these recent challenges seem to have highlighted the need for an evolved
response mechanism. This period has marked a transformative shift towards embracing
a broader, cross-sectoral collaboration paradigm within the UCPM, integrating various
stakeholders beyond the traditional CP actors (ICF S.A., 2024, p. 5). A key instance
during the Ukraine conflict highlighted how overwhelmed traditional state mechanisms
led to the proactive involvement of the UCPM in managing private donations through
the establishment of rescEU hubs in collaboration with Belgian and Polish authorities
(ICF S.A., 2024, p. 121).
2.2 Structure of the UCPM
The UCPM can be describes an an operational structure which facilitates cooperation
in disaster response, preparedness, and prevention and lies within the EU Commission’s
Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations
(ECHO). Laid out in Decision No 1313/2013/EU is the structure of the UCPM. In
recital (12) is stated: ‘The Union Mechanism should be based on a Union structure con-
sisting of an Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC), a European Emergency
Response Capacity (EERC) in the form of a voluntary pool of pre-committed capaci-
ties (CP Pool) from the MPS, trained experts, a Common Emergency Communication
and Information System (CECIS) managed by the Commission and contact points in
the MPS.’ Additionally, the so-called rescEU capacity was introduced in 2019. In the
5
following, those components and their interplay are explained further.
The ERCC operates 24/7, as the coordination center of the UCPM. It is staffed by DG
ECHO and is in constant operation, monitoring emergencies globally and coordinating
the EU’s disaster response. The ERCC’s role includes assessing the needs in the after-
math of a disaster, coordinating the deployment of assistance, and ensuring that the aid
provided by EU MPS is coherent and timely (DG ECHO, 2023b). Further, the ERCC is
responsible for the co-financing commitments for the pool capacities and the financing
commitments for rescEU for both the transportation and operational costs. The ERCC
uses the Common Emergency Communication and Information System (CECIS), a web-
based alert and notification application enabling a real-time exchange of information
between the ERCC and the MPS’ contact points (DG ECHO, 2023b). MPS offer their
available relief teams, experts and equipment in CECIS (DG ECHO, 2015).
The possibility of MPS responding to disasters can be visualized as a pyramid (See
Figure 1) with three primary layers within the sphere of the UCPM, each representing
a different level of response capability:
Figure 1: Hierarchy of Capacities and Measures within the UCPM Framework, own il-
lustration
National Capacities: At the base of the pyramid are the national capacities of the
MPS, which are the first line of response to disasters. Each country maintains its own
disaster response units, equipment, and resources. These national capacities are essen-
tial as they handle the majority of incidents independently.
6
Voluntary offers: These offers can be made from an offering state to the requesting
state and is the first layer of requesting assistance ‘abroad’ through the UCPM.
European Civil Protection Pool (CP Pool or ECPP)2: When national resources
are insufficient to manage a disaster, the UCPM can be activated. Then, the next layer
of response involves the European Emergency Response Capacity, also known as the Eu-
ropean Civil Protection Pool or shortly CP Pool (DG ECHO, 2015). This pool consists
of pre-committed resources from the 27 EU Member States and 10 other Participating
States3. The whole CP Pool is tailored to the individual strengths and capabilities of
each state and include a range of assets such as specialized rescue teams, medical units,
technical experts, and equipment. The maintenance is done by the MPS but financed
by the Commission. The CP Pool can be mobilized at the EU level for coordinated re-
sponse efforts (DG ECHO, 2023b). On the Member State’s side, the process of offering
these capacities is typically managed by national CP agencies or equivalent governmen-
tal departments, which are responsible for maintaining the readiness of these resources.
They also ensure that the personnel are well-trained, and the equipment is in a state
of operational readiness, adhering to international standards (Decision 1313/2013/EU,
Art. 9). The CP Pool is designed to be rapidly deployable, with the UCPM stepping in
to finance the most part of transportation and other operational costs.
rescEU: at the top of the pool is the rescEU capacity, a ‘safety net’ established to
provide an additional layer of protection when both national capacities and the CP Pool
are not sufficient (European Parliament and the Council, 2021, Recital (2)). RescEU
includes for example a fleet of firefighting planes and helicopters, shelter, a medical evac-
uation plane, stockpiles of medical items and medical capacities as well as reserves to
address chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) risks (European Commis-
sion, 2024a). These capacities are fully funded by the EU but maintained and stationed
in the MPS. RescEU can be deployed swiftly to provide comprehensive support during
major disasters.
‘Direct Procurement Provision’: in extreme cases where the rescEU capacities and
the CP Pool are insufficient, according to Regulation (EU) 2021/836, Art. 12 3b, the EU-
Com can step in directly, using existing rescEU capacities or creating new ones rapidly.
This highest level of intervention is designed for scenarios where traditional mechanisms
are overwhelmed, such as large-scale conflicts or unprecedented natural disasters.
Beyond the structured layers of response capabilities within the UCPM, there are
additional measures and capacities that can be deployed outside of this framework to
effectively respond to specific disaster scenarios. These external measures might include
2The CP Pool is the same as the EERC. As EERC is used in very limited occasion within the Cmmission,
this thesis uses the term CP Pool
3Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia,
Türkiye, and Ukraine.
7
bilateral or multilateral agreements between states, direct international assistance, sup-
port by military or the involvement of private sector and non-governmental organizations
that operate independently of the UCPM.
2.3 Scope and activation of the UCPM
The UCPM is capable of responding to various crises such as natural disasters like
earthquakes and floods, technological or radiological incidents, acts of terrorism, envi-
ronmental and marine pollution, and acute public health emergencies, whether occurring
within or outside the EU. Its protection extends primarily to people, but also encom-
passes the environment, property, and cultural heritage (Decision 1313/2013/EU, Art. 1,
No. 2). The UCPM’s response to acts of terrorism and radiological disasters is generally
focused on preparedness and response actions (Decision 1313/2013/EU). Importantly,
the UCPM pays special attention to the unique needs of ‘isolated, outermost regions, is-
lands of the EU, and overseas countries and territories’ (Decision 1313/2013/EU, Art. 2,
No. 2), ensuring tailored strategies for disaster prevention, preparedness, and response.
Geographically, the UCPM is not limited to Member and Participating States; it can
be activated globally by ‘any country in the world, but also the United Nations and its
agencies or a relevant international organisation’ (DG ECHO, 2023c, EU civil protection
in action). While any country can request assistance via the UCPM, only MPS offer via
this system.
Since its enhancement in 2013, the UCPM has been activated over 650 times to respond
to a variety of emergencies. While the UCPM was activated an average of 18 times per
year between 2002 and 2019, a sharp increase to an average of 107 activations per year
between 2020 and 2022 can be observed from 2020 onwards (DG ECHO, 2023a). Notable
instances include the response to the Ebola virus outbreak in West Africa in 2014, where
the UCPM played a pivotal role in coordinating and delivering European aid, including
medical and emergency supplies and experts as well as managing evacuation requests in
cooperation with the World Health Organization (DG ECHO, 2023a). The mechanism
was also activated for various natural disasters, such as the severe forest fires in Portugal
in 2017 and Sweden in 2018, where it helped mobilize firefighting aircraft and teams to
assist in combating the fires (DG ECHO, 2023a). During the COVID-19 pandemic, the
UCPM facilitated the distribution of medical equipment and repatriation of EU citizens
stranded abroad (DG ECHO, 2023a). In response to the crisis in Ukraine, the EUCom
has launched its largest operation under the UCPM to date. This effort involves all
27 EU countries along with Norway, Türkiye, North Macedonia, Iceland, and Serbia,
contributing a wide range of in-kind assistance such as medical supplies, shelter items,
vehicles, and energy equipment (DG ECHO, 2023d). The preceding examples highlight
the diversity of UCPM activations, encompassing a wide range of crises. Despite their
differences, these situations share a critical commonality: in each instance, the severity
and complexity of the crisis overwhelmed national capacities, necessitating the activation
of the UCPM to provide essential support and coordination. Importantly, this state of
being overwhelmed is not merely a consequence but a key conditionality for UCPM
activation, as stated in Recital (24) of Decision 1313/2013/EU.
8
3 Previous research and aim
In this section, a comprehensive literature review will be conducted to explore the cur-
rent scholarly discourse surrounding cross-sector collaboration and public-private part-
nerships, especially in disaster response. This review will examine both the theoretical
frameworks and empirical studies as well as present real-life cases where cross-sector
collaboration in disaster response occurred. Following the literature review, the specific
aims of this thesis and formulate the primary research questions, that this study seeks
to answer will be outlined.
3.1 Literature Review
This thesis builds on the insights of key figures in disaster management, public admin-
istration, PPPs, and CP. The literature review is divided into several sections, each
addressing different facets of these topics to elucidate current scholarly discourse and
highlight this research’s unique contributions. The first section examines the concept
of cross-sector collaboration, referencing scholars like Bryson, Crosby, and McGuire. It
discusses foundational governance and partnership theories relevant to PPPs, emphasiz-
ing their importance in the strategic evolution of the UCPM. Following this, the review
explores the operational and strategic impacts of PPPs, both generally and specifically
within disaster response contexts. Through the perspectives of Andrews, Entwistle, and
others, it analyzes the role of PPPs in enhancing the UCPM’s capabilities to manage
complex crises. This section identifies key operational challenges and opportunities pre-
sented by PPP integration in disaster response. Next, the literature review delves into
case studies showcasing PPPs in disaster response and management. These examples
include successful collaborations involving major corporations like Wal-Mart, the IKEA
Foundation, and DHL’s Disaster Response Teams. These case studies demonstrate the
practical application and value of PPPs in improving disaster resilience and response,
offering insights into how such partnerships can be further leveraged within the UCPM
framework. Subsequent sections address additional dimensions of PPPs in disaster man-
agement. These include an examination of the definitions and theoretical frameworks
underpinning PPPs, an analysis of their emergence and motivations, and a discussion
on the success factors critical to effective PPP implementation. This comprehensive
review provides a robust foundation for understanding the current state of PPPs in dis-
aster management, identifying critical gaps and trends that the following sections of the
thesis will explore further, focusing on optimizing PPP integration within the UCPM
framework.
3.1.1 Cross-sector collaboration and public-private partnerships
In this literature review chapter, the emphasis is placed on understanding the broader
academic discourse surrounding PPPs. This exploration delves into the theoretical
frameworks and empirical studies that explain the emergence and effectiveness of PPPs
across various sectors. By situating the UCPM within this context, the subsequent
9
analysis of the UCPM’s engagement with the private sector will draw upon these gen-
eral findings to highlight specific collaborative endeavors within disaster management.
Despite the UCPM report categorizing these engagements broadly under the term ‘col-
laboration’ (ICF S.A., 2024, e.g. p. 10, 121) this analysis will extend to encompass both
cross-sector collaboration and PPPs as the latter are a subset of cross-sector collabora-
tions and both the rescEUDS as possible future engagements between UCPM and the
private sector can possibly be categorized as PPPs.
In this literature review subchapter, the focus is on understanding the difference be-
tween cross-sector collaboration and PPPs. Although the UCPM report broadly cat-
egorizes the engagements with the private sector under the term ‘collaboration’ (ICF
S.A., 2024, e.g. p. 10, 121), the analysis in this study will specifically concentrate on
PPPs. The reason is that the rescEUDS is the main experience that the interviewees can
refer to which can be categorized as a PPP. The use of the broader term ‘cross-sector
collaboration’ by the EU might be to keep options open for cooperating with the third
sector or due to a lack of distinction between cross-sector and private sector cooperation.
However, this thesis will focus explicitly on PPPs, using the terms ‘cooperation with the
private sector’ or ’PPPs’ and avoiding ‘cross-sector collaboration’ where possible.
Cross-sector collaboration is a strategic alliance that unites entities from two or more
sectors, including government, business, nonprofits, philanthropies, communities, and
the public, towards achieving common objectives (Bryson et al., 2006, p. 44). As
delineated by Bryson, Crosby, and Stone (2006, p. 44), this form of partnership is char-
acterized by the pooling of information, resources, activities, and capabilities to realize
outcomes unattainable by single-sector efforts alone. The structure of these collabora-
tions can range from informal, ad hoc arrangements, such as temporary task forces, to
highly formalized contractual agreements between organizations (Simo & Bies, 2007, p.
125). While the motivations behind such partnerships are varied, cross-sector collabo-
ration inherently aims to advance the public good, necessitating some degree of public
or nonprofit participation (Simo & Bies, 2007, p. 125). This concept closely aligns with
McGuire’s notion of collaborative public management (McGuire, 2002, p. 33), which
emphasizes the facilitation and operation within multi-organizational arrangements to
address complex issues beyond the capacity of single organizations. Thus, cross-sector
collaboration represents a vital mechanism for leveraging diverse strengths and resources
in pursuit of shared societal benefits.
Within this broad framework of cross-sector collaboration, PPPs are distinguished as
a specialized subset, marked by the synergistic cooperation between government agen-
cies and private sector entities (Andrews & Entwistle, 2015, p. 274). There exist various
definitions of PPPs, within the EU alone. According to the European Investment Bank
(EIB), a PPP is ‘is an arrangement between a public authority and a private partner de-
signed to deliver a public infrastructure project and service under a long-term contract’
(2024). The European Commission (EUCom) defines PPPs in a similar way, namely
as ‘forms of cooperation between public authorities and the world of business which
aim to ensure the funding, construction, renovation, management or maintenance of an
10
infrastructure or the provision of a service’ (European Commission, 2004, No. 1, 1.1).
Those definitions narrow down the scope of PPPs to infrastructure-related projects or
long-term engagements, omitting other types of PPP projects or shorter-term collabo-
rations. But there exist various different PPPs that are not limited to infrastructure
projects or long-time partnership (European Court of Auditors, 2018, pp. 15-16). PPPs
can manifest in varied forms — from competitive tendering processes and contractual
agreements to more complex, hybrid organizational structures predicated on mixed own-
ership and high levels of trust (Andrews & Entwistle, 2015, p. 274). Such partnerships
are can be fluid, blurring the lines between traditional contracting and privatization.
Even if the application of an EU-level definition would augment the paper’s applicabil-
ity to analyses of PPPs within the EU framework, the specificity of the definitions by
the EIB and the EUCom misaligns with the goals of this paper, which aims to exam-
ine PPPs in the realms of disaster management and CP—areas that don’t necessarily
involve infrastructure projects. Therefore, given the relativeley new incorporation of
PPPs in EU disaster management and CP, where a narrow characterisation of PPPs is
not possible yet, this paper will adopt a more inclusive definition of PPPs. Drawing from
scholarly sources, PPPs can be conceptualized as a a collaborative relationship among
public, private, and non-governmental entities, grounded on a mutual agreement that
reflects shared responsibilities towards common interests (Buse & Walt, 2000, p. 549;
Andrews & Entwistle, 2015, pp. 274-276). As can be seen later in the analysis, it is
not clear if public and private sector follow a common interest in the case of the private
sector engagement within the UCPM. A definition that includes a relevant aspect for
this study is provided by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and
Development, which articulates PPPs as ‘cooperative ventures between the public and
private sectors in the design, planning, construction, financing, management, operation
and utilization of public services that were previously the sole responsibility of the state’
(Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung, 2024, own
translation from German). The aspect of actions being transferred from the state re-
sponsibility to the private sector is particularly relevant here. The reason is that CP
is a member state competence (Fink-Hooijer, 2014, No. 1). As none of the definitions
above seem to fit the case of the UCPM, this study proposes the following definition
of PPPS that accommodates the breadth of their application, particularly within the
context of the UCPM. PPPs are hereby defined as collaborative frameworks that engage
public authorities and private sector entities in a partnership based on mutual agreement.
A PPP extends to encompass actions and initiatives that were previously the exclusive
domain of the state..
3.1.2 The emergence of PPPs: motivations and consequences
The evolution of PPPs since the 1990s reflects a strategic shift in how public services
are conceptualized, developed, and delivered (Osborne, 2002, p. 1). This closely mirrors
the UCPM’s recent developments to coorperate with the private sector. These part-
nerships, while varying across time, sectors, and countries (McQuaid & Scherrer, 2010,
p. 27), seem to share a common thread in their ability to amalgamate the strengths of
11
both public and private sectors to address infrastructural and service delivery challenges
more effectively and innovatively (Steijn et al., 2011, p. 1235). The literature suggests
that PPPs transcend traditional contractual arrangements to become strategic alliances
that enhance performance metrics, competitive capabilities, and operational excellence,
leveraging the private sector’s specialist knowledge and efficiency (Kang et al., 2019, pp.
335-337; Osei-Kyei et al., 2017, p. 87).
Steijn et al. elucidate that the fundamental rationale for the emergence of PPPs cen-
ters on the premise that greater collaboration between public and private sectors can
yield significant added value (Steijn et al., 2011, p. 1235). This synergistic model encap-
sulates diverse motivations for PPP engagement mentioned in the literature: PPPs have
garnered attention not only as a cost-efficient and effective mechanism for implement-
ing public policy but also as facilitators of substantial benefits, for example in fostering
socially inclusive communities (Osborne, 2002, p. 1). According to Steijn et al., govern-
ments anticipate heightened service quality and improved value for money by entrusting
private actors with service provision or policy realization (2011, p. 1235). Furthermore,
for the public entities, such partnerships represent opportunities to enhance effectiveness
and efficiency, access private financing and import management expertise (Rybnicek et
al., 2020, p. 1175; Andrews & Entwistle, 2015, pp. 274-275; Wang et al., 2018, pp. 311-
312; Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2011, p. 12). Additionally, PPPs are seen as platforms
for fostering innovation (Liu et al., 2024, p. 31). Private partners, in turn, benefit from
the ability to share or shift risks as well as costs and gain access to public projects they
might not otherwise sustain (OECD, 2008, p. 131; Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2011, p.
5, 8) which can lead to a better reputation (Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2011, p. 8).
Despite the benefits and efficiencies attributed to PPPs, criticisms underscore the
complexities and unintended consequences of such collaborations. As highlighted by Bo-
vaird, the partnership model can dilute individual agency sovereignty, complicating the
attribution of accountability (Bovaird, 2004, pp. 204-205). Another concern is the pub-
lic sector’s challenge in ensuring that private entities assume an equitable share of costs
and risks, highlighting a fundamental concern in risk allocation (Hayllar & Wettenhall,
2010, p. 4). This struggle is compounded by political apprehensions about losing over-
sight over policymaking and service delivery. Such concerns reflect a deeper reluctance
among politicians to cede power and decision-making autonomy to the private sector,
underscoring a broader dilemma in the governance and management of PPPs (Bovaird,
2004, p. 205), as they also might lead to a ‘conflicts of interest between key actors’
(Hayllar & Wettenhall, 2010, p. 4).
3.1.3 Success factors of public-private partnerships
Additionally to the substantial body of literature that advocates for the integration of
PPPs as a means to enhance public service delivery and infrastructure development,
there are scholars focusing on the success factors that influence the cooperations’ out-
comes post-implementation. Central to these discussions is the consensus on good gov-
ernance as a critical underpinning for successful PPP ventures. Bovaird (2004, pp.
12
210-211) and Hofmeister and Borchert (2004, pp. 219-220) argue that accountability,
responsiveness, transparency, equity, and participation are indispensable for effective
PPP operation. In addition, several scholars such as Koppenjan and Enserink (2009,
pp. 293) further expand on this by suggesting what PPP projects can achieve through
robust institutional frameworks. An important part of such frameworks, some scholars
such as Jamali (2004, p. 419) and Pongsiri (2002, p. 493) highlight the necessity of
a sound legal and regulatory framework in order to ensure fair and transparent oper-
ations and long-term sustainability and success. Specialized expertise is required by
governments to manage these complex arrangements effectively. As Bloomfield (2006,
pp. 409-410) asserts, for long-term PPP contracts to be successful, governments must
not only invest in but also cultivate specialized expertise and effective contract manage-
ment capabilities. Kettl (1993, p. 6) and Bloomfield (2006, pp. 409-410) further detail
this requisite capability, outlining that successful PPP management involves selecting
suitable contractual partners, and proficiently managing, monitoring, and enforcing the
contracts with the private sector. These actions are critical as they directly influence
the ability of a government to uphold its end of the partnership while ensuring that the
private entity meets its obligations. Building upon this foundation, in their study, Yang,
Hou, and Wang (2013, pp. 303-304) built their analytical framework on three pillars:
the market, the operating environment, and the government. They identify additional
critical success factors, namely the market potential, institutional guarantee, government
credibility, financial accessibility, government capacity, consolidated management, and
corruption control (Yang et al., 2013, p. 301) which aligns with the emphasis on good
governance and specialized expertise highlighted by other scholars, while also addressing
additional factors essential for sustainable PPP operations.
3.1.4 Enhancing Disaster Response: An integral Role of PPPs
The increasing recognition of PPPs as essential in responding to complex crises and
disasters, such as the 2008 financial downturn and the COVID-19 pandemic, underscores
a pivotal moment for the UCPM’s engagement with these partnerships. These historical
events have highlighted the shortcomings of traditional, solely government-led disaster
management approaches, spotlighting the urgent need to leverage the combined strengths
and capabilities of both public and private sectors. Scholars such as Castelblanco et al.
(2024, p. 57) and Akomea et al. (Akomea-Frimpong et al., 2023, p. 701, 703) have noted
the necessity of collaborative efforts to effectively navigate the complexities presented by
global crises. This ‘immediate creation of reactive short-term collaborative relationships’
(Vecchi et al., 2021b, p. 15) are also called hastily formed networks (Busch & Givens,
2013, p. 10) and lays in the rationale that the agility and resources of the private
sector are critical in complementing public sector capabilities. This perspective seems
particularly relevant to the UCPM, as the mechanism seeks to adapt to an evolving
landscape of threats by potentially integrating PPPs into its framework.
Cross-sectoral partnerships are seen as instrumental in addressing such complex social
issues by leveraging the comparative advantages of each sector. Public sector partners
may possess specific mandates or powers to target ‘wicked issues’ (Andrews & Entwistle,
13
2010, p. 680; Bovaird, 2004, p. 208), while private sector partners can maximize value for
money and deliver outcomes at lower costs (Andrews & Entwistle, 2010, p. 680). This
approach reflects a recognition that public agencies alone cannot effectively tackle such
challenges, necessitating collaboration with a wide range of organizations across sectors
(Bovaird, 2004, p. 208). This is aligned with the growing understanding that addressing
tough social problems and achieving beneficial community outcomes requires collabora-
tion among multiple sectors of society, including ‘business, nonprofits and philanthropies,
the media, the community, and government’ (Bryson et al., 2006, p. 44).
The concept of community resilience has also gained traction in recent years, providing
ideological support for private involvement in disaster management (Uhnoo & Persson,
2022, p. 440). Resilience shifts away from a government-centered approach and empha-
sizes shared responsibility across all community sectors, including public, private, and
civic sectors (Tierney, 2019, p. 199; R̊adestad & Larsson, 2020, p. 86). Cross-sector col-
laboration, including PPPs, is advocated for in disaster management, with some scholars
asserting that PPPs are essential for preparing for, responding to, and recovering from
large-scale natural disasters (Stewart et al., 2009, p. 344; Ansell et al., 2010, p. 204).
According to Busch and Givens, PPPs can have ‘positive strategic, operational, and
tactical impacts in disaster management’ (Busch & Givens, 2013, p. 16) and Chen et
al. argue that there is an agreement that PPPs are ‘essential for preparing for, respond-
ing to and recovering from large-scale natural disasters’ (Chen et al., 2013, p. 132).
In the landscape of disaster management, PPPs have emerged as critical instruments
for enhancing societal resilience and streamlining disaster response (Uhnoo & Persson,
2022, pp. 440-441; Busch & Givens, 2013, p. 2). These partnerships, varying from
service contracts to information dissemination efforts, represent a strategic realignment
of traditional disaster management approaches (Goldsmith & Eggers, 2004, pp. 69-70).
Busch and Givens (2004) articulate the transformative potential of these collaborations,
asserting that PPPs can significantly alter the strategic focus of disaster management
agencies by integrating the private sector into the core operational framework of emer-
gency preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation (2013, p. 4). This shift not only
broadens the scope of disaster management but also imbues it with a level of flexibil-
ity and efficiency previously unattainable through public sector efforts alone (Busch &
Givens, 2013, p. 6; Stewart et al., 2009, p. 345). Strategically, PPPs allow govern-
ment agencies to delegate certain emergency management functions to private entities,
thereby freeing up resources and enabling a more focused approach to strategic planning
and crisis mitigation (2013, p. 5). Operationally, these partnerships facilitate a more
efficient allocation of resources, enhancing the responsiveness of disaster management
agencies to emerging needs and challenges (2013, pp. 5-6). An historical analysis of re-
sponses to disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina (Waugh & Streib, 2006; Mitchell, 2006;
Kapucu, 2006) and the COVID-19 pandemic (Akomea-Frimpong et al., 2023), as well as
recommendations from international frameworks like the Hyogo Framework (UNISDR,
2005, p. 11) and his successor the Sendai Framework (UNISDR, 2015), underscore the
importance of establishing PPPs to engage the private sector in disaster risk reduction
and resilience building. Several countries adopted policy frameworks that emphasize the
significance of partnerships for disaster resilience (e.g. Bundesministerium des Innern
14
und für Heimat (BMI) (2022), Australian Government (2011), Public Safety Canada
(2017)).
3.1.5 Case Studies: PPPs at Work in disaster response and Management
Private companies have been found to cooperate with public disaster responders in
numerous ways, driven not only by government contracts but also by ‘vested interests
in the impacted areas through physical assets, suppliers, customers, and/or corporate
values of social responsibility’ (Stewart et al., 2009, p. 345; Uhnoo & Persson, 2022,
p. 440). As mentioned above, while empirical evidence presents a varied picture on
positive and negative effects, an increasing number of successful examples of PPPs in
the context of disaster management are emerging globally (Chen et al., 2013, p. 132;
UNISDR, 2008). According to Ballesteros and Useem, ‘less than a third of the world’s
2,000 largest multinational corporations donated to disaster recovery’ (Ballesteros &
Useem, 2023, p. 27). However, in the present day, over 90% of these corporations offer
some form of support in times of disaster, ranging from financial donations and provision
of ‘cash, goods, services, and sometimes even direct relief and logistics’(Ballesteros &
Useem, 2023, p. 27). PPPs in disaster management vary in their nature of cooperation
and action but nevertheless have proven instrumental in response efforts, exemplified by
companies like Wal-Mart in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the implementation of
the IKEA Foundation’s Better Shelter initiative and DHL’s Disaster Response Teams
(DRTs). These examples underscore the capacity of PPPs to marshal the strengths of
both sectors towards the goal of swift and effective mobilization of aid and resources to
disaster-stricken communities and can offer insights for the UCPM. It is noteworthy that
there are no scholarly case studies of PPPs within the UCPM, due to the only recent
emergence.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Wal-Mart played a critical role by
distributing relief supplies to affected Gulf Coast residents (2013, p. 6). Leveraging its
extensive distribution network and logistical capabilities, Wal-Mart was able to quickly
supply essential goods, such as water, food, and emergency supplies, demonstrating
the effectiveness of corporate resources in immediate disaster response efforts (Worthen,
2005). Prior to Katrina escalating into a Category Five Hurricane, Wal-Mart’s Emer-
gency Operations Centre (EOC), established in 2003, was closely monitoring the storm,
adjusting its emergency response plans accordingly (Chen et al., 2013, pp. 135-136).
Wal-Mart’s approach to collaboration during Katrina was innovative, including the in-
corporation of a Red Cross senior official into its EOC team (Chen et al., 2013, pp.
135). This partnership facilitated effective coordination between Wal-Mart and the Red
Cross, allowing for more efficient distribution of aid and resources (Chen et al., 2013,
pp. 135). Furthermore, Wal-Mart’s daily situation reports became a crucial information
source for both federal (DHS and the National Infrastructure Coordination Centre) and
state authorities, highlighting the retailer’s role as a vital conduit for disaster response
information (Chen et al., 2013, pp. 135).
The partnership between UNHCR and the IKEA Foundation exemplifies an approach
to engaging with the private sector in humanitarian efforts and disaster response, particu-
15
larly in enhancing access to clean energy and promoting economic and financial inclusion
for refugees (UNHCR, n.d.). According to UNHCR, the IKEA Foundation has signif-
icantly impacted UNHCR’s operations and strategic directions through its substantial
contributions, exceeding USD 198 million in both cash and in-kind donations since initi-
ating their collaboration in 2010 (UNHCR, n.d.). Additionally, the IKEA Foundation’s
Better Shelter initiative was launched to provide safer, more dignified homes for refugees
and those affected by disasters (IKEA Foundation, 2023). The project involves the de-
sign and production of flat-pack, easy-to-assemble shelters that offer a more durable and
secure alternative to traditional emergency tents, aiming to improve the living condi-
tions in refugee camps and disaster-affected areas (IKEA Foundation, 2023). As disaster
response effort to the earthquake response in Türkiye and Syria, the IKEA Foundation
contributed by committing EUR 10 million to support the provision of 5,000 emergency
shelters developed by Better Shelter (IKEA Foundation, 2023). This strategic alliance
has not only provided critical support during emergencies but also fostered innovation
and scalability in humanitarian solutions (UNHCR, n.d.). The IKEA Foundation’s com-
mitment extends beyond immediate crisis response, focusing on sustainable initiatives
that empower refugees to lead dignified lives (UNHCR, n.d.).
In partnership with UNOCHA, DHL has harnessed its global logistics expertise to cre-
ate a network of around 900 volunteers, forming the Disaster Response Teams (DRTs)
who provide ‘on-site logistics support at affected airports in the wake of a natural dis-
aster’ (UN OCHA & Deutsche Post DHL Group, 2023, p. 20) and the Get Airports
Ready for Disaster (GARD) program for airport preparation in ‘areas at risk of natural
catastrophes’ (UN OCHA & Deutsche Post DHL Group, 2023, p. 20). These initiatives
were born in the wake of the 2003 Bam earthquake’s logistical chaos, which underscores
a pivotal moment for DHL, recognizing its capacity to leverage its global network and
logistics acumen to aid disaster-stricken communities (UN OCHA & Deutsche Post DHL
Group, 2023, pp. 47-48).
For instance, Wal-Mart’s pivotal role in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, leveraging
its distribution network to quickly supply essential goods to affected residents, illustrates
the logistical prowess that the private sector can bring to disaster relief efforts. Simi-
larly, the IKEA Foundation’s Better Shelter initiative and DHL’s DRTs underscore the
innovative solutions and specialized expertise that private partners can contribute to hu-
manitarian efforts. These initiatives reflect a strategic alignment of corporate resources
and social responsibility goals with public disaster management objectives, offering mod-
els of how PPPs can enhance the capacity to address emergency situations.
3.2 Problem, aim and research questions
While existing literature provides a foundational understanding of PPPs in disaster man-
agement and their emergence on a general scale, there remains a notable gap regarding
the specific application of PPPs within the UCPM. This gap arises from the novelty of
PPPs within the UCPM framework, a development so recent that it was first officially
recognized in the 2024 interim evaluation report. Given the nascent incorporation of
PPPs into the UCPM and the lack of prior academic scrutiny in this area, it is crucial
16
to conduct an exploratory study at this early juncture. The emergent nature of the
partnerships, juxtaposed with a clear gap in legal and procedural guidance within the
UCPM framework, presents a unique opportunity to contribute to a more resilient and
adaptive CP mechanism. By delving into the emergence, challenges, and contributions
of PPPs, this thesis aims to shed light on the factors explaining the emergence of PPPs
and its consequences on the effectiveness of disaster relief and CP.
The period from 2017 to 2022 marks a significant phase in the evolution of the UCPM,
characterized by an increased frequency of complex disasters necessitating an evolved
response strategy. A coping mechanism that emerged within this strategy has been the
development of PPPs, driven by the urgent demands of the war in Ukraine. Despite
the apparent benefits of such partnerships that were mentioned in the literature, such
as enhanced capacity and broader resource availability, a formal legal and operational
framework for integrating PPPs into the UCPM remains absent until today, as the
UCPM is based on the idea of state-to-state aid. This gap complicates the cooperation
process. The EUCom highlights the benefits and seems to be keen to integrate the
private sector in a long term. At the same time, the interim evaluation of the UCPM
underscores the critical need for a robust framework to harness the full potential of PPPs,
suggesting a pivotal moment for reassessing the mechanism’s operational doctrine and
legal underpinnings in light of the shift towards inclusive, cross-sectoral collaboration
(European Parliament and the Council, 2013, p. 184). There exist concerns about the
efficacy, accountability, and governance of such collaborations (European Parliament and
the Council, 2013, p. 184) and there are a lot of open questions to be answered, as some
MPS underline.
This thesis aims to investigate the emergence and operational dynamics of PPPs within
the UCPM, with a particular focus on their integration during the war in Ukraine. It
seeks to elucidate the drivers behind this strategic shift, assess the impact of PPPs on
the mechanism’s crisis response capabilities, and identify the legal and operational chal-
lenges that accompany the incorporation of private sector resources and expertise. By
doing so, the thesis endeavors to offer a comprehensive analysis of the evolving land-
scape of CP within the EU, highlighting the potential of PPPs to redefine traditional
approaches to disaster management and resilience-building.
This thesis is structured to examine the causes for the emergence and the consequences
of PPPS within the UCPM. To comprehensively address these aspects, the study is
guided by two primary research questions — one focusing on the driving factors behind
the evolution of PPPs, and the other on the consequences of this strategic shift. Each
question aims to uncover distinct dimensions of PPP integration within the UCPM:
What are the driving factors behind the evolution of PPPs within the UCPM
context, particularly in response to the war in Ukraine?
This question seeks to explore the contextual and strategic influences that have pro-
pelled the integration of PPPs into the UCPM. It aims to identify the key motivations
and circumstances that have necessitated the adoption of PPPs, particularly in light of
17
pressing global challenges that demand enhanced operational capabilities and flexibility.
The analysis will delve into how these factors have shaped the UCPM’s approach to
crisis management and the broader implications for EU disaster response strategies.
What are the consequences of the UCPM’s strategic shift towards PPP in-
volvement in terms of perceived effectiveness and the necessary operational
and legal adjustments?
This question examines the impact of the UCPM’s strategic realignment towards
greater PPP involvement. It focuses on assessing how this shift has influenced the
mechanism’s perceived effectiveness and the adaptations required within its legal and
operational framework. The inquiry will scrutinize both the benefits and challenges
that have emerged from PPP integration, aiming to provide actionable insights into how
the UCPM can design its partnerships to enhance disaster management and CP efforts
effectively. The question is examined from two sides, the first part focusing on the imme-
diate consequences of PPP integration, and the second part explores the future prospects
and long-term implications of institutionalizing these partnerships within the UCPM.
The discussion about this question is divided in two parts, one focusing on immediate
consequences, the second one on future prospects.
Given that there is only one event where PPPs occurred within the UCPM and the
scarcity of published data on their effectiveness, this thesis opts to focus on perceived
effectiveness as a primary evaluative metric. Perceived effectiveness within the UCPM
refers to the subjective evaluation by stakeholders of how well the UCPM achieves its
objectives as defined in Decision No 1313/2013/EU. These objectives include prevent-
ing, preparing for, and responding to disasters with an aim to improve the effectiveness
of systems in handling natural and man-made disasters (European Parliament and the
Council, 2013). Perceived effectiveness, in this context, not only provides a viable alter-
native to traditional empirical assessments but also captures the subjective evaluations of
stakeholders directly involved with or affected by the UCPM’s initiatives. This approach
is particularly pertinent in the exploratory phase of studying PPPs within the UCPM,
where direct outcomes and impacts are not yet fully measurable or understood. By
analyzing how these partnerships are perceived by key actors, the research aims to glean
insights into the qualitative aspects of effectiveness, such as stakeholder satisfaction,
trust in PPP arrangements, and the subjective assessment of the PPPs’ contribution to
the UCPM’s disaster response capabilities.
All in all, the research questions are intended to dissect different aspects of PPP dy-
namics within the UCPM — analyzing both the causes behind their adoption and the
subsequent outcomes of their integration. This dual examination helps in understanding
not only why PPPs might become a strategic necessity but also how they would reshape
the operational and legal landscapes of the UCPM.
18
4 Theory
This chapter develops a theoretical framework to analyze the dynamics and implica-
tions of PPPS within the UCPM. Understanding the nature of PPPs requires a com-
prehensive approach that examines both their emergence and their ongoing influence
on disaster management strategies. To achieve this, the thesis interlinks two key the-
ories and a summary of success factors derived from the literature. For the causes of
PPPs, Hastily Formed Networks (HFN) and Resource Dependency Theory (RDT) are
explored to provide perspectives on the initiation and strategic management of PPPs.
For the consequences of PPPs, various success factors identified in the literature are
examined to understand their governance and effectiveness. Those are: Good Gover-
nance, Institutional Frameworks, Specialized Expertise, disaster response Enhancement
and Community resilience. This integrated theoretical approach not only enhances the
understanding of the immediate responses to crises but also illuminates the broader
strategic implications for EU prevention, preparedness, and response to disasters. The
ensuing sections will detail how each theory and factor contributes to the understanding
of PPPs and demonstrate their interconnectedness in addressing the research questions
posed by this study.
4.1 Framework for Assessing the Causes of PPP involvement in the UCPM
4.1.1 Hastily Formed Networks
According to Busch and Givens, ‘sometimes an emergency will require public and pri-
vate sector organizations to immediately collaborate, even when they have no previous
history of collaboration’ (Busch & Givens, 2013, p. 10). In the wake of the Ukrainian
war, this behaviour could be observed when the UCPM started to collaborate with the
private sector in channeling donations. These efforts, referred to as Hastily Formed Net-
works (HFNs), underscore the critical need for swift, effective partnerships in times of
crisis. The concept of HFNs, elaborated by scholars such as Denning (2006) and fur-
ther discussed by Busch and Givens (2013) as well as (Vecchi et al., 2021a), provides a
theoretical basis for understanding the emergence of PPPs within the UCPM framework.
HFNs emerge out of necessity, formed in response to ‘urgent missions’ (Denning,
2006, p. 17) such as disaster relief, where traditional, slower forms of collaboration are
impractical. These networks are characterized by their rapid assembly, cross-sectoral
composition, and shared commitment to a significant, immediate goal (Denning, 2006,
pp. 16-17). The essence of HFNs is captured by the assertion that ‘the quality of the
response depended not on response planning or on new equipment, but on the quality
of the network that came together to provide relief’ (Denning, 2006, p. 5).
The incorporation of HFNs into the analysis of PPPs within the UCPM allows for an
exploration of how such partnerships are initiated and managed. Furthermore, it sheds
light on the communication and coordination challenges inherent in these collaborations,
emphasizing the importance of a shared ‘conversation space’ where planning, commit-
ment, and execution of actions occur (Denning, 2006, p. 16). Denning’s work highlights
the need for both technological infrastructure and effective human organization to ensure
19
the success of HFNs (Denning, 2006, p. 19). This perspective is particularly relevant to
the UCPM, which operates in a highly complex environment with all MPS and possibly
in the future more private sector entities. Moreover, as suggested by Busch and Givens
(pp. 10-11, 2013), the dynamics of HFNs — highlighting incentives, penalties, and social
factors — offer insights into the mechanisms through which PPPs within the UCPM can
be sustained beyond immediate crises. The potential for HFNs to evolve into long-term
partnerships points to a strategic opportunity for the UCPM to bolster its resilience and
response capacity through enduring collaborations with private sector entities.
4.1.2 Resource Dependency Theory
The integration of PPPs within the UCPM can be further elucidated through the lens of
Resource Dependency Theory (RDT). Initially developed by Pfeffer and Salancik (2009),
RDT posits that organizations form partnerships to secure essential resources that are
not readily available within their own confines (Pfeffer & Salancik, 2009, pp. 2-3; Drees &
Heugens, 2013, p. 1667). This theory underscores the mutual interdependencies between
organizations, which can explain the strategic alliances and collaborative endeavors ob-
served in various organizational contexts (Aung & Lim, 2021; Sapat et al., 2019). Lin
suggest that organizations in positions of strength, whether through innovation capabil-
ities, financial resources, or prominent social standing, are more likely to form PPPs as
a strategic maneuver to harness government influence and resources for mutual benefit
(Lin, 2014, p. 384). Government entities, in turn, are drawn to partnerships with these
resource-rich firms, seeing an opportunity to leverage the firms’ capabilities and reputa-
tion to foster technological innovation and strategic advancements across their industries
(Lin, 2014, p. 384). This insight complements the understanding of PPPs within the
UCPM, as posited by RDT, where such partnerships are seen as a strategic response to
resource dependencies and interorganizational dynamics. This perspective not only clar-
ifies why and how PPPs are formed in the context of disaster management and CP but
also shows the strategic motivations behind these collaborative efforts. Moreover, RDT
highlights the significance of autonomy and legitimacy gained through these interorga-
nizational arrangements (Drees & Heugens, 2013, p. 1667). For the UCPM, partnering
with private entities not only augments its operational capacity but might also enhance
its legitimacy in the eyes of the European populace and the international community.
It signals a proactive and adaptive approach to disaster management that transcends
traditional, solely public sector-driven methods.
All in all, by applying RDT, it is possible to analyze how the UCPM and private part-
ners navigate their interdependencies, addressing resource needs, and leveraging each
other’s strengths to achieve common goals in disaster management.
20
4.2 Framework for Assessing the Consequences of PPP involvement in the
UCPM
This section of the theoretical framework addresses the second research question which
is about the consequences of PPP integration into the UCPM. This part of the the-
oretical framework elaborates on the critical success factors essential for the effective
implementation and sustainability of PPPs and is thus a mix from different frameworks
tailored into one fitting for this research. These factors — Good Governance, Specialized
Expertise, Institutional Frameworks, Disaster Response Enhancement, and Community
resilience — are derived from literature and collectively provide a robust foundation for
analyzing how PPPs can enhance disaster management and resilience. Each factor ad-
dresses a specific dimension of PPP operations, from ensuring ethical and transparent
practices to leveraging the unique strengths of the private sector. By understanding
these factors, this framework aims to assess the effectiveness of PPPs in achieving their
intended outcomes and to explore the operational and legal adjustments necessary for
the UCPM to maximize the benefits of PPP involvement.
Good Governance: This foundational aspect of successful PPPs ensures that part-
nerships operate within a framework characterized by accountability, responsiveness,
transparency, equity, and participation. Effective governance is essential for maintain-
ing public trust and securing the long-term viability of PPPs within the UCPM (See
Bovaird, 2004, pp. 210-2011; Hofmeister & Borchert, 2004, pp. 219-220).
An example for good governance is the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative
(EITI) that promotes transparency and reduces corruption in extractive industry agree-
ments by involving national civil society and international validators as watchdogs. This
initiative highlights how transparency and accountability can be effectively incorporated
into PPPs to ensure public benefits and trust (Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2011, p. 10).
Conversely, the absence of good governance can lead to mistrust and inefficiencies. Many
PPPs fail to achieve their intended public benefits due to poor implementation or skewed
incentives, as highlighted in various assessments. For example, the inadequate regula-
tion and lack of accountability in some PPPs have resulted in limited public benefits
and increased costs to consumers, demonstrating the negative impact of poor governance
practices (Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2011, p. 8). Further, when businesses and gov-
ernment partners collaborate in disaster management, maintaining accountability is a
significant challenge. Issues arise regarding the direction and authority between busi-
ness and government employees, particularly in non-emergency situations. Additionally,
there is the question of how government can ensure it remains in control of emergency
management when significant responsibilities are handed to the private sector (Busch &
Givens, 2013, p. 15).
Institutional Frameworks: The legal and regulatory backbone provided by institu-
tional frameworks supports PPP operations with clear and consistent guidelines. This
robustness is crucial for the stability and adaptability of PPPs, facilitating effective col-
laboration between public and private sectors (See Koppenjan & Enserink, 2009, p. 293;
21
Pongsiri, 2002, p. 493).
When it comes to the ‘effective implementation of disaster management policies’
(Gestri, 2012, p. V), the damage after a disaster can be minimized. As an example,
Gestri mentions the UCPM as a single delivery platform capable of deploying assis-
tance immediately and coherently, where tasks are distributed to specific partakers in
the mechanism which is anchored in the UCPM legal framework (2012, p. V). The
absence of a robust institutional framework can lead to significant challenges in disaster
management. The disaster management framework in India, despite being structured
from the national to the local level, often suffers from a lack of clear specification of roles
and responsibilities at the local level (Madan & Routray, 2015, p. 548). The Disaster
Management Act of 2005 and the National Policy on Disaster Management of 2009,
while providing a broad structure, fail to define the roles and responsibilities of local
bodies and communities effectively (Madan & Routray, 2015, p. 546, 548). This gap
results in inadequate coordination and delays in response.
Specialized Expertise: The complexity of PPP arrangements in disaster management
necessitates a high level of specialized technical and managerial expertise. Cultivating
this expertise ensures effective management of PPPs, allowing for informed governance
of complex projects (See Bloomfield, 2006, pp. 409-410).
The example of the Mauritius oil spill in 2020 illustrates, how absence of specialised
expertise can hinder effective disaster management. During the oil spill, government
agencies struggled due to their limited experience in managing such disasters (Naggea &
Miller, 2023, p. 5). In contrast, California’s effective response to a similar spill in 2021,
facilitated by prior experience and regular drills, highlighted the critical importance of
specialized expertise (Naggea & Miller, 2023, p. 5). This comparison underscores how
a lack of expertise can delay response efforts and exacerbate the impact of disasters.
Disaster Response Enhancement : Leveraging the private sector’s agility and resources
through PPPs enhances the UCPM’s operational capabilities in managing emergencies.
This approach integrates private sector innovations into public disaster management
strategies, boosting responsiveness and effectiveness (See Busch & Givens, 2013, p. 2,
16).
For instance, after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, Walmart effectively leveraged its dis-
tribution network and logistical expertise to supply essential goods quickly. By incorpo-
rating a Red Cross official into its Emergency Operations Centre, Walmart facilitated
efficient coordination and became a vital information source for federal and state au-
thorities (Chen et al., 2013) (For details see Literature Review - Case Studies, p. 15).
In contrast, a report by FEMA about the response to the Hurricane Maria in Puerto
Rico in 2017 highlights several deficiencies in the agency’s preparedness and response
capabilities. Notably, FEMA had nearly empty emergency-supply warehouses and was
significantly understaffed, with most of its specialized disaster staff already deployed
elsewhere (Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2018, pp. 26, 28). The
absence of reliable telecommunications connectivity in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto
Rico, coupled with the insufficient availability of logistics staff and the inadequately ad-
22
justed business processes for the incident’s scope and scale made the response even more
difficult (Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2018, p. 28). This lack of
resources and personnel exemplifies the absence of disaster response enhancement.
Community resilience: PPPs enhance community resilience by fostering shared re-
sponsibility for disaster preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation across public,
private, and civic sectors. This broadens the scope of disaster management and ensures
a more resilient community framework (See Uhnoo & Persson, 2022, p. 440).
The partnership between UNHCR and the IKEA Foundation, through initiatives like
Better Shelter, has improved living conditions for refugees and those affected by disas-
ters, demonstrating a commitment to sustainable solutions (UNHCR, n.d.) (For details
see Literature Review - Case Studies, p. 15). For instance, the FEMA report on Hurri-
cane Maria also underscored extensive communication challenges and poor coordination
with local authorities and private partners during the response. Many residents were
left without power for months, and 95% of cellular sites were out of service, severely
complicating recovery efforts (Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 2018,
p. 34). Additionally, the prevalence of informal construction and limited flood insurance
participation left many without the means to rebuild, highlighting the critical need for
improved construction practices and insurance participation (Federal Emergency Man-
agement Agency (FEMA), 2018, p. 48). These examples illustrate critical gaps in
community resilience, emphasizing the necessity for robust PPPs and stronger commu-
nity involvement to enhance disaster preparedness and resilience.
The success factors identified from the literature form a comprehensive framework
for evaluating the impact of public-private partnerships within the UCPM. Good Gover-
nance ensures that PPPs operate within a transparent and accountable framework, gain-
ing and maintaining public trust. Specialized Expertise and Institutional Frameworks
provide the necessary skills and legal structures to manage complex PPP arrangements
effectively. Meanwhile, Disaster Response Enhancement and Community resilience are
crucial for leveraging the capabilities of the private sector to improve emergency man-
agement and strengthen community resilience. Together, these factors not only support
the operational success of PPPs but also contribute to the strategic goals of the UCPM
in managing crises more efficiently and effectively. This theoretical framework thus of-
fers a detailed guide for analyzing the contributions of PPPs to the UCPM, helping to
identify areas of strength and opportunities for improvement in future collaborations.
4.3 Interlinking of theories
This section elucidates how the theoretical constructs of HFNs, RDT, and success factors
are interwoven to address the dual research questions of this study. While HFNs and
RDT predominantly address the first research question by explaining the genesis and
strategic rationale behind forming PPPs, the success factors are pivotal in tackling the
second research question, evaluating the effectiveness and necessary adjustments of these
partnerships.
23
To begin with, it’s essential to acknowledge that although RDT and HFNs are exam-
ined separately for clarity, these theoretical frameworks are not entirely distinct from
each other. There are notable intersections between them; for instance, where RDT
refers to scarcity,’ HFNs might use the term urgency.
The rapid and sometimes spontaneous formation of PPPs, as described by HFNs,
highlights the urgent collaborative efforts necessitated by crises such as the COVID-
19 pandemic and the conflict in Ukraine. This theory underscores the need for agile
and effective governance structures within the UCPM to manage these emergent col-
laborations. Good Governance, a key success factor, ensures that these hastily formed
collaborations remain transparent, accountable, and participatory, which are essential
for maintaining public trust and achieving long-term viability.
Conversely, RDT sheds light on the strategic motivations behind PPP formations,
emphasizing the mutual benefits derived from accessing essential resources unavailable
within the public sector. This perspective aligns closely with the Institutional Frame-
works and Specialized Expertise factors, which ensure that the legal and operational
structures are in place to support these strategic alliances effectively.
Both HFN and RDT contribute to the understanding of how PPPs can enhance dis-
aster response capabilities and Community resilience. The success factors of Disaster
Response Enhancement and Community resilience illustrate the operational and societal
benefits of these collaborations. These factors evaluate how PPPs leverage private sector
innovation and resources to not only respond more effectively to emergencies but also
strengthen the resilience of communities against future crises.
By weaving together these theories and success factors, this framework not only elu-
cidates the strategic motivations behind the UCPM’s shift towards PPPs but also pro-
vides a structured approach to examine the operational and legal adjustments necessary
for their effective implementation. This comprehensive theoretical integration supports
a holistic analysis of how PPPs enhance the UCPM’s crisis management capabilities,
offering insights into potential long-term benefits and challenges. Through this compre-
hensive theoretical framework, the research aims to provide actionable recommendations
that could inform future policy and strategic decisions within the UCPM.
5 Method and material
This chapter outlines the methodological approach and the materials used in the study.
It details the qualitative strategies employed to gather and analyze data, justifying the
choice of methods in light of the research’s exploratory goals. The subsequent sections
discuss the specific design of the research, the data collection techniques used, and the
methods for analyzing the data. Further, ethical considerations, limitations of the study
are discussed.
5.1 Research Design
This research adopts a qualitative approach to explore the emerging phenomenon of
PPPs within the UCPM, recognizing that while PPPs are a well-established concept,
24
their specific application in this context is a partially known phenomenon (Stebbins,
2001, p. 7, Figure by Shaffir and Stebbins, Experiencing fieldwork: An inside view of
qualitative research in the social sciences, 1991). The study’s exploratory nature aims
to uncover how PPPs are integrated and function within the UCPM, an area where
empirical data is notably scarce (Stebbins, 2001, p. 6). This approach not only aids in
understanding potential operational and strategic alignments but also helps formulate
ideas on how similar frameworks might be adapted or implemented within the UCPM
context. To compensate for the scarcity of documentary evidence, the study utilizes semi-
structured interviews as a data collection method. Interviews with 17 key stakeholders
provide insights into the operational, strategic, and emerging roles of PPPs. These
interviews are instrumental in revealing the nuanced processes, personal experiences,
and expert opinions that fill the informational void (Nathan et al., 2019, p. 391).
5.2 Operationalisation
This research aims to investigate the emergence and operational dynamics of PPPs
within the UCPM. The study seeks to understand the driving factors behind the evolu-
tion of PPPs and their consequences on the UCPM’s disaster management capabilities.
To structure this study, perceived effectiveness is operationalised based on the theoreti-
cal frameworks of HFNs, RDT, and Success Factors in PPPs.
The first aspect of the research focuses on exploring the contextual and strategic in-
fluences that have propelled the integration of PPPs into the UCPM, particularly in
response to global challenges such as the war in Ukraine. The operationalisation of this
dimension involves the following indicators: Motivations for Partnership Formation in-
volves understanding the initial reasons and strategic goals behind forming PPPs within
the UCPM. Contextual Influences is about identifying the specific contextual factors
of the Ukraine war that led to the formation of PPPs, such as the scale of the crisis,
resource needs, and operational challenges. The Strategic Goals and Objectives set by
the Commission and its partners in the formation of PPPs includes understanding how
PPPs are intended to enhance the UCPM’s disaster response capabilities.
The second aspect of the research explores the necessary operational and legal adjust-
ments required for the integration and management of PPPs within the UCPM frame-
work - looking both at immediate and long-term consequences. The operationalisation
of this dimension involves the following indicators: Necessary Changes in Legal Frame-
works to support PPP integration, including regulations on liability, data protection,
and ethical implications are explored. The Development of Specialized Contracts that
specify roles, responsibilities, and financial arrangements are explored. The Operational
changes, challenges and best practices are evaluated as well as values of collaboration
such as trust, transparency, mutual goals and risk-sharing.
The third aspect of the research examines the impact and perceived effectiveness of
PPPs within the UCPM. Perceived effectiveness refers to the subjective evaluation by
stakeholders of how well PPPs achieve their intended outcomes. The operationalisation
of this dimension involves the subjective assessment of PPP Contributions to disaster
25
response capabilities. This involves the subjective evaluation of the perception of other
stakeholders as well. The Long-term impact on response, community resilience and dis-
aster preparedness is evaluated as well.
The exploratory research is guided by theoretical expectations derived from an exten-
sive literature review, which are then tested through interviews. First, it is anticipated
that global crises will expose the limitations of traditional government-led disaster re-
sponse strategies. These crises are expected to highlight the necessity for enhanced agility
and resource mobilization, qualities that PPPs can uniquely provide. Specifically, these
crises are anticipated to act as catalysts, accelerating the integration of PPPs within the
UCPM as they necessitate rapid and scalable responses that governmental bodies alone
may not be able to provide. Furthermore, these crises will underscore the importance
of cross-sector collaboration, demonstrating that effective disaster management requires
leveraging the strengths and resources of both public and private sectors to fill gaps in
response abilities and capacities. Looking at the immediate consequences, the integra-
tion of private sector donations through the rescEUDS is expected to result in several
legal and operational adjustments, necessitated by the need to work within the existing
UCPM framework. Given that the current UCPM legislation does not specifically cater
to the channeling of private donations, it is anticipated that legal improvisations were
necessary to facilitate these contributions. However, this ad-hoc approach likely encoun-
tered several hurdles, primarily due to the absence of a tailored legal framework and
the constraints imposed by existing regulations, which could hinder the efficient facili-
tation of PPPs. Operationally, the ad-hoc setup of the rescEUDS projects is expected
to have led to communication challenges among the various stakeholders involved. Ad-
ditionally, the public sector’s lack of specialized expertise may have posed significant
challenges. Further, the integration of PPPs is expected to significantly enhance the
perceived effectiveness of the UCPM among stakeholders in terms of response capability
and capacity. This enhancement is anticipated to be particularly evident in terms of
rapidity, adaptability, and comprehensive scope in sense of specialised expertise of cri-
sis responses. Additionally, the integration of PPPs is projected to broaden the reach
of the UCPM’s disaster management efforts, enabling it to address a wider range of
disaster scenarios and enhance its overall response capacity. Lastly, the strategic shift
towards PPP involvement is expected to necessitate significant adjustments in opera-
tional and legal frameworks. It is expected that this shift will require a clear definition
of expectations and roles for all parties involved. This includes delineating responsibil-
ities, establishing performance metrics, and ensuring accountability. Additionally, the
integration of PPPs is anticipated to require a robust legal framework that addresses
critical issues such as liability, data protection, and the ethical implications of private
sector involvement in public crisis management. This framework should ensure that
private partners can operate within clear legal boundaries while contributing effectively
to disaster response efforts. To manage diverse capabilities and resources of private
partners, the development of specialized contracts is expected. These contracts should
specify roles, responsibilities, and financial arrangements, ensuring that all parties have a
clear understanding of their obligations and the resources they can access. Furthermore,
26
the establishment of processes for cost coverage is anticipated, ensuring that financial
aspects of PPP involvement are transparently managed. This includes mechanisms for
cost-sharing, reimbursement, and financial accountability. Finally, the integration of
the private sector into the EU’s crisis response communication networks, such as grant-
ing access to CECIS, is expected. This integration will facilitate real-time information
sharing, coordination, and decision-making, enhancing the overall efficiency of disaster
response efforts. These theoretical expectations aim to uncover new insights and deepen
the understanding of the strategic, operational, and legal complexities of PPPs in en-
hancing disaster management capabilities within the UCPM. The success factors derived
from the literature will provide a comprehensive framework to evaluate the consequences
of PPP integration, ensuring a detailed analysis of its impact on the effectiveness and
resilience of the UCPM.
By operationalizing these dimensions, the study aims to provide a structured and
comprehensive analysis of the role and impact of PPPs within the UCPM. This approach
offers actionable insights and recommendations for future policy and strategic decisions,
particularly in enhancing the mechanism’s disaster management capabilities and overall
resilience.
5.3 Data Collection
To gain in-depth insights into the operational, strategic, and policy implications of PPPs
within the UCPM, semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders.
Semi-structured interviews are chosen for their ability to elicit detailed narratives and
personal experiences, providing depth and context to the study of PPPs within the
UCPM (Nathan et al., 2019, p. 391). This format is particularly effective in exploratory
research, as it allows respondents to discuss their experiences, perceptions, and opinions
in detail, which are crucial for understanding the nuances of PPP implementation and
operation (Nathan et al., 2019, p. 393).
Recognizing that the UCPM, like any organizational setting, has its ‘own formal struc-
tures and informal hierarchies and relationships’ (Magnusson & Marecek, 2015, p.35),
it is crucial to include a diverse range of participants. For the selection of participants,
the study employed a purposive sampling strategy, aiming to cover a wide range of
experiences within the UCPM framework. The interview partners can be divided into
the following groups: Member State representatives, Participating State representatives,
Experts, representatives from DG ECHO, and representatives from the private sector.
Following the definition of Experts of Halperin and Heath (2020, p. 324), they are ‘indi-
viduals with specialised knowledge or expertise’ in the area of disaster response within
the UCPM. A list of potential interview partners was created, built on web research
to identify relevant interview partners as well of contacts from my own network that
were considered suitable interview partners. This list included all MPS of the UCPM,
as well as a list with representatives of DG ECHO, the private sector and other ex-
perts. Additionally, later in the process, a chain referral approach was utilized, where
an initial contact at DG ECHO well connected in the realm of private donations as well
27
as some interview partners helped in identifying participants, ensuring a comprehensive
understanding of the PPP landscape within the UCPM (Magnusson & Marecek, 2015,
p.38). In the recruitment process, the potential interviewees were contacted via email
addresses found on relevant websites or gained trough introduction by others. Due to the
time restriction of the thesis, only MPS whose contact information or relevant authori-
ties were easily identifiable were approached, as the process presented challenges, such
as language barriers and difficulties in identifying the appropriate contacts due to the
complexity or opacity of some websites. Additionally, attending the CP Forum in Brus-
sels allowed for the acquisition of four more interview contacts. These were individuals
who either lacked accessible contact information previously or who had not responded
to initial emails. In total, 17 interviews were conducted during May and July 2024. An
overview of the number of contacted persons per group as well as a list of participants
is available in the Appendix 1. For those interviewees who chose to remain anonymous,
they are only categorized by Sector and - if allowed - specified as far as possible.
Semi-structured interviews are chosen for their flexibility, allowing the interviewer to
explore complex issues such as opinions and experiences in depth (Denscombe, 2021,
p. 230). Each research question is firmly grounded in the theoretical framework of this
study. The interview guide (See appendix) is structured around key themes but will
allow for flexibility in the discussion, enabling interviewees to elaborate on points of
interest, thus enriching the data collected (Denscombe, 2021, p. 231). This flexibility in
the interview format is crucial, as it accommodates the natural progression of discussion,
which can vary significantly between participants (Magnusson & Marecek, 2015, p. 50).
It also enables the interviewer to probe deeper into particularly relevant or interesting
areas that may arise during the conversation (Magnusson & Marecek, 2015, pp. 46).
The guide emphasizes the use of open-ended questions, which encourages respondents
to provide detailed stories, reflections, and opinions, termed as rich talk by Magnusson
(Magnusson & Marecek, 2015, p. 48). This approach not only yields depth in responses
but also ensures that the data collected is comprehensive and nuanced, reflecting the
complex dynamics at play in cross-sector collaborations within disaster management
(Magnusson & Marecek, 2015, p.48). Each question within the guide is directly linked to
the integrated theoretical frameworks of HFNs, RDT and Success Factors, ensuring that
the data collected is relevant and can be effectively analyzed within these constructs.
It also follows the categories presented in the section about the Operationalization.
For instance, questions about the initiation and operationalisation of PPPs explore the
rapid assembly and resource allocation strategies, aligning with the principles of HFNs
and RDT. This helps in understanding not only the strategic rationale behind forming
these partnerships but also the practical aspects of their execution within the UCPM’s
complex multi-actor environment. Further, questions related to the legal frameworks,
challenges, and best practices in managing PPPs are designed to uncover insights into the
regulatory and operational hurdles and successes. These align with the Success Factors
by highlighting the importance of regulatory environments and adaptive management
practices that facilitate or hinder effective collaboration and governance within PPPs.
28
5.4 Data Analysis
Given the exploratory nature of this study, thematic analysis has been selected as the
most appropriate qualitative data analysis method. This method is well-suited for iden-
tifying, analyzing, and reporting patterns (themes) within qualitative data and allowed
for an in-depth exploration of how PPPs are perceived and operationalized within the
UCPM context (Denscombe, 2021, p. 329). The flexibility and versatility of this ana-
lytical framework allows researchers to use it for many types of studies. Braun et al.
suggest thematic analysis for example to ‘examine the ”factors” that influence, underpin,
or contextualize particular processes or phenomena’ and ‘identify views about particular
phenomena’ (Braun et al., 2019, p. 850) which are particularily relevant for this study.
The data analysis was conducted mainly following the procedures recommended by
Denscombe (2021, pp. 329-334). Initially, all recorded interviews were transcribed, and
if the participant opted for an anonymisation of the interview, the anonymisation was
facilitated. These transcripts were thoroughly read by the researcher to fully immerse
in the data. Preliminary notes were taken during these readings to identify potential
patterns, setting the foundation for the subsequent coding process.
In order to ensure a rigorous and systematic analysis of the qualitative data col-
lected, this study utilized ATLAS.ti, a qualitative data analysis software. The selection
of ATLAS.ti is grounded in its robust capabilities for managing complex datasets, in-
cluding diverse forms of text and multimedia materials (Cypress, 2019, p. 215, 217).
Additionally, ATLAS.ti enhances the transparency of the research process by providing
a detailed audit trail of coding decisions and data manipulations, which supports the
credibility and reproducibility of the study’s findings as well as ensures consistent coding
(Cypress, 2019, p. 216). By employing ATLAS.ti, the study ensures a structured and
verifiable analytical process, thereby bolstering the integrity and depth of the analysis
and facilitating a comprehensive understanding of the operational, strategic, and policy
implications of public-private partnerships within the UCPM.
The coding utilized a combined approach of reflexive and codebook thematic analy-
sis to maximize the extraction of pertinent themes from the interviews (Braun et al.,
2019, pp. 848-849). The codebook approach was initially employed using predefined
codes based on the established theoretical frameworks of HFNs, RDT, and the identified
success factors (See appendix). This structured coding method provided a consistent
lens through which the data were examined, highlighting known theoretical constructs
and their implications on PPP dynamics and strategies (Braun et al., 2019, p. 847,
849). Concurrently, a reflexive approach was adopted to allow for the emergence of
new themes from the data, capturing insights and patterns that extended beyond the
existing frameworks (Denscombe, 2021, pp. 331). This inductive coding strategy added
depth and flexibility to the analysis, accommodating both anticipated and novel ele-
ments of PPP integration within disaster management contexts (Denscombe, 2021, pp.
331). The choice of employing both reflexive and codebook thematic analysis aligns
with Stebbins’ arguments on the nature of exploratory research, which suggests that
such studies can benefit from integrating both inductive and deductive reasoning (Steb-
bins, 2001, p. 7). Stebbins emphasizes that exploratory research often begins with
29
inductive observations that are largely shaped by an emerging theoretical framework,
yet it can also include deductive elements that allow for the confirmation of emergent
generalizations. By adopting a codebook approach grounded in established theoretical
frameworks alongside a reflexive approach that encourages the emergence of new themes
from the data, this study effectively balances structured, theory-driven analysis with
the flexibility to uncover novel insights about PPPs within the UCPM. This method-
ological combination ensures a comprehensive understanding of both anticipated and
emergent phenomena, thereby enriching the analysis with a depth that purely inductive
or deductive approaches might not achieve.
After the initial coding, the identified codes were collated across the dataset and exam-
ined for overarching themes (Denscombe, 2021, pp. 333). This stage involved a rigorous
review and refinement process to ensure each theme’s coherence and relevance. Themes
were evaluated to confirm whether they accurately reflected the meanings evident in
the data and were appropriately linked back to the research questions and theoretical
framework (Denscombe, 2021, pp. 333). Each theme was clearly defined and named, in-
volving a process to refine what each theme covered and determining the unique aspects
of the data captured by each theme (Denscombe, 2021, pp. 333). The final step involved
synthesizing the thematic analysis with the analytic narrative, integrating the themes
within the existing research literature. This synthesis discussed how the findings from
the interviews contribute to a deeper understanding of PPP integration and effectiveness
within the UCPM.
5.5 Ethical Considerations
Ethical integrity is paramount in conducting research that involves human participants.
In accordance with established ethical guidelines, this study ensures that all partici-
pants are provided with comprehensive information about the purpose of the research,
the nature of their involvement, and their rights as participants. Before conducting any
interviews, informed consent was obtained, detailing participants’ ‘rights to decline to
answer any questions, the right to end the interview at any point or not to enter the
study at all, and the right to confidentiality and anonymity’ (Magnusson & Marecek,
2015, p.44). This research emphasizes the voluntary nature of participation, ensuring
that interviewees understand they are not obliged to respond to questions that make
them uncomfortable. The research upholds strict confidentiality measures; all collected
data is securely stored and accessible only to the researcher, complying with the Gen-
eral Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Respectful and non-judgmental interaction
is maintained throughout the interview process to prevent any discomfort to the par-
ticipants. Furthermore, upon completion of the interviews, participants are offered a
debriefing session where they can ask questions about the study and are informed about
their right to access the final thesis.
30
5.6 Limitations, Generalization and Robustness of the study
This study acknowledges several limitations. Firstly, the inherent nature of qualitative
research limits the generalizability of the findings. The insights gained are context-
specific and derived from a purposive sample of stakeholders, which may not represent
all potential perspectives within the UCPM. From the 17 interviews conducted, only
two were with representatives from the private sector, whereas only one interview was
conducted with a representative from a company who actually donated through the
UCPM. The other representative comes from a company who is interested in cooperating
with the UCPM but did not do so yet. Identifying the right contacts or companies
that had donated through the UCPM and publicly acknowledged their contributions
proved challenging. This difficulty was compounded by the fact that many companies
preferred to remain anonymous. This limitation underscores the challenges in obtaining
a comprehensive view of private sector involvement in the UCPM and highlights the
potential gaps in the data collected. Further, the reliance on semi-structured interviews
might introduce biases linked to the subjective interpretations of the participants and
the researcher’s own analytical perspective.
Beyond the context of the UCPM, the applicability of these findings to other CP
systems around the world also warrants careful consideration. Different regions and
countries have varying legal frameworks, operational capacities, and political climates
that might affect the feasibility and effectiveness of PPPs in disaster management in
a different way. For instance, in countries where private sector capabilities and gov-
ernmental transparency differ, the implementation of PPPs might encounter significant
challenges. Moreover, cultural differences could influence stakeholder expectations and
the perceived legitimacy of private involvement in traditionally public sectors.
A quantitative method, such as surveys or statistical analysis, or a mixed-method ap-
proach could potentially provide broader generalizations about the prevalence and types
of PPPs across the UCPM. However, this approach was not chosen due to the lack of ex-
isting data sets on PPPs within the UCPM and the study’s focus on in-depth, contextual
understandings of PPP dynamics rather than numerical generalizations. Conducting de-
tailed case studies of specific instances of PPPs within the UCPM could provide deep
insights into individual examples. However, given the nascent stage of PPP integration
in the UCPM, a broader exploratory approach using semi-structured interviews was cho-
sen to first identify general trends and themes. Additionally, the exploratory nature of
this study is designed to generate initial insights of PPPs within the UCPM rather than
to produce findings that are universally generalizable. However, the results may still of-
fer valuable implications for similar contexts within emergency management and public
administration. Future studies could expand upon this research by incorporating quanti-
tative methods or broader samples to enhance the generalizability of the findings across
different settings. Further, conducting detailed case studies of specific instances of PPPs
within the UCPM and comparing these with other international examples could provide
deep insights into individual examples and help identify global trends and divergences.
To enhance the robustness and trustworthiness of the findings, several methodological
strategies were employed. First, as many people from different stakeholder groups as
31
possible were interviewed, sticking as closely as possible to the interview guide and
using the same wording when appropriate. This approach not only provided multiple
perspectives on the same phenomenon but also helped validate findings through cross-
verification across different interviewees. The use of a combined reflexive and codebook
approach to thematic analysis further strengthened the study. This method allowed for
a structured analysis grounded in established theories while remaining open to emerging
themes and insights that were not anticipated at the outset of the research. Such a
balanced approach ensured that the analysis was both comprehensive and sensitive to the
complexities of the data. Moreover, the iterative process of data collection and analysis
enabled continuous reflection and adjustment of the research methods, enhancing the
adaptability and depth of the study.
6 Results and Discussion
This chapter presents the findings of the research and provides a discussion of these
results. It is structured into two main sections, each addressing one of the research
questions.
6.1 Causes of PPP Evolution within the UCPM
This chapter presents and discusses the research results, focusing on the driving factors
behind the emergence of PPPs within the UCPM. It interprets the findings through the
lenses of RDT and HFNs, using relevant codes and topics associated with each theory.
While the theoretical explanations provided by RDT and HFNs are analyzed separately
for clarity, it is important to recognize that these frameworks are not mutually exclusive.
These similarities underscore that, despite the distinct theoretical lenses, the underlying
dynamics they describe often converge, offering complementary insights into the factors
driving the emergence of PPPs within the UCPM. The chapter is divided into two main
sections:
The first section, Urgency and Necessity, examines the immediate and pressing needs
that catalyzed the formation of PPPs, aligning with the theoretical framework of HFNs.
This section uses the codes and topics relevant to HFNs (See Appendix 3, Table 6) to
present the findings and then discusses how they align with the theory.
The second section, Scarcity and Dependency, focuses on the resource scarcity and
dependencies that necessitated the involvement of private sector partners, as viewed
through the lens of RDT. This section employs the codes and topics pertinent to RDT
(See Appendix 3, Table 7) to present the research results and discusses their alignment
with the theoretical expectations.
Urgency and Necessity
The interviews revealed that the war in Ukraine created an urgent and unprecedented
need for resources and expertise, quickly overwhelming national CP authorities. The
32
immediate response required mobilizing additional resources swiftly and efficiently, lead-
ing to the formation of PPPs. The escalation of demands underscored the pressing need
for rapid deployment and coordination.
One of the motivations for public sector assistance was the obligation to provide timely
and adequate support, as mandated by the principles of solidarity, coordination, and ef-
fective disaster management outlined in Decision No 1313/2013/EU on the UCPM. As
MPS of the UCPM, they are inherently responsible for upholding these values and re-
sponding to emergencies. While contributions through the UCPM are voluntary, there is
a strong underlying responsibility to act in accordance with the mechanism’s objectives.
The scale and complexity of the crisis exceeded the capacities of the Commission and
MPS, necessitating new solutions to bridge resource gaps, such as the integration of the
private sector to leverage additional resources and expertise.
Participants highlighted that the demands in Ukraine far surpassed the normal dis-
aster response capacities of the UCPM. One expert noted that the UCPM deployed
around €796 million in financial value of in-kind assistance and emergency operations
to Ukraine, marking the largest CP operation to date, and underscoring the need for
collaboration with the private sector.
Participant 5 highlighted that the demands in the Ukraine for goods and support
increased dramatically, particularly after the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing how the
war exacerbated the situation. Another participant emphasized the exceptional nature
of the emergency, noting its wide-ranging impact and prolonged duration, which made
it impossible for authorities to respond effectively without external support:
We have never seen this kind of emergency before. It’s so wide, it affects all
sectors of society, and assistance is needed in all sectors of society. And it
has lasted over two years now. So this is exceptional and authorities cannot
answer to this kind of emergency by themselves effectively enough.
(Heikki Honkanen, Specialist - Department for Rescue Services, Ministry of
the Interior of Finland)
The overwhelming need on the ground was the primary motivation mentioned for
integrating PPPs during the war in Ukraine. Conventional means were insufficient to
meet these extraordinary demands, making the rapid deployment of resources essential.
Participants also recognized the potential role of the private sector in ensuring continuous
aid delivery when traditional supply chains were exhausted.
In Ukraine, the protracted situation regarding humanitarian needs are so great
that Member States have probably exhausted or nearly exhausted the more
traditional supply chains to deliver aid to those most in need, and now have
to think imaginatively working with the private sector and other entities to
ensure the donations of aid continue.
(Paul Rock, Senior Advisor, National Directorate for Fire and Emergency
Management Ireland)
33
The ability to channel resources effectively, sharing the effort among several stake-
holders, was seen as a key success factor. Participant 5 named the UCPM a ‘successful
example’ for channeling various donations through a well-established system, ensuring
that the right materials reached those most in need. Coordination was highlighted as
a direct win, with central management preventing dilution of efforts and ensuring that
aid was delivered where it was most needed.
The extensive range of supplies provided through PPPs illustrated the breadth of the
needs, with detailed lists from Ukraine showing the necessity of integrating private sector
resources to meet diverse demands.
The UCPM provided - to give you an idea - over 100,000 tons of goods4
to Ukraine in all sectors. This covers energy generators, small generators,
spare parts for electricity grids, etcetera, because this is often under heavy
attack. This is about shelter, different kinds of shelter. This is about medical
equipment. This is about stockpiles of medical equipment, CBRN - Chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear - support as well. This is about transport,
ambulances, iodine pills.
(Maarten Vergauwen, Team Leader - UCPM Policy Development and Cross-
sectoral Preparedness, DG ECHO)
The HFNs established might convert into long-term partnerships could be evaluated
as beneficial in the eye of both public and private sector. Public sector agencies, for
instance, gained a deeper understanding of the private sector’s organization and key
contacts, enhancing overall disaster response resilience.
One example from Norway demonstrated how this network-building was beneficial not
just for the UCPM as a whole but also for the MPS. The Norwegian Directorate for Civil
Protection (DSB) was able to quickly source needed equipment for ‘an area in Norway
that was in desperate need for power supply’ (Mari Løwehr,Duty Officer, DSB) due to
the relationships built through the UCPM.
From the private sector’s perspective, companies engaged in PPPs not only to assist in
the humanitarian crisis but also with an eye towards future benefits, such as maintaining
market stability and ensuring continued business operations in crisis-affected regions.
I haven’t discussed this with my leader, but I believe in when Ukraine will
start to rebuild again, I think might be able to help out in some ways there,
but that’s a long shot.
(Participant 4, Private Sector)
However, there were also instances where companies and donations were rejected be-
cause their motivations were perceived as purely capitalistic and not aligned with the
humanitarian objectives of the UCPM. Whereas this kind of network building for the
private sector might be underlied by more economic motivations such as generating
4Current number reaches 150,000 tons of goods as up to mid-August 2024
34
profit, there were also altruistic or humanitarian motivations mentioned by the inter-
viewees. According to several participants, many companies and their employees felt a
genuine desire to assist in the face of the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine and acted out
of solidarity.
I believe personally that there were some truly emotional and human reactions
from some private sector companies that wanted to do something because we
were all in shock in Europe, everyone.
(Maarten Vergauwen)
Despite these varied motivations, participants generally agreed on the importance of
shared goals between the public and private sectors. The alignment of goals, particu-
larly the common aim of supporting affected populations and ensuring effective disaster
management, facilitated the formation of PPPs. However, some participants noted that
the interests of the private sector could sometimes differ significantly from those of the
public sector, creating a need for balance to ensure that both sectors could complement
each other without compromising their respective aims.
We cannot align the goals of the private sector because the private sector is
an economic sector in most of the cases and has different aims. And we
cannot take their aims away. So we have to kind of come together and see
where we can complement each other without losing every aim of the sector.
Then we have an overlapping area where we can have a common aim.
(Participant 7, Expert)
Resource Scarcity and Dependency
The war in Ukraine underscored significant resource gaps in the public sector, necessi-
tating the involvement of private sector partners. The interviews suggested that these
gaps were not just in volume but also in the specialized nature of the needs, highlighting
the critical role of PPPs in mobilizing resources that were otherwise unavailable or insuf-
ficient within the public sector alone. The complexity of sourcing specialized equipment
was particularly challenging due to the ‘closed nature of certain markets’, as one par-
ticipant noted, making procurement difficult for public authorities. Participant 2 brings
up the concrete example from the energy sector:
That’s why they [the Commission] accept also the private donations. Espe-
cially within the energy sector, [they are] very important because this special-
ized equipment, it’s not possible to go to the shop and buy it or to order, to
produce. You have to get it from the energy companies.
(Participant 2, Member State)
Additionally, the lack of specialized know-how in public agencies often required re-
liance on private partners for the necessary skills and technologies. Participants 3 em-
phasized the effective collaboration with a logistical partner, noting their experience in
35
coordinating multiple inbound donations. This collaboration ensured that the logistics
of receiving and distributing aid were handled efficiently.
Beyond the immediate needs in Ukraine, some participants highlighted the potential
usefulness of specialized expertise in other areas, such as cybersecurity, where public
authorities might lack the technical competence, necessitating external support from
the private sector.
Integrating the private sector into procurement processes and leveraging their exper-
tise was anticipated to enhance efficiency and cost-effectiveness. By centralizing efforts
and avoiding the dilution of resources, the UCPM ensured that contributions were com-
plementary and effectively addressed existing gaps.
Then there is obviously a notion of complementarity. I mean, there are gaps
which might be filled through donations or contributions from other than the
usual public service partners, i.e. from private industry companies.
(Participant 5, Expert)
Furthermore, utilizing donations and leveraging private sector efficiencies allowed the
public sector to achieve more with fewer expenditures, optimizing taxpayer money as
noted by Maarten Vergauwen from DG ECHO. Tax relief for donations also incentivized
private companies to engage in cooperation, as participants noted, with some companies
benefiting from exemptions and tax reductions for their contributions.
Generally, most participants acknowledged the inherent profit motives in the private
sector’s engagement. As Mario Di Gennaro pointed out:
This is a company and the company has to earn money. That’s their purpose.
They have to pay their employees, [...] they have to expand and so on.
(Mario Di Gennaro, Head of Competence Center for EU Civil Protection and
Disaster Assistance,Johanniter-Unfall-Hilfe e.V.)
Additionally, companies sometimes used these opportunities to offload surplus or ob-
solete stock, which can have operational benefits.
For the private sector, these engagements were not only about profit but also about
creating value and demonstrating their importance to customers.
It’s easy saying private equals revenue and money. It is like that. But then
we have to dive into that because it’s not just making money for money, it’s
really showing them [Note by interviewer: the customers] the value they can
get from what we produce.
(Franck Ranera, ICEYE)
Lastly, integrating the private sector into security and crisis management fosters a
culture of shared security and resilience, contributing to long-term stability. This col-
laborative approach was seen as a positive long-term outcome, helping to build a more
resilient society through shared efforts.
36
6.1.1 Discussion: driving factors for PPP emergence
Urgency and Necessity
One theoretical expectation posited that global crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic
and the war in Ukraine would expose the limitations of traditional government-led disas-
ter response strategies. These crises were expected to highlight the necessity for enhanced
agility and resource mobilization, qualities that PPPs can uniquely provide. Specifically,
these crises were anticipated to act as catalysts, accelerating the integration of PPPs
within the UCPM as they necessitate rapid and scalable responses that governmental
bodies alone may not be able to provide. Furthermore, these crises were expected to
underscore the importance of cross-sector collaboration, demonstrating that effective
disaster management requires leveraging the strengths and resources of both public and
private sectors to fill gaps in response abilities and capacities.
The empirical evidence collected from the interviews supports the theoretical expec-
tations to a significant extent. The interviews revealed that the war in Ukraine created
an urgent and unprecedented need for resources and expertise, rapidly overwhelming na-
tional CP authorities. The immediate response required mobilizing additional resources
swiftly and efficiently, leading to the formation of PPPs. This aligns with the HFN
theory, which posits that crises necessitate the rapid assembly of cross-sectoral networks
to address urgent missions.
According to the HFN theory, we would expect the integration of PPPs to be driven
by the immediate need for resources and the necessity to coordinate efforts effectively.
The war in Ukraine presented an exceptional situation where the existing capacities of
MPS were insufficient, highlighting the public sector’s motivation to form a network with
the private sector. Traditionally, the UCPM relied on the resources and capabilities of
MPS to address crises. However, given the scale and complexity of the Ukraine crisis,
it became clear that conventional means were inadequate. This unprecedented scenario
necessitated the Commission to explore new approaches, including integrating the private
sector to leverage their resources and expertise. This approach was met with a ‘private
sector readiness’ (Participant 5, Expert) to cooperate, leading to the formation of PPPs.
The deployment of significant resources and the need for coordination further underscore
the importance of rapid and flexible responses, as highlighted by the UCPM’s efforts to
channel donations through a well-established system. The involvement of the private
sector marked a significant shift, emphasizing the extraordinary nature of the crisis and
the need for innovative solutions.
The need for additional resources and the ability to channel these resources effectively
were also emphasized by participants. This reflects the HFN theory’s assertion that the
quality of the response depends on the quality of the network that comes together to
provide relief. The extensive range of supplies provided through PPPs illustrates the
breadth of the needs and the necessity of integrating private sector resources to meet
diverse demands.
A component of HFN theory is the establishment of common goals among network
37
participants. Some participants highlighted that the formation of PPPs was facilitated
by the alignment of common goals, such as supporting affected populations and ensur-
ing effective disaster management. As Sara Bertilsson from MSB noted, shared goals
are essential for the cooperation to work effectively. However, the alignment of goals
between public and private sectors was not always straightforward. Several participants
highlighted that CP is fundamentally a public service and the responsibility of the state,
suggesting an inherent tension between the different aims of the public and private
sectors. While some participants emphasized the importance of shared humanitarian
goals, others pointed out the differing motivations between the sectors. For instance,
the private sector’s economic interests and public sector’s duty to provide public ser-
vice often led to contrasting objectives. Participant 7 noted that achieving a balance
where both sectors can pursue their goals without compromising their core objectives
was crucial. This nuanced view indicates that while common goals are vital for effective
PPPs, the alignment of these goals can be complex and not always fully achievable.
Moreover, the rejection of some donations due to perceived purely economic motivations
underscores the challenges in aligning goals within HFN. One participant mentioned
that certain companies and donations were rejected because their motivations were seen
as purely capitalistic and not aligned with the humanitarian objectives of the UCPM.
This highlights a key limitation in the HFN theory: while rapid network formation is
crucial, ensuring that all participants share genuinely aligned goals is equally important
to maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the response.
Summed up, the empirical evidence supports the theoretical expectation that global
crises highlight the necessity for enhanced agility and resource mobilization, accelerating
the integration of PPPs within the UCPM. The war in Ukraine created an unprecedented
need for resources, overwhelming national CP authorities and necessitating rapid mobi-
lization through PPPs. This urgency required comprehensive assistance beyond normal
UCPM capacities, emphasizing the necessity of integrating private sector partners to
effectively address the crisis. While there were challenges in aligning goals and coordi-
nating efforts, the overall formation of PPPs demonstrated the significant role of private
sector cooperation in addressing immediate needs and enhancing disaster response ca-
pabilities.
Resource Scarcity and Dependency
One theoretical expectation based on RDT posited that organizations form partnerships
to secure essential resources that are not readily available within their own confines. For
the UCPM, this would mean leveraging the specialized resources and expertise of private
sector partners to address gaps in response capabilities. Additionally, RDT highlights
the significance of autonomy and legitimacy gained through these interorganizational
arrangements, suggesting that such partnerships could enhance the UCPM’s operational
capacity and its legitimacy in the eyes of the European populace and the international
community.
The empirical evidence collected from interviews largely supports these theoretical
expectations. The war in Ukraine highlighted significant resource gaps on the public
38
sector side, necessitating the involvement of private sector partners. The interviews re-
vealed that these gaps were not just in volume but also in the specialized nature of the
needs, emphasizing the critical role of PPPs in mobilizing resources that were otherwise
unavailable or insufficient within the public sector alone. The complexity of sourcing
specialized equipment, particularly in sectors like energy, was emphasized by partici-
pants. As noted by Participant 2, certain specialized equipment could only be sourced
from energy companies, highlighting the necessity of private donations. This aligns with
RDT’s assertion that partnerships are formed to secure resources that are not readily
available within the organization. Furthermore, the lack of specialized know-how in pub-
lic agencies often necessitated reliance on private partners who could offer the required
skills and technologies. One participant emphasized the effective collaboration with a
logistical partner, underscoring their experience and the importance of coordination.
This reliance on private sector expertise for specialized skills and technologies supports
the RDT framework, highlighting the mutual interdependencies between organizations.
The anticipation of efficiency and cost-effectiveness through the integration of private
sector resources also supports the theoretical expectation of optimizing resource use.
By centralizing efforts and avoiding the dilution of resources across multiple smaller
channels, the UCPM ensured that contributions were complementary and effectively ad-
dressed existing gaps. As Participant 5 noted, avoiding fragmented efforts ensured a
more streamlined and effective response. The economic motivations of the private sec-
tor, such as tax relief and operational benefits, further align with RDT. In this context,
tax relief serves as a financial incentive, while operational benefits such as offloading
surplus or obsolete stock reduce inventory and storage costs. These incentives represent
significant reasons for private companies to engage in PPPs, aligning with RDT’s no-
tion that organizations form partnerships to optimize resource use and achieve strategic
advantages.
RDT also posits that interorganizational arrangements can enhance an organization’s
autonomy and legitimacy. For the UCPM, partnering with private entities not only
augmented its operational capacity but also had the potential to enhance its legitimacy.
By effectively responding to crises through these partnerships, the UCPM could bolster
its credibility and trust within the EU and the international community.
However, the rejection of private sector partners due to perceived purely economic mo-
tivations underscores the complexity of maintaining legitimacy. One participant men-
tioned that certain companies and donations were rejected because their motivations
were seen as purely capitalistic and not aligned with the humanitarian objectives of the
UCPM. This highlights a critical aspect of RDT: while partnerships can enhance legit-
imacy, they must align with the core values and objectives of the public sector to be
effective.
Moreover, while the inclusion of private sector resources through direct cooperation
at the EU level has significantly complemented the assistance provided by MPS, it’s
important to recognize that the overall impact, although substantial, remains smaller
compared to the volumes managed by traditional CP authorities which also integrate
private donations into their efforts. In this context, the UCPM’s mandate to meet critical
needs might have been fulfilled even without private sector involvement, but likely with
39
more limited effectiveness and scope. This underscores the importance of balancing the
integration of private sector capabilities with the need to ensure that these partnerships
enhance, rather than compromise, the public sector’s responsibility and legitimacy.
In summary, the empirical evidence supports the theoretical expectation that the
integration of PPPs within the UCPM is driven by the necessity to address resource
scarcity and dependency. The need for specialized resources and expertise that public
agencies could not independently provide necessitated a collaborative approach. By
leveraging the strengths of private sector partners, the UCPM was able to mobilize
critical resources quickly and effectively. However, the evidence also underscores the
challenges in maintaining legitimacy and the complexities involved in aligning the diverse
objectives of public and private sector partners.
6.2 Consequences of the UCPM’s Strategic Shift Towards PPP involvement
In the following, the consequences of the UCPM’s integration of the private sector dona-
tions are discussed, using the Success Factors identified in the literature (See Appendix
3, Table 8).
6.2.1 Current State: immediate consequences of Private Sector Integration with
the rescEU Donation Scheme
As discussed with research question one, the outbreak of war in Ukraine in February
2022 created an urgent need for resources and expertise, overwhelming national CP au-
thorities. The immediate response required mobilizing additional resources swiftly and
efficiently, leading to the formation of PPPs. This section will explore the immediate
legal and operational adjustments made to facilitate this rapid integration.
To understand the legal consequences, it is essential to first understand the initial
steps taken when the need for resources became apparent.
Maarten Vergauwen explains the situation that DG ECHO faced succinctly:
If things would go wrong, like Ukraine, [...] with the Member States over-
whelmed, and nor the CP Pool nor rescEU, nor the Commission, through
direct procurement would b able to respond sufficiently. So what’s left then?
We have to look for partners outside the usual system [...] And then you can
think of stronger cooperation with NATO. Problem is, if we are in a situa-
tion where there is spillover of the conflict and when we’re in a war scenario,
NATO will be busy [...]. Hence, another obvious partner to cooperate is the
private sector.
Referring to the pyramid of capacities that was presented in the background chapter,
the integration of the private sector donations adds a ‘new layer of support’ (Cristian
Gimenez, DG ECHO) to the UCPM response capabilities.
The usual procedure for private sector donations within the context of the UCPM
involves private entities initially contacting their respective national CP authorities.
40
These authorities then channel the offers through the established UCPM system. Sub-
sequently, the UCPM coordinates the assistance and provides financial support for the
transportation of these donations.
Cristian Gimenez explains:
On top of that [usual procedure] we created this system to attract additional
donations, also to provide support to these international authorities, which
were at the time overwhelmed with the amount of offers that they were re-
ceiving from their own private sector.
Considering the limited capacities of the national authorities to channel, paired with
an anticipative request for support from the Ukrainian authorities and the Private Sector
offering it’s donations, DG ECHO decided to rapidly find a way with the current UCPM
legal framework to integrate private sector partners. Two primary options were con-
sidered for channeling the donations. The first option was that the Commission would
accept donations from MPS and ensuring their delivery to the final destination, utilizing
the internally called direct procurement provision, outlined in Regulation (EU) 2021/836,
Article 12(3)(b), which allows the Commission to create a rescEU capacity through an
emergency act. However, the Financial Regulation 2018/1046 posed a challenge: dona-
tions to the Commission over €50,000 required additional approval from the European
Parliament and the Council, which could take several months (European Parliament and
the Council, 2018). This delay was problematic given the urgency of the Ukraine crisis,
which is why a second option was chosen to facilitate the donations, working under the
name EU Private Donations Scheme. This option involved integrating the donations
into the rescEU strategic reserve via MPS, as outlined in Decision (EU) 2019/420 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 13 March 2019, which established rescEU
as an instrument. This means that MPS would manage the donations as part of their
rescEU capacities. The creation of each new rescEU capacity requires the enactment of
an implementing act that stipulates the minimum requirements, detailed in the annex of
the legislation. Instead of creating a new rescEU capacity from scratch, the Commission
decided to leverage existing capacities as stipulated by the legislation. The available
capacities were reviewed, and the medical stockpile was selected as the most appropri-
ate capacity for this initiative. Initial discussions and inquiries led to Belgium stepping
forward to host the private sector donations. Later, another project was also started in
Poland (DG ECHO, 2024a). Belgium, having an established capacity, opted to create
a new capacity specifically for this operation. A new contract was formulated under
rescEU, where Belgium - and later Poland - would manage the reception and storage of
the donations 5. Unlike the usual procedure, where Belgium and Poland would procure
items through public procurement and the stock them to then deliver them to a country
in need, they directly received donations from the private sector and then channeled
them. Simply put, this option changed the overall procurement process, and added the
5The hub in Belgium was closed in February 2024 as the project enden. The hub in Poland is still
operating
41
private sector as an entity to the process.
The newly setup structure involves four key entities: The ERCC, the rescEu hubs in
Poland and Belgium 6., the private companies and the Ukraine as receiver country.
The process of channeling the donations through the rescEUDS works as follows:
1. A private company offers an in-kind donation.
2. The ERCC evaluates the donation offer against the list of needs provided by
Ukraine.
3. Upon determining the suitability of the donation, the ERCC presents the offer to
the appropriate recipient authority on behalf of the private donor.
4. If the recipient authority accepts the donation, the ERCC instructs the private
company to deliver the assistance to a rescEU hub either in Belgium or Poland.
Before transportation, an administrative or remote quality check is performed,
which may involve requesting additional documentation.
5. The hubs in Belgium or Poland carry out a physical quality check of the donation.
Once verified, the donation is integrated into their rescEU capacities.
6. The ERCC, in close coordination with the hosting authority, triggers the mobi-
lization of the rescEU capacity.
7. Finally, the hosting authority organizes the transport of the donation to Ukraine
with a logistical partner.
Figure 2: rescEU Donation Scheme (simplified), own illustration inspired by rescEU Do-
nations Scheme, DG ECHO, 2024
The introduction of the rescEUDS led to further legal and operational consequences
that directly impacted the framework and execution of disaster response efforts.
6rescEU hubs are not to be confused with UCPM hubs, even though both are involved in centralizing
and coordinating assistance. UCPM hubs focus on channeling aid provided by MPS, while rescEU
hubs specifically manage contributions from private entities and third countries. In Poland, for
instance, both hubs share the same warehousing facilities but operate under different projects with
distinct procedures. The EUCom mandates specific requirements and physical quality checks for
rescEU hubs, whereas MPS determine whether such checks are necessary for UCPM hubs based on
their national legislation (Cristian Gimenez, personal communication, August 13, 2024)
42
Operationally, the integration required enhanced communication and coordination
between the ERCC and the hubs in Poland and Belgium. Initially, the lack of direct
contacts and established communication channels led to delays and miscommunications.
Sometimes it resulted in increased costs, as noted by Participants 3. One example
involved challenges with cold chain logistics for medicines. The need for truck drivers
to wait days to unload created concerns about maintaining the necessary temperatures,
particularly due to the risk of running out of fuel. These delays were primarily caused
by unforeseen and extended hold-ups at the unloading stage. Additionally, coordination
difficulties were compounded by language barriers and the urgency to prioritize certain
trucks.
To manage the high volume of donated goods, substantial logistical adjustments were
required. Detailed instructions were provided for handling and stacking pallets efficiently
at the Ukrainian border hubs. National agencies had to deploy significant manpower to
handle logistics. A participant explained:
We had to use almost all of our staff of the agency working in the main office
to do only the logistics.
(Participant 2)
To ensure quality standards, initial criteria were established to ensure donations met
necessary standards. Goods that would not be used by the donating country - so Belgium
or Poland - were not accepted for donation to Ukraine.
Legally, the integration necessitated several adjustments and clarifications. As an
example, participants 3 mentioned contracts with their logistical partners were some-
times unclear regarding the duration and capacity requirements, leading to difficulties
in defining responsibilities and expectations. Liability issues arose as Belgium assumed
liability for donated goods without corresponding contracts with Ukraine or other re-
cipient countries. This added complexity, particularly for certain goods like medicines,
where the entire lifespan and quality could not be guaranteed.
If we sign a contract with the company to accept their goods, at that moment
we get the liability of everything that goes bad with these goods, but we don’t
sign a contract with Ukraine. We just donate those goods so we don’t hand
over the liability that we received from the company and this is all fine if [...]
you can certify that they’re in perfect state, but it changes a bit with [...]
certain goods like medicine that we don’t see the entire lifespan of.
(Participants 3, Belgium).
When it comes to pharmaceuticals, Regulatory compliance generally posed a challenge.
Transferring medicines between countries required complex regulatory compliance, in-
cluding authorizations for specific warehouses and maintaining proper cold chains. Some
hubs did not have the required authorizations or infrastructure to handle these medicines,
necessitating detailed planning and compliance efforts.
43
Standardization and legal language also presented issues. Contracts with private com-
panies, especially from the US, often included legal terms not recognized in the EU, caus-
ing miscommunications and delays. Each contract had to be individually negotiated and
tailored, which was resource-intensive.
Sometimes, especially when we were working with American companies, they
would significantly change our template, and they would also use legal lan-
guage that didn’t exist in the EU but only existed in America, so it often led
to miscommunication and confusion on both sides.
(Participants 3)
Participants highlighted several aspects where the rescEUDS positively impacted the
disaster response efforts.
When asked if the integration of the private sector donations improved resource uti-
lization and response effectiveness, participants widely agreed.
Absolutely. It’s a no-brainer in the sense that what’s the alternative? The
alternative is that stakeholders develop their response actions in their corner
or at national level, which is not efficient. Integrating the private sector
donations directly creates pure economy of scale.
(Maarten Vergauwen)
This underscores the efficiency gained through coordinated efforts at the EU level
rather than fragmented national initiatives. Moreover, the integration of private sector
donations allowed for the mobilization of substantial quantities of valuable goods that
otherwise might not have reached Ukraine but which have been ‘brought on top of what
was foreseen’ (Maarten Vergauwen).
The rescEUDS also facilitated strategic integration and coordination among various
actors. Participants highlighted the benefits of bringing different actors together, which
allowed for mutual learning, efficient logistics and access to closed markets. This also
draws back to the specialised expertise the private sector can contribute, as already
discussed in the section about Resource Dependency and Scarcity.
6.2.2 Discussion: immediate consequences
The theoretical expectation posits that the immediate consequences of integrating pri-
vate sector donations into the UCPM would involve significant legal and operational
adjustments. Given the lack of a tailored framework for private donations, it was an-
ticipated that working within the existing legal framework would present several hur-
dles. Additionally, operational challenges were expected due to the ad-hoc setup of
the projects, which could lead to communication issues, inefficiencies, and delays. As
Maarten Vergauwen from DG ECHO highlighted, the UCPM had to rapidly find ways
to work within the existing legal framework to facilitate private sector donations due to
the unprecedented scale of the crisis in Ukraine. The integration of private donations
required legal creativity, as the existing framework was not explicitly designed to handle
44
such contributions. For instance, the Financial Regulation 2018/1046 posed significant
challenges. Therefore, the Commission had to creatively use possible loopholes within
the current legal framework to make the donations work without formally adapting the
legal framework itself.
Operationally, the integration of private sector donations necessitated substantial ad-
justments. Whole new processes and communication flows needed to be set up, and
new partners were added to the system. This was an unprecedented initiative, requiring
the establishment of hubs, intricate logistics management, regular coordination meet-
ings, and campaigns to advertise the scheme. As highlighted by various participants,
the scale and complexity of these operations were entirely new, necessitating significant
efforts to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in the disaster response. The initial setup
faced communication challenges, as evidenced by the prolonged and complicated coor-
dination process between the ERCC and the hubs in Poland and Belgium. Participant
3 from Belgium noted that they often had to communicate through the ERCC which
was not a streamlined way of doing it. This necessity to route communications through
the ERCC, rather than having direct contact, led to inefficiencies and increased costs.
Additionally, the ad-hoc setup of the project led to non-optimized processes. Addition-
ally, coordination difficulties were compounded by language barriers and the urgency to
prioritize certain trucks. Another example of fragmented processes is the complexity of
handling and stacking pallets efficiently at the Ukrainian border hubs, which required
detailed instructions and significant logistical adjustments.
Legally, the integration of private sector donations required several adjustments and
clarifications. Contracts with private companies were sometimes unclear regarding du-
ration and capacity requirements, leading to difficulties in defining responsibilities and
expectations. Liability issues also arose, as due to national law Belgium assumed liabil-
ity for donated goods without corresponding contracts with Ukraine or other recipient
countries. This added complexity, particularly for goods like medicines, where the entire
lifespan and quality could not be guaranteed. Regulatory compliance, particularly for
pharmaceuticals, posed significant challenges. Transferring medicines between countries
required complex regulatory compliance, including authorizations for specific warehouses
and maintaining proper cold chains. Some hubs did not have the required authorizations
or infrastructure to handle these medicines, necessitating detailed planning and compli-
ance efforts. Standardization and legal language also presented issues. Contracts with
private companies, especially from the US, often included legal terms not recognized in
the EU, causing miscommunications and delays. Individual negotiations and tailoring
was resource-intensive.
In summary, the integration of private sector donations into the UCPM through the
rescEUDS led to significant legal and operational adjustments. These included adapting
the legal framework to facilitate donations, enhancing communication and coordination
among stakeholders, managing logistical challenges, clarifying contractual obligations,
and ensuring regulatory compliance. The empirical goes in line with the theoretical ex-
pectations, highlighting the complexities and challenges involved in integrating private
sector contributions within the existing UCPM framework. Given its single-case nature,
this thesis cannot completely corroborate a theory, but can provide illustrative empirical
45
evidence of the mechanisms of those theoretical expectations While the theoretical ex-
pectations provided a broad framework for understanding the immediate consequences
of integrating private sector donations into the UCPM, they were not detailed enough
to fully capture the complexities involved. The empirical evidence from interviews re-
vealed a much deeper level of complexity in both legal and operational adjustments than
initially anticipated. The interviews demonstrated that the integration process was not
just about high-level strategic decisions but also involved granular, operational-level
adjustments that required significant coordination and expertise.
6.2.3 Future prospects: institutionalization of PPPs within the UCPM Framework
In exploring the integration of the private sector into the UCPM, it’s crucial to consider
both the immediate impacts and the potential long-term implications of such coopera-
tion. While the previous section focused on the immediate adjustments required to in-
corporate private sector donations through the EUPDS, this part delves deeper into the
broader implications of institutionalizing private sector cooperation within the UCPM.
To achieve this, it is necessary to additionally examine the experiences of MPS that have
not utilized the rescEUDS but have instead received donations as a state which were
then channeled through the mechanism in the ‘usual’ way.
A key question is whether private sector cooperation aligns with UCPM objectives.
Several participants believe that it does, particularly in enhancing disaster prevention,
preparedness, and response.
I think it perfectly aligns with the objectives because [...] what we want to
achieve is to deliver maximum of assistance and [...] if there are companies
that are are willing to step in, I think we should always make possible these
channels and be open for that.
(Participant 1, Member State)
However, there are concerns about maintaining the UCPM’s core spirit of solidarity
among MPS. Some participants worry that involving the private sector could dilute this
solidarity or introduce profit-oriented logic into a non-profit system. Despite these con-
cerns, others believe that private sector cooperation can be integrated without altering
the fundamental principles of the UCPM, ensuring that MPS remain the primary actors
and contact points for donations.
Participants generally welcomed the integration of the private sector into the UCPM,
though opinions varied on how best to structure this integration. One approach sug-
gested is central coordination by the EU, as seen with the ERCC’s role during the war in
Ukraine and the rescEUDS. This model could streamline processes but risks encroaching
on areas considered national competencies, which could lead to resistance from MPS.
Another approach is to maintain the current model, where each MPS coordinates private
sector donations through their national CP authorities, preserving national sovereignty
and existing structures. On the other hand, it can be slower and less efficient due to the
need for coordination between multiple entities. This model could also increase the work-
load for the national authorities leading to increased need for budget and other resources
46
A hybrid model could combine EU-level coordination with state-level implementation,
leveraging the strengths of both centralized and decentralized models. This approach
would allow the EU to handle initial coordination while MPS manage the logistical as-
pects and final delivery. The choice of structure must consider the diverse political and
administrative landscapes of MPS, as varying CP setups and cultural paradigms such
as language can complicate coordination.
According to participants, operational aspects such as quality control and trust are
critical in determining the effectiveness of private sector integration. Participants noted
that quality assurance is vital to ensure donations meet necessary standards, with prox-
imity playing a key role in managing quality checks. Trust between partners, particu-
larly at the national level, is also crucial, though it cannot replace the need for stringent
checks, especially for sensitive items like medicines as mentioned by Participants 3.
Transparency in procedures is equally important to prevent issues and ensure smooth
operations.
Liability issues also emerged as a concern. If disputes arise regarding the quality of
donated goods, the intermediary state could face reputational or financial repercussions.
Participants emphasized the need for clear, standardized legal procedures to manage
donations and ensure compliance with national and EU regulations. Clarity in contracts
is essential to avoid disputes, and standardized documentation could help streamline
processes and prevent delays.
I think if there’s a setup [...], if these mechanisms already in place with these
companies, we wouldn’t have to go through all those legal aspects and they
would just say ’OK, we want to donate this’. They know how it works. They
know they have to complete this kind of template and then donate.
(Participants 3)
Beneath a legal framework, one participant mentioned that the Commission might
consider to introduce a dedicated budget line for private sector support within the UCPM
to ensure a more structured and sustainable funding mechanism for these collaborations.
Strategically, integrating private sector contributions requires a shift in the UCPM’s
operational paradigm, moving beyond immediate crisis response to include long-term
planning and collaboration. Some participants suggested involving the private sector in
product design and procurement cycles to enhance innovation and efficiency in disaster
response, contributing to a more resilient system. While DiGennaro questions if resilience
aligns with private sector interests, several participants highlighted how resilience can’t
be achieved solely through CP efforts:
[...] this growing idea of EU wide resilience, which is completely cross-
sectoral, requires the involvement of all elements of society, from the military
and the civil side: from the citizen to the government, academics to private
sector, everyone needs to play their part.
(Participant 6, Expert)
47
While in the war in Ukraine the perceived effectiveness of the private sector integration
was recognized, the long-term impact on effectiveness remains uncertain according to
interviewees. Many expressed that although PPPs have provided valuable resources and
enhanced response capabilities, it is difficult to estimate their effectiveness over time
without establishing an evaluation process. Another participant noted that he sees ‘big
synergies for [PPPs]’.
6.2.4 Discussion: Future Prospects
The strategic integration of private sector contributions into the UCPM signifies a sub-
stantial shift in its operational paradigm, requiring careful analysis of both immediate
and long-term implications. While immediate operational and legal adjustments were
necessary to facilitate private sector donations during the Ukraine crisis, the broader
institutionalization of such partnerships within the UCPM demands a thorough exami-
nation of potential long-term consequences.
According to the participants, the integration of PPPs aligns with the UCPM’s objec-
tives of enhancing disaster prevention, preparedness, and response. Participants widely
agree that private sector involvement can provide additional resources, expertise, and
innovation, contributing to a more resilient disaster management system. However, con-
cerns remain about maintaining the core spirit of solidarity among MPS and avoiding
the introduction of profit-oriented logic into a traditionally non-profit system. These
concerns highlight the need for a balanced approach that preserves the UCPM’s funda-
mental principles while leveraging private sector strengths.
Different approaches to structuring private sector integration were suggested, each
with its own set of advantages and challenges. Central EU coordination, as exemplified
by the ERCC’s role during the Ukraine crisis, could streamline processes but may face
resistance from MPS protective of their national competencies. Conversely, maintaining
the current model of national-level coordination respects sovereignty but may result in
inefficiencies and increased workloads for national authorities. A hybrid model, com-
bining EU-level coordination with state-level implementation, could potentially harness
the strengths of both centralized and decentralized systems but would require careful
design to manage complexities and ensure seamless cooperation. Analyzing these struc-
tural approaches through the theoretical lens of Good Governance, centralized coordi-
nation could enhance accountability and transparency, critical for maintaining public
trust. However, the challenges in balancing national sovereignty and EU coordination
underscore the importance of clear institutional frameworks to support PPP operations
effectively. Ensuring that each model incorporates robust governance mechanisms is
essential for their long-term viability and success.
The integration of PPPs necessitates stringent operational measures to ensure quality
control, trust, and transparency. The requirement for physical checks, certifications, and
detailed documentation is crucial to maintaining the integrity of donated goods, partic-
ularly sensitive items like medicines. While trust between partners is vital, it cannot
replace the need for comprehensive verification procedures. Transparent processes and
uniform documentation are essential to prevent misunderstandings and ensure account-
48
ability.
From the perspective of Specialized Expertise, operational considerations must include
developing technical and managerial skills to handle the complexities of PPP arrange-
ments. The Mauritius oil spill incident highlighted the critical importance of expertise in
managing disaster responses effectively. Inadequate expertise can delay response efforts
and exacerbate the impact of disasters, emphasizing the need for specialized training
and preparedness.
A robust legal framework is critical for the successful integration of PPPs, addressing
issues such as liability, data protection, and ethical implications. Specialized contracts
delineating roles, responsibilities, and financial arrangements are necessary to avoid dis-
putes and ensure clarity. The experiences of MPS, such as Belgium, underscore the
importance of clear contractual terms, particularly regarding duration and capacity re-
quirements. This legal clarity is fundamental to managing donations effectively and
ensuring compliance with both national and EU regulations.
Analyzing this through the lens of Institutional Frameworks, it is evident that clear
and consistent legal guidelines are necessary to support the stability and adaptability of
PPPs. The challenges faced in regulatory compliance during the Ukraine crisis highlight
the need for robust legal structures that can accommodate the dynamic nature of disaster
management and PPP operations.
The long-term impact of PPPs on UCPM effectiveness remains uncertain, reflecting
the need for ongoing evaluation and strategic planning. While immediate benefits are
evident in terms of enhanced resources and response capabilities, the sustained effective-
ness of these partnerships over time requires further scrutiny. Future joint efforts could
foster synergies and improve crisis response options, but the integration process must
be approached thoughtfully to avoid potential pitfalls. Through the theoretical lens of
Disaster Response Enhancement and Community resilience, it is clear that PPPs have
the potential to significantly improve emergency management capabilities. Participants
noted that resilience cannot be achieved solely through CP efforts, and a cross-sectoral
approach involving all societal elements, including the private sector, is necessary. This
comprehensive integration ensures that disaster management efforts are sustainable and
effective at the community level.
Institutionalizing PPPs within the UCPM framework involves significant operational
and legal adjustments, necessitating clear roles, robust frameworks, and ongoing evalua-
tion. While the immediate benefits of PPPs are apparent, their long-term impact on the
effectiveness and resilience of the UCPM requires careful consideration. By addressing
these challenges and leveraging the strengths of both public and private sectors, the
UCPM can enhance its disaster management capabilities and achieve greater resilience
in the face of future crises.
49
7 Conclusion
This thesis explored the emergence and integration of PPPS within the UCPM, with
a particular focus on the war in Ukraine as a catalyst for this strategic shift. The
research aimed to identify the driving factors behind the adoption of PPPs and to assess
their consequences on the effectiveness of the UCPM, particularly in terms of legal and
operational adjustments.
7.1 Synthesis of findings
The findings reveal that the integration of PPPs within the UCPM was largely driven by
the unprecedented scale of the crisis in Ukraine, which overwhelmed traditional state-
led disaster response mechanisms. Participants emphasized that the primary motivation
for integrating PPPs during the war in Ukraine was the overwhelming need on the
ground. This situation marked a significant shift from the previous operational model,
where responses were provided by public authorities through the UCPM. Before the
introduction of PPPs, the MPS and DG ECHO bore the sole responsibility for mobilizing
resources, coordinating logistics, and delivering aid. However, the scale and urgency of
the crisis exposed critical limitations in this approach.
The urgent need for resources, specialized expertise, and rapid mobilization prompted
the formation of partnerships between the public and private sectors, reflecting the
expectations ot the theories of RDT and HFNs. These partnerships enabled the UCPM
to bridge critical resource gaps, particularly in sectors like medical items and energy,
where the public sector lacked sufficient capacity. For example, in previous crises, the
procurement of such goods has been exclusively managed by public authorities. In
contrast, during the Ukraine crisis, companies stepped in to provide in-kind donations,
which facilitated the procurement process and demonstrated the added value of private
sector involvement.
Operationally, the integration of PPPs necessitated substantial adjustments, includ-
ing the establishment of new communication channels, the redesign of logistical pro-
cesses, and the introduction of new legal documents. A robust legal framework proved
critical in the eyes of the participants for the successful integration of these partner-
ships, addressing key issues such as liability, data protection, and ethical implications.
Specialized contracts will be essential to delineate roles, responsibilities, and financial
arrangements, thereby avoiding disputes and ensuring clarity. The empirical evidence
confirms the theoretical expectation that these partnerships would require significant
modifications to existing UCPM operations. Yet, the process also unveiled challenges,
such as the complexities of aligning the diverse objectives of public and private sector
partners, the necessity for clear contractual terms, and the importance of maintaining
the humanitarian focus of the response.
The perceived effectiveness of PPPs, as reported by stakeholders, highlights the advan-
tages of coordinated, EU-level disaster response efforts that include the private sector.
While immediate benefits are evident in terms of enhanced resources and response ca-
pabilities, the sustained effectiveness of these partnerships over time requires further
50
scrutiny. All in all, by leveraging private sector contributions, the UCPM was not only
able to enhance its response capabilities by providing resources such as electrical and
medical items but also adapt to the evolving demands of such a large-scale crises like
the war in Ukraine. While aid only through CP authorities could have been provided
without private sector involvement, it would have been with a more limited impact.
7.2 Broader implications
The integration of PPPs within the UCPM marks a significant shift in the EU’s approach
to disaster management. While these partnerships have proven valuable in addressing
immediate resource needs, their long-term institutionalization presents both opportuni-
ties and challenges. On one hand, PPPs can provide additional resources, expertise, and
innovation, contributing to a more effective and efficient disaster management system.
On the other hand, the introduction of profit-oriented logic into a traditionally non-
profit system raises concerns about the potential erosion of the UCPM’s core principles
of solidarity and public accountability.
Strategically, the hierarchy of capacities within the UCPM, as presented in the back-
ground chapter, would be expanded through the inclusion of private sector contributions
(See Figure 4). This new layer of protection, channeled through the UCPM, could pos-
sibly enhance the mechanism’s overall response capacity by adding another dimension of
resources and expertise. This expansion might not only bolster the UCPM’s ability to
respond to large-scale crises but also ensure a more comprehensive and layered approach
to disaster management, offering greater resilience and adaptability in the face of diverse
challenges.
The strategic shift towards PPPs also has broader implications for the governance
of the UCPM. The tension between central EU coordination and national sovereignty
suggests that a balanced approach, possibly through a hybrid model, may be necessary
to ensure the successful integration of private sector contributions without undermining
MPS’ control over CP.
7.3 Limitations and future research
While the qualitative insights provided by stakeholders offer valuable perspectives, the
findings may not fully capture the long-term impacts of these partnerships. Additionally,
the focus on a single use case of the rescEUDS may limit the generalizability of the results
to other contexts or types of disasters.
Future research should aim to address these limitations by conducting studies focusing
on other cases where the rescEUDS was used. Comparative studies across different types
of disasters or between different regions could offer further insights into the contextual
factors that influence the success of PPPs in disaster management. For example, a
comparative analysis of PPP effectiveness across different EU Member States could help
identify best practices that could be standardized and mirrored at the UCPM level.
Additionally, a pairwise comparison between the UCPM and for example FEMA could
provide valuable insights into how different systems incorporate PPPs and what lessons
51
Figure 3: Hierarchy of Capacities and Measures within the UCPM Framework includin
the private sector, own illustration
52
can be learned. Another avenue for future research involves exploring the development
of a robust legal and operational framework to support the institutionalization of PPPs
within the UCPM. This includes examining the potential for standardized contracts, the
role of trust and transparency in cross-sector collaborations, and the mechanisms for
maintaining public accountability in partnerships that involve private sector actors. It
could also be interesting to include a document analysis of existing documents touching
upon PPPs within the UCPM - even if those are still scarce. Quantitative analyses
could complement the qualitative findings by providing more comprehensive data on
the outcomes of PPP integration. For example, a quantitative study could explore the
impact of PPPs across various crises within the EU, comparing how the intensity of PPP
involvement affects the efficiency of disaster response and recovery efforts. Exploring the
impact of PPPs on enhancing resilience in post-disaster recovery would provide valuable
information on how these partnerships contribute not just to immediate response efforts
but also to building long-term resilience in affected communities. This research could
analyze specific cases to assess how PPPs help in rebuilding infrastructure, restoring
services, and supporting economic recovery.
7.4 Final thoughts
The integration of PPPs within the UCPM represents a significant evolution in the EU’s
approach to disaster management. While the immediate benefits of these partnerships
are clear, their long-term success will hinge on the EU’s ability to effectively balance the
strengths of both public and private sectors while safeguarding the fundamental princi-
ples of the UCPM. Addressing the challenges identified in this thesis and continuing to
explore innovative collaboration approaches will be essential for enhancing the UCPM’s
resilience and effectiveness in responding to future crises.
This topic is of high relevance, as emphasized by numerous interviewees, and it is likely
to remain a focus in upcoming discussions. With the EuCom appearing eager to further
integrate the private sector, we can expect this topic to be revisited in rounds such as
the PROCIV working party, the CP Forum, or even addressed in the Commission work
program which will be presented in September. As crises are expected to increase in
frequency and complexity, finding new and effective ways to address these challenges
will become unavoidable.
53
References
Akomea-Frimpong, I., Jin, X., Osei-Kyei, R., & Tumpa, R. J. (2023). A critical review
of public–private partnerships in the COVID-19 pandemic: Key themes and fu-
ture research agenda. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, 12 (4), 701–720.
https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-01-2022-0009
Andrews, R., & Entwistle, T. (2010). Does Cross-Sectoral Partnership Deliver? An Em-
pirical Exploration of Public Service Effectiveness, Efficiency, and Equity. Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20 (3), 679–701. https://doi.org/
10.1093/jopart/mup045
Andrews, R., & Entwistle, T. (2015). Public–private partnerships, management capacity
and public service efficiency. Policy & Politics, 43 (2), 273–290. https://doi.org/
10.1332/030557314X13917703359707
Ansell, C., Boin, A., & Keller, A. (2010). Managing Transboundary Crises: Identifying
the Building Blocks of an Effective Response System. Journal of Contingencies
and Crisis Management, 18 (4), 195–207. https : / /doi . org / 10 . 1111/ j . 1468 -
5973.2010.00620.x
Aung, T. M., & Lim, S. (2021). Evolution of Collaborative Governance in the 2015,
2016, and 2018 Myanmar Flood Disaster Responses: A Longitudinal Approach
to a Network Analysis. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 12 (2),
267–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13753-021-00332-y
Australian Government. (2011). National Strategy for Disaster Resilience.
https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/emergency/files/national-strategy-disaster-resilience.pdf.
Ballesteros, L., & Useem, M. (2023). Leveraging Formal and Informal Business Partner-
ships for Disaster Relief. Combining Capabilities: How Public-Private Partner-
ships Are Making a Difference in Humanitarian Action, 27–29.
Barnier, M. (2006, May). For a European civil protection force: Europe aid.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004 2009/documents/dv/031006barnier /031006barnier en.pdf.
Bloomfield, P. (2006). The Challenging Business of Long-Term Public–Private Part-
nerships: Reflections on Local Experience. Public Administration Review, 66 (3),
400–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00597.x
Bovaird, T. (2004). Public–Private Partnerships: From Contested Concepts to Prevalent
Practice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70 (2), 199–215. https:
//doi.org/10.1177/0020852304044250
Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2019). Thematic Analysis. In P.
Liamputtong (Ed.),Handbook of research methods in health social sciences. Springer
Verlag.
Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2011). Public–private partnerships: Perspec-
tives on purposes, publicness, and good governance. Public Administration and
Development, 31 (1), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.584
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The Design and Implementation of
Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature. Public Adminis-
tration Review, 66 (s1), 44–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x
54
Bundesministerium des Innern und für Heimat (BMI). (2022, July). Deutsche Strategie
zur Stärkung der Resilienz gegenüber Katastrophen.
Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung. (2024). Public
Private Partnership (PPP).
https://www.bmz.de/de/service/lexikon/public-private-partnership-ppp-14780.
Busch, N., & Givens, A. (2013). Achieving Resilience in Disaster Management: The
Role of Public-Private Partnerships. Journal of Strategic Security, 6 (2), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.6.2.1
Buse, K., & Walt, G. (2000). Global public-private partnerships: Part I–A new develop-
ment in health? Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78 (4), 549–561.
Castelblanco, G., Guevara, J., & De Marco, A. (2024). Crisis management in public–
private partnerships: Lessons from the global crises in the XXI century. Built
Environment Project and Asset Management, 14 (1), 56–73. https://doi.org/10.
1108/BEPAM-11-2022-0174
Chen, J., Chen, T. H. Y., Vertinsky, I., Yumagulova, L., & Park, C. (2013). Public–
Private Partnerships for the Development of Disaster Resilient Communities.
Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 21 (3), 130–143. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1468-5973.12021
Cypress, B. S. (2019). Data Analysis Software in Qualitative Research: Preconceptions,
Expectations, and Adoption. Dimensions of Critical Care Nursing, 38 (4), 213–
220. https://doi.org/10.1097/DCC.0000000000000363
Denning, P. J. (2006). Hastily formed networks. Communications of the ACM, 49 (4),
15–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/1121949.1121966
Denscombe, M. (2021). The good research guide: Research methods for small-scale social
research projects (Seventh edition). Open University Press.
DG ECHO. (2015). Fact Sheet - European Emergency Response Capacity.
https://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/aid/countries/factsheets/thematic/emergency response capacity en.pdf.
DG ECHO. (2023a). 10 years of the Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC).
https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/what/civil-protection/emergency-
response-coordination-centre-ercc/10-years-emergency-response-coordination-centre-
ercc en?pk source=website&pk medium=advert&pk campaign=news ticker.
DG ECHO. (2023b, September). Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC).
https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/what/civil-protection/emergency-
response-coordination-centre-ercc en.
DG ECHO. (2023c, September). EU Civil Protection Mechanism.
https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/what/civil-protection/eu-
civil-protection-mechanism en.
DG ECHO. (2023d). Ukraine.
https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/where/europe/ukraine en#how-
are-we-helping.
DG ECHO. (2024a). EU opens new rescEU energy hub in Poland.
https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/news-stories/news/eu-opens-
new-resceu-energy-hub-poland-2023-01-26 en.
55
DG ECHO. (2024b, March). European Civil Protection Pool.
https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/what/civil-protection/european-
civil-protection-pool en.
Drees, J. M., & Heugens, P. P. M. A. R. (2013). Synthesizing and Extending Resource
Dependence Theory: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Management, 39 (6), 1666–
1698. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312471391
Emergency Response Coodination Center (ERCC). (2024). Events - Emergency Re-
sponse Coordination Centre (ERCC).
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/0a88b4c2a84c468295d98e8f5627843d.
European Commission. (2003, December). Commission Decision laying Down Rules for
the Implementation of Council Decision 2001/792/EC Euratom Establishing a
Community Mechanism to Facilitate Reinforced Cooperation in Civil Protection
Assistance Interventions, Reference No. 2004/277/EC.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32021R0836.
European Commission. (2004, April). Green Paper on public-private partnerships and
Community law on public contracts and concessions, COM/2004/0327 final.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=celex:52004DC0327.
European Commission. (2013, December). New legislation to strengthen European pol-
icy on disaster management.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32021R0836.
European Commission. (2024a, March). ERCC – DG ECHO Daily Map, rescEu capac-
ities 2024.
https://erccportal.jrc.ec.europa.eu/API/ERCC/Maps/DownloadPublicMap?fileN=MainFile&forceDownload=False&contentItemID=4832.
European Commission. (2024b, February). ERCC – DG ECHO Daily Map, UCPM Ac-
tivations 2019-2023.
https://erccportal.jrc.ec.europa.eu/API/ERCC/Maps/DownloadPublicMap?fileN=MainFile&forceDownload=False&contentItemID=4792.
European Council. (2010, May). The Stockholm Programme—An open and secure Eu-
rope serving and protecting citizens, OJ 2010 C 115/25.
European Council (Euratom). (n.d.). Council Decision 2001/792/EC of October 23 2001,
establishing a Community mechanism to facilitate reinforced cooperation in civil
protection assistance interventions, OJ 2001 L 297/7.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32001D0792.
European Court of Auditors. (2018). Public Private Partnerships in the EU: Widespread
shortcomings and limited benefits, No 09.
European Investment Bank. (2024). What is a PPP?
https://www.eib.org/epec/.
European Parliament and the Council. (2013). Decision 1313/2013/EU of 17 December
2013, on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism, OJ L 347/924.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32001D0792.
European Parliament and the Council. (2018, July). Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046
of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the
Union.
European Parliament and the Council. (2021, May). Regulation (EU) 2021/836.
56
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). (2018, July). 2017 Hurricane Season
FEMA After-Action Report.
Fink-Hooijer, F. (2014). The EU’s Competence in the Field of Civil Protection (Article
196, Paragraph 1, a–c TFEU). In I. Govaere & S. Poli (Eds.), EU management of
global emergencies: Legal framework for combating threats and crises (Chapter
7). Brill Nijhoff.
Gestri, M. (2012). EU Disaster Response Law: Principles and Instruments. In Interna-
tional Disaster Response Law (pp. 105–128). T. M. C. Asser Press.
Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. D. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the
public sector. Brookings Institution Press.
OCLC: 57586703.
Halperin, S., & Heath, O. (2020, April). Political Research: Methods and Practical
Skills (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press. https : / / doi . org / 10 . 1093 / hepl /
9780198820628.001.0001
Hayllar, M. R., & Wettenhall, R. (2010). Public-Private Partnerships: Promises, Politics
and Pitfalls. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69 (s1). https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2009.00657.x
Hofmeister, A., & Borchert, H. (2004). Public–Private Partnerships in Switzerland:
Crossing the Bridge with the Aid of a New Governance Approach. International
Review of Administrative Sciences, 70 (2), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0020852304044251
ICF S.A. (2024). Interim Evaluation of the implementation of Decision No 1313/2013/EU
on a Union Civil Protection Mechanism, 2017-2022
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/MEMO 13 1120.
IKEA Foundation. (2023, February). Swedish nonprofit Better Shelter provides 5000
emergency shelters funded by the IKEA Foundation, to the earthquake response
in Türkiye and Syria and urges others to support.
https://ikeafoundation.org/press/swedish-nonprofit-better-shelter-provides-5000-
emergency-shelters-funded-by-the-ikea-foundation-to-the-earthquake-response-in-
turkiye-and-syria-and-urges-others-to-support/.
Jamali, D. (2004). Success and failure mechanisms of public private partnerships (PPPs)
in developing countries: Insights from the Lebanese context. International Jour-
nal of Public Sector Management, 17 (5), 414–430. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09513550410546598
Kang, S., Mulaphong, D., Hwang, E., & Chang, C.-K. (2019). Public-private partner-
ships in developing countries: Factors for successful adoption and implementa-
tion. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32 (4), 334–351. https:
//doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-01-2018-0001
Kapucu, N. (2006). Public-Nonprofit Partnerships for Collective Action in Dynamic
Contexts of Emergencies. Public Administration, 84 (1), 205–220. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.0033-3298.2006.00500.x
Kettl, D. F., & Kettl, D. F. (1993). Sharing power: Public governance and private mar-
kets. Brookings Institution.
57
Koppenjan, J. F. M., & Enserink, B. (2009). Public–Private Partnerships in Urban In-
frastructures: Reconciling Private Sector Participation and Sustainability. Pub-
lic Administration Review, 69 (2), 284–296. https://doi .org/10.1111/j .1540-
6210.2008.01974.x
Lin, H. (2014). Government–Business Partnership Formation for Environmental Im-
provements. Organization & Environment, 27 (4), 383–398. https : / /doi . org/
10.1177/1086026614554716
Liu, L. X., Clegg, S., & Pollack, J. (2024). The Effect of Public–Private Partnerships
on Innovation in Infrastructure Delivery. Project Management Journal, 55 (1),
31–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/87569728231189989
Madan, A., & Routray, J. K. (2015). Institutional framework for preparedness and re-
sponse of disaster management institutions from national to local level in India
with focus on Delhi. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 14, 545–
555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.10.004
Magnusson, E., & Marecek, J. (2015, October). Doing Interview-based Qualitative Re-
search: A Learner’s Guide (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.
org/10.1017/CBO9781107449893
McGuire, M. (2002). Managing Networks: Propositions on What Managers Do and Why
They Do It. Public Administration Review, 62 (5), 599–609. https://doi.org/10.
1111/1540-6210.00240
McQuaid, R. W., & Scherrer, W. (2010). Changing reasons for public–private partner-
ships (PPPs). Public Money & Management, 30 (1), 27–34. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09540960903492331
Mitchell, J. K. (2006). The Primacy of Partnership: Scoping a New National Disaster
Recovery Policy. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 604 (1), 228–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716205286044
Morsut, C. (2014). The EU’s Community Mechanism for Civil Protection: Analysing Its
Development. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 22 (3), 143–149.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12053
Myrdal, S., & Rhinard, M. (2010). The European Union’s Solidarity Clause: Empty
Letter or Effective Tool? (Swedish Institute of International Affairs, Ed.). (No.
2/2010).
Naggea, J., & Miller, R. (2023). A comparative case study of multistakeholder responses
following oil spills in Pointe d’Esny, Mauritius, and Huntington Beach, California.
Ecology and Society, 28 (1), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-13737-280124
Nathan, S., Newman, C., & Lancaster, K. (2019). Qualitative Interviewing. In P. Liamput-
tong (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences. Springer Ver-
lag.
OECD. (2008, May). Public-Private Partnerships: In Pursuit of Risk Sharing and Value
for Money. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264046733-en
Osborne, S. P. (2002). Public private partnerships: Theory and practice in international
perspective. Routledge.
OCLC: 70750673.
58
Osei-Kyei, R., Chan, A. P. C., Javed, A. A., & Ameyaw, E. E. (2017). Critical success
criteria for public-private partnership projects: International experts’ opinion.
International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 21 (1), 87–100. https:
//doi.org/10.3846/1648715X.2016.1246388
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (2009). The external control of organizations: A resource
dependence perspective (Nachdr.). Stanford Business Books.
Pongsiri, N. (2002). Regulation and public-private partnerships. International Jour-
nal of Public Sector Management, 15 (6), 487–495. https://doi.org/10.1108/
09513550210439634
Public Safety Canada. (2017). An Emergency Management Framework for Canada.
https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/emergency/files/national-strategy-disaster-resilience.pdf.
R̊adestad, C., & Larsson, O. (2020). Responsibilization in contemporary Swedish crisis
management: Expanding ‘bare life’ biopolitics through exceptionalism and ne-
oliberal governmentality. Critical Policy Studies, 14 (1), 86–105. https://doi.org/
10.1080/19460171.2018.1530604
Rybnicek, R., Plakolm, J., & Baumgartner, L. (2020). Risks in Public–Private Partner-
ships: A Systematic Literature Review of Risk Factors, Their Impact and Risk
Mitigation Strategies. Public Performance & Management Review, 43 (5), 1174–
1208. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2020.1741406
Sapat, A., Esnard, A.-M., & Kolpakov, A. (2019). Understanding Collaboration in Dis-
aster Assistance Networks: Organizational Homophily or Resource Dependency?
The American Review of Public Administration, 49 (8), 957–972. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0275074019861347
Simo, G., & Bies, A. L. (2007). The Role of Nonprofits in Disaster Response: An
Expanded Model of Cross-Sector Collaboration. Public Administration Review,
67 (s1), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00821.x
Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Exploratory research in the social sciences. Sage Publications.
Steijn, B., Klijn, E.-H., & Edelenbos, J. (2011). PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS:
ADDED VALUE BY ORGANIZATIONAL FORM OR MANAGEMENT? Pub-
lic Administration, 89 (4), 1235–1252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.
01877.x
Stewart, G. T., Kolluru, R., & Smith, M. (2009). Leveraging public-private partnerships
to improve community resilience in times of disaster. International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 39 (5), 343–364. https://doi.org/
10.1108/09600030910973724
Tierney, K. J. (2019). Disasters: A sociological approach. Polity Press.
Uhnoo, S., & Persson, S. (2022). The flip side of the coin: Perils of public–private disaster
cooperation. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 30 (4), 440–450.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12387
UN OCHA & Deutsche Post DHL Group. (2023, February). Combining Capabilities:
How Public-Private Partnerships Are Making a Difference.
https://group.dhl.com/en/sustainability/social-impact-programs/disaster-management/disaster-
response-teams.html.
59
UNHCR. (n.d.). IKEA Foundation.
https://www.unhcr.org/ikea-foundation.
UNISDR. (2005). Hyogo Framework for 2005–2015: Building the Resilience of Nations
and Communities to Disasters.
https://www.unisdr.org/2005/wcdr/intergover/official-doc/L-docs/Hyogo-framework-
for-action-english.pdf.
UNISDR. (2008). Private Sector Activities in Disaster Risk Reduction.
https://www.preventionweb.net/files/7519 PPPgoodpractices.pdf.
UNISDR. (2015). Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030.
https://www.preventionweb.net/files/43291 sendaiframeworkfordrren.pdf.
Vecchi, V., Casalini, F., Cusumano, N., & Leone, V. M. (2021a). Public Private Part-
nerships. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-
65435-1 3
Vecchi, V., Casalini, F., Cusumano, N., & Leone, V. M. (2021b). Public-Private Partner-
ships for Infrastructure and Service Delivery: An Introduction. In Public Private
Partnerships (pp. 01–18). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-3-030-65435-1 3
Wang, H., Xiong, W., Wu, G., & Zhu, D. (2018). Public–private partnership in Pub-
lic Administration discipline: A literature review. Public Management Review,
20 (2), 293–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2017.1313445
Waugh, W. L., & Streib, G. (2006). Collaboration and Leadership for Effective Emer-
gency Management. Public Administration Review, 66 (s1), 131–140. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00673.x
Widmalm, S., Parker, C. F., & Persson, T. (2019). Civil Protection Cooperation in the
European Union: How Trust and Administrative Culture Matter for Crisis Man-
agement. Springer International Publishing.
Worthen, B. (2005, November). How Wal-Mart Beat Feds to New Orleans.
https://www.cio.com/article/252374/supply-chain-management-how-wal-mart-beat-
feds-to-new-orleans.html.
Yang, Y., Hou, Y., & Wang, Y. (2013). On the Development of Public–Private Partner-
ships in Transitional Economies: An Explanatory Framework. Public Administra-
tion Review, 73 (2), 301–310. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02672.x
60
Appendix
Appendix 1: Interview Participants
Table 1: Contacted and Interviewed Participants by Group
Group Contacted Interviewed
Member States 24 6
Participating States 3 1
Experts 7 4
Private Sector 8 2
ECHO 4 3
Total 46 16
Table 2: Interviewed Participants
Name/Alias Sector Specification
Heikki Honkanen Public Sector Ministry of the Interior of Finland,
Specialist - Department for Rescue Services
Mari Løwehr Public Sector Norwegian Directorate for Civil Protection
(DSB), Duty Officer
Participant 1 Public Sector Member State
Participant 2 Public Sector Member State
Participants 3 Public Sector Belgium
Paul Rock Public Sector National Directorate for Fire and
Emergency Management Ireland, Senior
Advisor
Rickard Public Sector Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency
Wennergrund (MSB), Project Manager - Response and
Operations Department
Sara Bertilsson, Public Sector Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency
Kristofer Thelin (MSB), EU Coordinators
Alessandro Carrotta Public Sector DG ECHO, Policy Officer – UCPM Policy
Development and Cross-sectoral
Preparedness
Cristian Gimenez Public Sector DG ECHO, Project Officer - rescEU
Donations / Emergency Shelter
Maarten Vergauwen Public Sector DG ECHO, Team Leader - UCPM Policy
Development and Cross-sectoral
Preparedness
Franck Ranera Private Sector ICEYE, Senior Manager Government
Solutions Europe
Participant 4 Private Sector -
Mario Di Gennaro Expert Johanniter-Unfall-Hilfe e.V. - Head of
Competence Center for EU Civil Protection
and Disaster Assistance
Participant 5 Expert -
Participant 6 Expert -
Participant 7 Expert -
Appendix 2: Interview Guide
Introduction
Presentation of interviewer and research
Hello and thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview.
My name is Cora and I am doing my master’s at University of Gothenburg in Polit-
ical Sciences with focus on Europe. I’m currently working on my master thesis that
examines the integration of collaborations with the private sector in form public-private
partnerships within the Union Civil Protection Mechanism.
I became aware of the topic as in the recently published UCPM evaluation, cross-sector
collaboration was mentioned particularly in response to COVID-19 and the war in
Ukraine. As the UCPM was constructed as a state-to-state support system, it is in-
teresting that the collaboration with the private sector happened during those crises
and now is discussed to become a part of the UCPM. The aim of this research is to
understand the dynamics of these partnerships and their implications for disaster man-
agement strategies within the EU.
During this interview, I will use the terms ’cross-sector collaboration’ and ’public-private
partnerships’ interchangeably. I may also refer to them simply as ’PPPs’ for brevity.
Today, I would like to discuss your experiences and insights regarding PPPs or cross-
sector collaborations. As PPPs are a specific form of cross-sector collaboration, in the
following I will refer only to cross-sector collaboration.
Thank you for sending back to me the Consent form in advance. As stated, I will record
this interview. If you do not have any other questions, I will start the recording now.
Presentation of the interviewee
To get started, I’m interested in learning about your involvement with public-private
partnerships within the context of disaster management.
Theme 1: Strategic Integration of PPPs within the UCPM
First, I would like to talk about why cooperation between the private sector and the
UCPM started.
As you are not directly involved in DG ECHO, did you hear about the cooperation with
the private sector and know how these collaborations looked like?
If no: From the beginning of the crisis, private sector entities got in touch with DG echo
expressing the interest to donate goods. Traditionally, Member States as well as
Ukraine (at the time not a UCPM participating state) would have dealt with the pri-
vate donations bilaterally, but they were overwhelmed, leading to the involvement of the
UCPM to channel private donations, and fill assistance gaps, as well as broaden available
capacity. In collaboration with Belgium and Polish authorities DG ECHO established
two rescEU hubs to manage donations.
Table 3: Strategic Integration of PPPs
Topic Question Follow-up Aim of Question, Link to theory
Questions
Occurrence Can you describe Who initiated Aim: Uncover the historical context and
of PPPs when the first co- the cooperation? procedural specifics of initiating PPPs
operation started How were the within the UCPM. It seeks to under-
and how it mani- partners selected? stand the genesis of such partnerships
fested? Were there any and the criteria used for partner selec-
factors that were tion. Link to Theory: question delves
considered in the into the circumstances through which the
selection process? first PPPs were formed (HFNs);investing
strategic motivations by asking who ini-
tiated the cooperation and how partners
were selected (RDT); inquiry into selec-
tion factors touches on Good Governance
and Institutional Frameworks, evaluating
whether the selection process adhered to
transparency, accountability, and strate-
gic fit within the existing legal and regu-
latory frameworks of the UCPM.
Continued on next page
Table 3 continued from previous page
Topic Question Follow-up Aim of Question, Link to theory
Questions
Reasons Can you talk What specific Aim: Explore the motivations behind
for PPPs about the initial benefits were forming PPPs and the expected benefits,
motivations for anticipated from particularly in terms of enhancing disaster
such cooperation? the incorpora- management capabilities. Link to The-
Reflecting on past tion of PPPs ory: Reflecting on past experiences and
experiences, were into the EU’s the perceived needs might uncover recog-
there instances civil protection nition of an impending need for swift ac-
where cooper- framework? tion (HFNs); Questions align with RDT
ation with the by examining how these partnerships help
private sector overcome resource scarcities and depen-
were already dencies; Discussing the anticipated bene-
discussed, or do fits of PPPs connects directly to Disaster
you think there Response Enhancement and Community
was a clear need resilience.
for them even
before they were
implemented
now?
EU Civil How do PPPs Do you think Aim: Assess the strategic alignment of
Protec- align with the they align with PPPs with the overarching goals of the
tion/ broader objec- the objectives UCPM and the broader EU disaster man-
Disaster tives of EU civil of the UCPM? agement framework. Link to Theory:
Man- protection and In your opin- Questioning the alignment of PPPs with
agement disaster manage- ion, should such UCPM objectives, the inquiry indirectly
Strategy ment strategies? cooperation be assesses the adaptability and immediate
integrated in the utility of PPPs as seen in HFNs, especially
UCPM? Why? in how these networks form and function
Why not? under urgent circumstances; Finding out
if these partnerships provide essential re-
sources that the UCPM might otherwise
lack (RDT); evaluating whether PPPs
contribute to enhancing the UCPM’s dis-
aster response capabilities and if they ad-
here to principles of good governance, thus
ensuring their effectiveness and alignment
with EU objectives
Theme 2: Operational Dynamics + Legal Framework of PPPs in Disaster
Management (Practical Implementation)
Table 4: Operational Dynamics + Legal Framework
Topic Question Follow-up Aim of Question, Link to theory
Questions
Example- Could you walk Can you describe Aim: Explore the mechanics of PPP for-
PPP me through how how different mation and execution within the UCPM,
Execution the [insert coop- stakeholders were focusing on stakeholder roles, resource al-
eration name] was involved in the location, and the execution process. Link
set up and exe- process? Who to Theory: Looking at setup and execu-
cuted? were the key tion process, involving various stakehold-
players? How ers and managing logistics under pressure
were resources (HFNs); questions explore how resources
allocated for were sourced and allocated, directly re-
this project? flecting RDT’s emphasis on how organi-
Were there any zations engage in partnerships to access
unique finan- essential resources they lack; Involvement
cial or logistical of different stakeholders and the arrange-
arrangements? ments for resource allocation can be ana-
lyzed through the lenses of Good Gover-
nance and Institutional Frameworks.
Legal Were there any How do current Aim: Identify and understand the le-
frame- significant legal PPP contracts gal and contractual challenges faced dur-
work or contractual align with EU ing PPP initiatives, and assessing align-
hurdles during rules on public ment with EU regulations. Link to The-
the initiation or contracts and ory: Alignment with EU regulations re-
implementation concessions, and flects the strategic need to manage depen-
phases of the what improve- dencies not only on resources but also on
project? [Link ments, if any, regulatory compliance to ensure the legit-
to legal aspects are needed? imacy (RDT); relates to the Institutional
if participant is Are there any Frameworks success factor, which stresses
able to talk about regulatory gaps the importance of having robust legal and
it] that you believe regulatory structures in place to support
need address- effective PPP operations.
ing to facilitate
more effective
cooperations?
Continued on next page
Table 4 continued from previous page
Topic Question Follow-up Aim of Question, Link to theory
Questions
Challenges What opera- How were these Aim: Uncover the operational difficulties
tional challenges challenges ad- experienced during PPP executions and
have been en- dressed? the strategies employed to overcome these
countered while challenges. Link to Theory: Addresses
executing PPP the nature of PPPs formed in response to
projects during emergencies, emphasizing the HFN con-
emergencies? cept of rapid, effective response to ur-
gent missions despite operational chal-
lenges; Discussing how challenges were ad-
dressed ties into Disaster Response En-
hancement and Good Governance, indi-
cating the need for effective management
and adaptive response strategies within
PPP frameworks.
Best Can you share Aim: Gather insights into successful
Practices any examples of PPP implementations and identify prac-
best practices or tices that led to effective outcomes. Link
successful out- to Theory: Seeks to identify instances
comes from PPP where Good Governance, Specialized Ex-
projects during pertise, and Disaster Response Enhance-
recent disaster ment have been effectively implemented,
responses? showcasing how these success factors con-
tribute to the effectiveness of PPPs in dis-
aster management.
Values of CHow are trust What roles do Aim: Delve into the dynamics of rela-
collabora- and collaborative transparency, tionship building within PPPs, focusing
tion relationships built mutual goals, on trust, transparency, and shared objec-
between public and risk-sharing tives. Link to Theory: Building of trust
and private sector play in the effec- and collaborative relationships can be an-
partners? tiveness of these alyzed through RDT, as these elements
partnerships? are crucial for managing interdependen-
cies and ensuring mutual benefits in PPPs;
roles of transparency, mutual goals, and
risk-sharing are central to the Good Gov-
ernance factor, essential for maintaining
public trust and securing the long-term vi-
ability of partnerships.
Theme 3: Impact and Effectiveness of PPPs in Enhancing Disaster Resilience
Table 5: Impact and Effectiveness of PPPs
Topic Question Follow-up Aim of Question, Link to theory
Questions
Personal In your view, how How would you Aim: Assess personal perceptions of the
percep- have PPPs con- compare the effectiveness of PPPs, focusing on ob-
tion of tributed to en- disaster response served changes, specific innovations, and
Effective- hancing the EU’s capabilities be- the overall impact on disaster manage-
ness of disaster resilience fore and after the ment processes. Link to Theory: Rapid
PPPs and response ca- implementation integration of innovative practices in re-
pabilities? of PPPs? Would sponse to crises reflects the dynamics of
you say that HFNs; Before and after can be viewed
collaboration through the RDT lens, emphasizing how
makes the UCPM these partnerships provide access to re-
more effective? sources and innovations previously un-
Can you discuss available; improved effectiveness and in-
any innovative novative practices and technologies aligns
practices or with Disaster Response Enhancement and
technologies in- Specialized Expertise.
troduced through
cooperations
that have im-
proved disaster
management
capabilities?
Other How do differ- Aim: Aim: capture a diverse range of
people’s ent stakehold- stakeholder perspectives on the effective-
percep- ers—such as gov- ness of PPPs, which can highlight differing
tion of ernment officials, views on the successes and areas for im-
Effective- private sector provement. Link to Theory: Explores
ness of partners, and how different stakeholders recognize and
PPPs affected commu- value the resources and benefits provided
nities—perceive by PPPs (RDT); Stakeholder perceptions
the impact of can be influenced by how well the PPPs
PPPs on disaster embody the Good Governance and Com-
resilience? munity resilience success factors, assessing
transparency, participation, and the over-
all resilience enhancements contributed by
the partnerships.
Continued on next page
Table 5 continued from previous page
Topic Question Follow-up Aim of Question, Link to theory
Questions
Long- How do you Aim: Understand the sustained effects of
term evaluate the long- PPPs on enhancing community resilience
Impact term impacts of and preparedness, looking beyond imme-
these partner- diate disaster responses. Link to The-
ships on com- ory: Evaluating long-term impacts also
munity resilience involves considering how networks formed
and disaster in a hurry can transition to stable, en-
preparedness? during partnerships that contribute con-
sistently to community resilience (HFNs);
focuses on the long-term effectiveness of
PPPs in terms of Community resilience
and Disaster Response Enhancement.
Measure- What measurable Aim: Identify the metrics and indicators
ment outcomes or per- used to quantitatively assess the success
formance indica- and effectiveness of PPPs in the context
tors do you use of disaster management. Link to The-
to assess the effec- ory: Performance indicators can also re-
tiveness of PPPs flect how effectively the PPPs are man-
in disaster man- aging and utilizing the resources critical
agement? to the UCPM’s objectives, (RDT); Ques-
tion is tied to Good Governance and Dis-
aster Response Enhancement, as it seeks
to identify clear, quantifiable indicators
of success, crucial for transparency, ac-
countability, and ongoing assessment of
the PPPs’ operational impacts.
Outro:
Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me today. Your insights have been
extremely valuable and will significantly contribute to my understanding of cross-sector
collaboration within the UCPM. I truly appreciate your openness and the detailed in-
formation you’ve shared.
If there’s anything more you would like to add or clarify about what we discussed today,
please feel free to do so now. Also, if any other thoughts or examples come to mind after
our conversation, please don’t hesitate to contact me via email.
Do you know any person who, in your view, I should talk to in order to gather more
insights?
In the coming weeks, I may need to follow up with you to clarify some points or get
further information, if that’s alright.
Once my analysis is complete, I’d be glad to share a summary of the findings if you’re
interested.
Appendix 3: Codes for the Codebook approach and Inductive Codes
Table 6: Codes linked to HFNs
Code Definition Examples from Interviews
Urgent Mission Reflects the urgent need But of course, the situation has has evolved over the
for partnerships to ad- years, particularly in the last years, perhaps start-
dress immediate chal- ing with COVID and now also in particular with the
lenges during crises. Ukraine war, where all of a sudden, I mean the the
amounts of needs went up very, very dramatically.
(Participant 5, Expert)
Immediate References to urgent re- We have never seen this kind of emergency before
Needs source and operational in the context of the UCPM. It’s so wide, it affects
needs, emphasizing the all sectors of society, and assistance is needed in all
necessity for swift and sectors of society. And it has lasted over two years
broad responses. now. So this is exceptional and authorities cannot an-
swer to this kind of emergency by themselves effectively
enough. (Heikki Honkanen, Ministry of the Interior of
Finland, Specialist - Department for Rescue Services)
Coordination Examples highlighting [...] I mean, otherwise everyone goes there and they
efforts the importance of coor- have to get in touch with the hosting Member States
dinated efforts in mobi- and the authorities and the affected people. And I
lizing and deploying re- mean coordination is a direct win. (Maarten Ver-
sources through PPPs. gauwen, DG ECHO, Team Leader - UCPM Policy De-
velopment and Cross-sectoral Preparedness)
Strategic Identifies opportunities I haven’t discussed this with my leader, but I believe in
opportunity for strategic engage- when Ukraine will start to rebuild again, I think might
(HFN) ment and potential be able to help out in some ways there, but that’s a
future benefits from long shot. (Participant 4, Private Sector)
PPPs formed dur-
ing crises, directly or
indirectly linked to
economic motivation.
Humanitarian Highlights the genuine I believe personally that there were some truly emo-
and Altruistic desire to assist during tional and human reactions from some private sec-
motivations crises, driven by hu- tor companies that wanted to do something because
manitarian or altruistic we were all in shock in Europe, everyone. (Maarten
motives. Vergauwen, DG ECHO, Team Leader - UCPM Policy
Development and Cross-sectoral Preparedness)
Continued on next page
Table 6 continued from previous page
Code Definition Examples from Interviews
Common Goals Refer to the shared And also when it comes to common goals, if there were
objectives and mutual no such and, and I think this is linking back to what we
interests that drive said about needs and to support affected populations.
collaboration between It wouldn’t really work out either. So there must be
public and private some. (Sara Bertilsson, Swedish Civil Contingencies
sector partners within Agency (MSB), EU Coordinators)
the UCPM.
Table 7: Codes and Subcodes linked to RDT
Code Definition Examples from Interviews
Resource Reflects the necessity to x
Scarcity form partnerships due
to limited availability of
essential resources.
Volume References to the sheer So it was clear that the need is huge and the field is
volume of resources wide so there’s no chance for the authorities alone to
needed, highlighting provide assistance enough. (Heikki Honkanen, Fin-
the inability of author- land)
ities to meet demands
alone.
Specialised Exper- The need for specialized That’s why they [the Commission] accept also the pri-
tise resources and knowl- vate donations. Especially within the energy sector,
edge that are not read- [they are] very important because this specialized equip-
ily available within the ment, it’s not possible to go to the shop and buy it or
public sector. to order, to produce. You have to have it from the
energy companies. (Participant 2, Member State)
Interdependency Instances highlighting We have to kind of come together and see where we
the reciprocal reliance can complement each other without losing every aim
between public and of the sector. (Participant 7, Expert)
private sectors where
both sectors depend
on each other for re-
sources, expertise, or
capabilities.
Efficiency Reflects the strategic And if everyone opens up their little channels, this
and Cost- benefit of forming part- kind of dilutes the effort. Then there is obviously a
effectiveness nerships to optimize re- notion of complementarity. I mean, there are gaps
source use and reduce which might be closed through donations or contribu-
costs. tions from well, not the usual partners, meaning from
private industry companies and so on. (Participant 5,
Expert)
Private Sector Reflects the underlying x
Motivations reasons driving the pri-
vate sector to engage in
partnerships.
Continued on next page
Table 7 continued from previous page
Code Definition Examples from Interviews
Economic Moti- Direct financial benefits This is a company and the company has to earn
vations such as revenue gener- money. That’s their purpose. They have to pay their
ation, tax relief, and employees, [...] they have to expand and so on. (Mario
profitability. Di Gennaro, Johanniter-Unfall-Hilfe e.V. - Head of
Competence Center for EU Civil Protection and Dis-
aster Assistance)
Other Motiva- Motivations beyond di- It’s easy saying private equals revenue and money. It
tions (RDT) rect financial gain, such is like that. But then we have to dive into that be-
as demonstrating value cause it’s not just making money for money, it’s really
to customers and foster- showing them [Note by interviewer: the customers] the
ing long-term business value they can get from what we produce. (Franck Ran-
relationships. era, ICEYE)
Other Motiva- Reflects additional rea- Taking different parties in society, including private
tions sons for engaging in sector, involving them in security work both in general
partnerships, such as and this field in particular – that creates the culture
contributing to societal of common resilience. (Heikki Honkanen, Ministry of
resilience and security. the Interior of Finland, Specialist - Department for
Rescue Services)
Table 8: Codes and Subcodes linked to Success Factors
Code Definition Examples from Interviews
Good Gover- This code captures
nance how PPPs adhere to
principles of account-
ability, transparency,
responsiveness, equity,
and participation.
Accountability Instances where mech- So you have to have clear rules, you have precise pro-
anisms or practices en- cedures, you have control mechanisms and all of that
suring accountability in and it’s it’s a business. (Participant 5, Expert)
PPPs are discussed.
Transparency Discussions related to Transparency is required. Everybody would like to
the openness and clar- know where their donation is going. (Paul Rock, Na-
ity of processes and de- tional Directorate for Fire and Emergency Manage-
cisions within PPPs. ment Ireland, Senior Advisor)
Trust Captures discussions On some level you just have to trust the donors. You
and instances where don’t have an opportunity to check everything. (Heikki
trust is established or Honkanen)
challenged between
stakeholders in PPPs.
This includes trust in
the efficiency, reliability,
and ethical standards
of the partnership.
Common Goals Instances where the And will it in the end be private sector-driven or will
alignment of goals and it be state-driven or system-driven like driven by the
objectives between United Nations, driven by the European Union, which
partners is discussed as have completely different aims than the private sector.
a component of effective (Participant 7, Expert)
governance.
Specialized Ex- Refers to the level and Let’s make a scenario where there is a critical infras-
pertise impact of specialized tructure broken. Whatever, there’s no matter: Wa-
technical and manage- ter, energy, transport, communication. Something big
rial expertise within is broken. We have to work with the operators of
PPPs, crucial for their these critical infrastructures. That’s also private sec-
effective management. tor. (Maarten Vergauwen, DG ECHO)
Continued on next page
Table 8 continued from previous page
Code Definition Examples from Interviews
Institutional This code identifies dis- It has to go via the Member States or the participating
Frameworks cussions on the support- states. So there were special arrangements set up in in
ive legal and regulatory connection to that. Within rescEU and and hubs, both
frameworks that facili- in Belgium and energy hubs in in Poland for instance.
tate PPP operations. (Kristoffer Thelin, MSB)
Disaster Re- Captures how PPPs I think in Ukraine it worked well. I wouldn’t go so far
sponse En- contribute to improving to say that it has substantially enhanced use capabili-
hancement the operational capabil- ties to respond, it’s certainly a form of delivering more
ities of the UCPM in (Participant 1, Member State)
managing emergencies.
Community re- This code examines Well, I would say that in general taking a different
silience how PPPs contribute to parties in society, private sector and others, involving
building and enhancing them in security work in general, but also this field in
community resilience particular. That’s something that creates the culture
against disasters. of shared resilience (Heikki Honkanen, Ministry of the
Interior of Finland, Specialist - Department for Rescue
Services)
Structuring Captures discussions on So which partner do you choose if you wanna do that
and Managing the organization and on a systematic basis. Or maybe you want several
PPPs management of PPP ar- partners, you want consortia or you want to work with
rangements. associations, which is another option that one could
consider. (Participant 5, Expert)
Operational Discusses obstacles in
Challenges PPP implementation
and management.
Communication Issues related to the Now there is complications because the private sector
Issues flow of information don’t know what the UCPM is or what it does, or what
within PPPs. the obligations are, those conditions surrounding the
grant funding for sending donations abroad. (Paul
Rock, National Directorate for Fire and Emergency
Management Ireland, Senior Advisor)
Continued on next page
Table 8 continued from previous page
Code Definition Examples from Interviews
Coordination Dif- Problems in coordinat- The process of getting a transit permit in Poland has
ficulties ing activities and align- been extremely time consuming and we’re sometimes
ing goals among differ- delayed by many months. I think there are 7 different
ent PPP stakeholders. agencies in Poland that have to give a permission for
us to transit with dual use products or military equip-
ment. (Rickard Wennergrund, Swedish Civil Contin-
gencies Agency (MSB), Project Manager - Response
and Operations Department)
Quality Assur- Challenges related to So we started to use this quality check before we receive
ance verifying the quality, the donation and trying to get as many information as
suitability, and stan- we can (Participant 2, Member State)
dards compliance of do-
nated materials.