THE SDGs AS WICKED PROBLEMS OR WICKED OPPORTUNITIES –

IDENTIFYING APPROPRIATE SOCIETAL INTERVENTION LOGICS

Not all societal actors are equally well-positioned to contribute to all sustainability challenges.
Certain topics foremost demand dedicated governmental action, while others primarily need the
private sector to provide market-based solutions, or civil society organizations to mobilize or tap
into the relevant local social networks. The degree of (direct and indirect) control and the (direct
and indirect) responsibilities that different societal actors have in addressing sustainability issues
may vary considerably across specific sustainability-related problems, industry/sectoral contexts
and national realities. Moreover, many sustainability issues are so complex that they require
appropriate action at all four intervention levels: addressing failure (level 1) and minimizing
negative externalities (level 2) and creating and scaling positive externalities (level 3) and
providing a sufficient level of common goods (level 4). Often, these types of multifaceted
sustainability challenges can only be achieved through concerted efforts of governments,
companies and civil society organizations in bi- or tripartite partnerships – of various scopes and
sizes, within and across national boundaries (see Chapter 5 of the book).

Badly aligned intervention strategies result in either overly complex interventions for relatively
simple problems or, conversely, overly simple interventions for far more complex problems.
Where to start, then, in considering:
 What level of intervention is needed to appropriately address a societal problem;
 Who should be involved in what way;
 What degree of ‘fit’ is required to effectively address the issue?

The analytical challenge here is to link the problem’s degree of wickedness to its societal origins
(see sections 5.2–5.3), in order to create a match between ‘having’ and ‘taking’ responsibility
for a specific intervention. This requires a step-by-step approach: one that supports in navigating
from a general analysis of the ‘the problem’, to an exploration of fit-for-purpose partnering
approaches that have the highest potential to create synergistic opportunities from adequately
addressing the problem (see sections 5.4.2–5.5.3 in the book).

MAKING IT PRACTICAL: A STEP-BY-STEP ANALYSIS

► STEP 1: Wickedness analysis. Conducting a ‘wickedness analysis’ helps determine the
overall degree of wickedness that the issue portrays, by differentiating between 10
complexity dimensions (possibly displaying a dispersed range of complexity scores). Not all
dimensions of a ‘wicked problem’ are equally intractable. Societal problems vary in their
degree of wickedness, depending on the various conditions and interacting forces that
together define the level of complexity. An assessment of what to prioritize, what kind of

SCOREBOARD #2 | Societal Triangulation | page 1 

 approaches to pursue and under what conditions, hence starts with a more refined analysis of
the problem’s various dimensions of wickedness and the degrees of complexity involved.

 Apply Scoreboard #1 (see Chapter 4, pp. 187–188). This exercise helps to delineate the
general level at which an issue primarily needs to be addressed. Level 1 issues (‘failure’)
probably show a totalled ‘wickedness score’ of below 20. Level 2 issues (related to an
inadequate approach to negative externalities), score approximately 20–35. Level 3
issues score between 35–50 and involve insufficient creation and scaling of positive
externalities. Level 4 issues score highest in terms of wickedness, and also show the least
direct control and commitment of actors to take responsibility (low degree of ‘having’
responsibility).

Creating a Dynamic ‘Issue complexity–Partnering’ Fit: a Step-by-Step Approach

Source: Van Tulder & Van Mil (2023), Figure 5.9, p. 248

► STEP 2: Societal gap and resilience analysis. This analysis zooms in on scale 9 and 10 of
the wickedness framework (dimension: ‘societal complexity’). It delineates the societal
sources of failure (section 5.2.1 in the book) that explain the institutional origins of the
challenge as well as the type of organizations that need to get involved (see section 5.2.2).
This societal triangulation technique requires consideration of the four complementary
roles that constitute the basic repertoire of each of the three societal spheres (state, market,
civil society). How does each sector ‘score’ on the issue at hand, at each of the four
intervention levels (see section 5.3)?

 Scoreboard#2 helps to identify the sources of failure per societal sector (the horizontal
arrow), and at each intervention level (the vertical arrow). For each of the three societal
sectors, one can (intuitively) score their performance on the defined issue, for each of the
4 levels at which they could create value for society. The five-point Likert-scale

SCOREBOARD #2 | Societal Triangulation | page 2 

 facilitates an approximate assessment of the extent to which each sector can be
considered to have a ‘poor’ to a fairly ‘good’ performance (poor[1] – mediocre[3] –
good[5]).
It is worth noticing that this gap assessment is exploratory, in a comparable fashion as
with Scoreboard #1. Depending on the breadth and level of expertise involved, the effort
and time spent on context-specific analysis, and the degree of inter-rater reliability that
can be achieved through collaborative analysis, the assessment may prove more intuitive
or more robust. The assessment is foremost intended to help navigate change by
providing guiding questions. It can be executed by experts, practitioners, participants,
students or others. It is designed as an exercise that can be done based on desk-research,
by a consultant or the managers of a partnership, or following ‘wisdom-of-the-crowd’
rules. The principles of sociocracy and peer-review – as explained in Chapter 4 of the
book – apply here as well.

 [a] The vertical combination of the scores indicates the degree of ‘resilience’ or – in
case of poor scores – the ‘vulnerability’ of the whole society (as demarcated for the
issue) on that specific intervention level. Chapter 1 of the book referred to a ‘resilient’
society as one in which all three sectors of society are ‘in balance’. We can now make
that observation more concrete. For example, if in a given country all three sectors have
a good score (5) at level 1 – that is: no failure in living up to fiduciary duty – it is easier
to take up a wicked challenge than in the case where one or two of the three societal
sectors score poorly on fulfilling their primary responsibilities. A ‘failed government’
(score: 1), for instance, seriously affects the ability of the market and civil society
sectors to fulfil their roles, at all levels of intervention, either within their own sector or
in cross-sector partnerships. The more weakly balanced a society is – particularly at
levels 1 and 2 – the greater the societal trust gap becomes (see section 5.4) and the more
vulnerable the society will be to external shocks. Such conditions also imply a more
formidable challenge to create a dynamic fit for any type of partnership (see under step
4).

 [b] The horizontal combination of the scores of one societal sector indicates the
overall ‘resilience’ of that specific sector (on each intervention level). Very often, this
exercise will show a mixed score on many accounts. In case the sectors score poorly on
level 1 (fiduciary duty and primary responsibilities), we can also expect them to score
poorly on most other levels. Yet other patterns have been found as well. For instance,
companies with a poor score at responsibility/intervention levels 1 and 2 as a result of
extremely polluting activities may have an incentive to use their philanthropy activities
(at level 3) to compensate for the negative externalities they create. It can be a means of
seducing or influencing communities and governments to develop activities that
(partially) take over what is essentially the company’s primary responsibility. Most
probably, this will not create a lasting effect and will only reiterate vulnerabilities in
later stages. Governments that score poorly on level 1 (for instance, because of
corruption, nepotism or a lack of separation of powers) will try to influence society by
subsidizing activities (intervention levels 2 and 3). But this type of activity will not
provide them with the kind of legitimacy and trust needed to engage in effective
partnerships with other governments or the other sectors. A sufficient score at level 1
can be considered a hygiene factor (‘license to exist/operate’) for effective bi-sectoral or
tri-sectoral collaboration at the higher levels of intervention.

SCOREBOARD #2 | Societal Triangulation | page 3 

 SCOREBOARD #2 | Defining An Intervention Logic For The Issue
1. Needed ? LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2: LEVEL 3: LEVEL 4:
(degree of Address failure Deal with Create positive Engage in
wickedness) negative externalities collective action
externalities
Societal gap
Sources of Societal Failure and/or Success:
analysis:
2. Total scores
…take up their … deal with ...try to create ...engage in
Description: per sector
primary role negative positive collective action
Whether
externalities externalities to resolve
organizations
systemic problem

A.
State: Mandating: Facilitating: Endorsing and Trilateral
laws and subsidies and facilitating other partnering for
Public value regulation regulation against organizations to systems change
creation public bads create positive
through… effects
Poor[1] Good[5] Poor[1] Good[5] Poor [1] Good[5] Poor[1] Good[5] 4 10 15 20
[]—[]--[]--[]—[] []—[]--[]--[]—[] []—[]--[]--[]—[] []—[]--[]--[]—[] []—[]--[]--[]—[]
B.
Market: Competitive Minimize negative Optimize positive Trilateral
production of effects (e.g. effects through partnering to
Private value goods and services pollution) innovation and create systems
creation scaling change
through…
Poor[1] Good[5] Poor[1] Good[5] Poor[1] Good[5] Poor[1] Good[5] 4 10 15 20
[]—[]--[]--[]—[] []—[]--[]--[]—[] []—[]--[]--[]—[] []—[]--[]--[]—[] []—[]--[]--[]—[]
C.
Communities: Creating social Advocacy within, Service delivery Trilateral
value through towards other to create positive partnering to
Civic value mutual support sectors effects create systems
creation change
through…
Poor[1] Good[5] Poor[1] Good[5] Poor[1] Good[5] Poor[1] Good[5] 4 10 15 20
[]—[]--[]--[]—[] []—[]--[]--[]—[] []—[]--[]--[]—[] []—[]--[]--[]—[] []—[]--[]--[]—[]
Societal gap
analysis:

Scores per
intervention
level

Alignment
challenge

As a first rough estimate of the sectoral resilience/vulnerability, the following scores apply:
 4 = very poor on all accounts: vulnerable sectors make unreliable partners; due diligence and
trust-building is needed;

SCOREBOARD #2 | Societal Triangulation | page 4 

 5–10 = poor on most accounts; probably stronger on level 1 and less so on other levels;
 10–15 = probably strong on levels 1 and 2, with more moderate scores on levels 3 and 4;
 15–20 = strong on all accounts; strong potential partner with a good record.

It is worth noting that sectors usually score better at lower levels of intervention. If this appears
the other way around, it is worth examining more closely what might explain this.

► STEP 3: Issue–partnering fit. Issue–partnering fit delineates the type of (cross-sector)

partnership configuration that would best match the level of complexity of the problem. This
analysis links the required level(s) of intervention (see section 5.3 in the book) and the type
of change required with actors from those societal sectors that have (and/or are able to take
up) primary, secondary, tertiary or collective responsibility for resolution of the problem
(see Figure 5.6 and section 5.5.2). Parties that are part of the problem preferably should be
engaged in addressing the sources of failure.
 Level 1 type of problems (addressing failure): should lead to individual action and/or
intra-sectoral partnerships by those actors who are mainly responsible for the issue;
 Level 2 type of problems (minimizing negative externalities): require bi-sectoral
partnership configurations (preferably in addition to intra-sectoral initiatives among
those that bear primary responsibility for the issue to appear in the first place);
 Level 3 type of problems (creating and scaling positive externalities): require bi- or tri-
sectoral partnerships; their effectiveness strongly depends on the proven strength of each
involved sector in having their level 1 and 2 type of responsibilities effectively
straightened out;
 Level 4 type of problems (sufficient provision of collective goods): require tri-sectoral
partnerships (collective action) that can only be effective if the involved partnering
organizations do not simultaneously contribute to major sources of failure at the lower
responsibility/intervention levels.

► STEP 4: Dynamic fit. Dynamic fit provides a ‘reality check’. It is directed towards
improving the actual partnering set-up that is adopted to effectively impact the issue.
Considering all the provisos and conditions under which partnerships are created in practice,
it can be expected that the initial partnership configuration constitutes a ‘coalition of the
willing’ that is not immediately ‘fit for purpose’. The ‘dynamic fit’ analysis considers to
what extent the adopted partnership approach matches a ‘coalition of the needed’ as required
for the level of change and impact it envisages (see section 5.5.3 and Chapter 12). The
challenges for later stages of the partnership can then be formulated along the relevant levels
of intervention, for instance:
 Level 1: What next steps should each of the partners take themselves to integrate the
project into their core activities (the ‘internalization challenge’) in order to enhance the
effectiveness of the partnership (see section 12.3 in the book);
 Level 2: Should new (cross-sector) partners be approached – or certain present partners
be released – to enhance the effectiveness of the partnership and impact on the issue (see
section 12.2)? Key to this consideration is the ability of existing collaborating parties to
activate their constituencies in controlling for negative externalities;

SCOREBOARD #2 | Societal Triangulation | page 5 

  Level 3: should new (cross-sector) partners be approached who can expand the effects of
the existing partnership to other sectors to scale impact (see sections 12.2–12.3);
 Level 4: should the intervention logic (Theory of Change) be enhanced, what potential
collaborative advantage has been under-utilized, does the partnership reflect the right
‘balance’ in partners, what value-creating competences are additionally required?

How this can work in practice as an analytical tool for assessing both the action of parties and
the effectiveness of partnerships, is illustrated in below hypothetical case and further elaborated
in Chapter 7 (‘Making it Resilient’) and Chapter 12 (‘Making it Collaborative’).

A HYPOTHETICAL CASE:
SDG1 ‘Alleviating poverty in all its forms’

The context: consider the case of SDG1 (poverty alleviation) in country Y. Companies in this
country are strongly efficiency-driven, reap monopoly profits and are not concerned with the
negative externalities of their actions, let alone about creating welfare for all. The government
is functioning but small, partly because of neoliberal principles. It focuses on law-making and
law enforcement, and nothing else. Civil society is well-organized and takes good care of its
own communities, but is not overly interested in common pool goods.

The partnering case: In country Y, a ‘coalition of the willing’ has been formed between an
international donor organization (government), a local NGO and the corporate foundation of a
local company (a bank). They have formulated ambitious goals: to come up with micro-
finance schemes to create social enterprises that are aimed at providing employment and
services for people living at the ‘bottom of the pyramid’. They have agreed on an ambitious
budget as well: $10 million for three years. What can we expect from this partnership?

A general analysis: a first assessment of whether the hypothesized partnership potentially

creates a ‘fit-for-purpose’ configuration.

SCOREBOARD #2 | Societal Triangulation | page 6 

 Step 1: SDG1 is a wicked problem in country Y (Score: 55 on Scoreboard#1). There is
enormous ambiguity around the issue of poverty, its definition, how to approach it, and
who is primarily responsible for addressing it. For instance, the culture of the country
considers ‘poverty’ the result of ‘fate’ rather than of a poorly functioning economic
system.
 Step 2: This can also be explained by more carefully considering the societal sources of
the problem (zooming in on scales 9 and 10). An assessment points to significant sources
of failure within the market sector, which scores poorly in comparison with the other
sectors on all levels of intervention (total score 20 on Scoreboard#2). The government’s
intervention repertoire is limited. Civil society appears the strongest and more resilient
sector with higher scores at levels 1 and 2, but is not very ‘entrepreneurial’ (level 3).
 Step 3: The wickedness score suggests the need for level 4 type of interventions in tri-
sectoral partnership (i.e. collective action through the pooling of complementary logics
and competences from all three societal sectors). A well-aligned issue-partnering fit seems
difficult to establish, nevertheless. As shown by the size and spread of the crosses in the
upper triangle in above figure, major gaps in society appear at levels 2, 3 and 4 – with the
market sector being the weakest link on all levels, yet with serious fiduciary duty issues at
level 1.
 Step 4: It can be seriously doubted whether the proposed partnership between the
international donor, the local NGO and the local bank’s corporate foundation aptly
addresses these ‘issue complexity’–‘partnering configuration’ alignment issues. This
‘coalition of willing’ partners aims to ‘solve’ poverty through subsidies (level 3 and 4
interventions from a foreign donor, not the country’s own government) and sponsoring
from foreign and local NGOs. The company participates at level 2 through its corporate
foundation, but is not overly interested in ‘internalizing’ the partnership by integrating the
project’s goals in its core business activities and improving its business model. It
considers contributing to micro-finance a philanthropic activity. Its commitment to the
partnership is not strategic and might be terminated if the company changes its sponsoring
policy.

This rough, exploratory analysis of a hypothesized case indicates – based on several general
characteristics – that the partnership does not appear ‘fit for purpose’ in at least two ways.
First, it is not well-aligned with the nature and complexity of the problem (assessed as level
4). Second, in terms of ‘partner fit’, the configuration itself rests on an unequal and
unbalanced fit between ‘willing’ partners who have rather different motivations, ambitions,
risk and responsibility appetites, legitimacy positions, competences and time horizons.

Can it be improved? Probably not, because the formulated transformational ambition and the
chosen intervention logic (philanthropy, subsidies, voluntary collaboration) do not appear to
be aligned. If the partners consider this first step as ‘a pilot’ to actively grow into a more
effective partnership, the NGO participant should be well aware of the weak performance of
both the government and the market partner to address the sources of failure on their side of
society. The partnership might even be an excuse for not addressing the multi-faceted nature
of poverty in the country, and precious time might be lost due to unfounded hopes put on this
project to contribute to SDG1.

SCOREBOARD #2 | Societal Triangulation | page 7 