Coalitions are one of the most common, and most misunderstood, tools in global development and the public sector.

As governments and international institutions face tightening budgets and growing pressure to deliver on the Sustainable Development Goals before the 2030 deadline, coalitions are increasingly expected to fill the gap between ambition and capacity.

They are often launched with urgency and optimism: a shared commitment, a high-profile convening, a belief that “working together” must be the answer to complex problems. Governments form them to coordinate action. Funders encourage them to reduce fragmentation. Multilateral institutions rely on them to mobilize scale.

And yet many struggle to move from ambition to action. Not because the shared goal lacks merit, but because fundamental questions remain unresolved. Who is accountable for delivery? How are trade-offs managed when the priorities of its members diverge? And how does the coalition maintain momentum once the initial enthusiasm gives way to the realities of implementation?

Addressing these questions requires treating coalition building as a disciplined practice rather than just as a symbolic alignment of purpose.

What do we mean by a coalition?

The term “coalition” is often used loosely to describe any group of organizations or institutions working towards a shared goal. In practice, effective coalitions are structured mechanisms that enable institutions with different mandates and incentives to coordinate action around a shared outcome.

Be clear about roles and responsibilities

Experience shows that three roles are particularly important for successful coalitions:

• Executive Leader: senior leader who is championing the effort, clearing roadblocks, and holding the rest of the teams accountable.
• Delivery Team: responsible for maintaining focus on the goals, developing practical plans and routines to monitor implementation.
• Guiding Coalition: a broader group of partners who provide legitimacy, expertise, and influence, but do not manage day-to-day delivery.

Clarity about these roles is essential. Participants need to understand how their contribution fits within the wider effort and how decisions are ultimately made. However, two challenges surface repeatedly.

The first challenge is structural. When roles, accountabilities and incentives are not clearly defined across multiple institutions, it can become unclear who is ultimately responsible for delivery.

The second is relational. Participants bring different priorities, political constraints and institutional pressures. Without deliberate investment in communication and relationship-building, these differences can erode engagement and trust.

Start with a problem that needs collaboration

Coalitions only work when the problem truly requires them. If a challenge can be solved by one organization acting alone, or if the consequences of inaction are vague or distant, collaboration quickly becomes performative.

Successful coalitions are built around problems that are specific and consequential, where progress depends on multiple actors pulling in the same direction, and where delay has real costs.

The International Campaign to Ban Landmines demonstrated how a broad coalition with an urgent need for collaboration can translate moral urgency into a specific, achievable policy objective.

Founded in 1991, the campaign brought together civil society organizations around a shared objective: securing a global ban on anti-personnel landmines. By 1997, more than 1,000 organizations from 60 countries had joined the campaign. That same year, representatives from 120 governments signed the Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines. The campaign was subsequently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Be honest about incentives and power

Coalitions often struggle because they avoid talking openly about motivation.

Participants may use the same language of impact, but they are rarely there for the same reasons. Some are seeking funding or risk-sharing. Others want political cover, credibility, access, or influence. These differences are not a flaw—but pretending they don’t exist is.

Coalitions that deliver are designed with these realities in mind. They create space for different motivations without letting them pull the work apart.

Power is also uneven. Some people control resources. Some have formal authority. Others have credibility, expertise, or strong networks. Coalitions that work recognize these differences and clarify how decisions are made, how input is gathered, and where authority ultimately sits. This clarity may feel uncomfortable, but it is essential for momentum.

Effective coalitions also create space for disagreement without allowing it to derail progress. They make trade-offs explicit and establish how deadlocks will be resolved. Coalitions that avoid tension tend to push difficult conversations out of the room, where they quietly undermine trust and momentum.

Keep delivery at the center

Coalitions lose credibility when they become focused on coordination rather than outcomes.

The most effective coalitions are anchored in delivery from the start. They are clear about what will change because the coalition exists, and they pay attention to progress early and often.

The Cities for Better Health Childhood Obesity Prevention Initiative (CBH COPI) shows why this matters. Childhood obesity is shaped by multiple systems, from schools and neighborhood environments to local food access, so no single organization can solve it alone. Coalition building was therefore necessary, but coordination alone was never enough.

From the outset, each city used landscape analysis and stakeholder engagement to define the local problem and agree on a shared theory of change. Governance and decision-making pathways were clarified early so the coalition could support implementation. Work is still ongoing. Across the six cities, coalitions have designed 29 interventions to improve access to healthy food and opportunities for physical activity, supported by baseline data collection involving more than 8,000 children.

Crucially, these interventions are not simply plans on paper. Each city has established governance structures and delivery routines to oversee implementation—clarifying ownership across municipal departments, setting milestones, and reviewing progress against agreed indicators. In this way, the coalition functions not only as a convening platform, but as an accountability mechanism for delivery.

In this sense, the coalition is not only coordinating activity. It is structuring delivery and generating evidence about what works in different urban contexts.

Know when to change course—or stop

Not every coalition should last forever. Some are created to solve a specific problem and then step back. Others need to evolve as delivery matures — changing membership, tightening governance, or narrowing focus.

The Scaling Up Nutrition (SUN) movement illustrates this challenge at a global scale. Launched in 2010, the initiative brought together governments, UN agencies, civil society organizations and donors to coordinate action on malnutrition across more than 60 countries.

Early on, the coalition was effective at raising political attention and encouraging countries to develop national nutrition strategies. But independent evaluations later found that translating those commitments into sustained programs was much harder. In many countries, responsibilities across ministries were unclear, delivery capacity was limited and financing remained inconsistent.

In response, later phases of SUN placed greater emphasis on strengthening governance, financing and implementation support at country level. An independent evaluation by the Economic Policy Research Institute in 2025 found that nearly 78% of surveyed SUN countries reported establishing structures capable of sustaining nutrition efforts — suggesting measurable progress in strengthening national governance for nutrition.

Globally, child stunting has declined over the past two decades, falling from roughly one in three children in 2000 to just over one in five today. While direct attribution to the SUN Movement is difficult, the evaluation highlights how stronger governance and clearer coordination help embed nutrition priorities within national systems, creating the conditions under which sustained improvements become possible.

Coalitions that persist without purpose often end up serving themselves rather than the problem they were meant to address. Being clear about this from the outset creates discipline and prevents drift.

Coalitions as a practical tool for change

Coalition building is often presented as a matter of convening the right stakeholders around a shared goal. In practice, it is a more demanding endeavor. It requires clarity of roles, honesty about incentives and power, and a relentless focus on delivery.

At Delivery Associates, we see coalitions as a practical tool for delivering change—not a substitute for leadership, clarity, or accountability. When designed well, they can unlock progress that no single actor could achieve alone.

Interested in Learning More?

If you’d like to learn more about our approach to building coalitions, reach out to our team at info@deliveryassociates.com.

Acknowledgments

A special thank you to Lauren Kurczewski and Abigail Smock for their contributions to this article.

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍