We explore the role of cultural controls in innovation transitions of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) within a developing economy. More specifically, we explore how the state’s ‘knowledge-based economy’ discourse has been capitalised through PPPs, and, in turn, the role of cultural controls in enabling or obstructing these economic and political strategies. The study relies on the cultural political economy (CPE) perspective of management controls. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with senior executives from three knowledge-based PPPs operating in telecommunications, power and energy, and high-tech research industries in Sri Lanka. We also used publicly available documents and media sources, including policy documents, reports, news articles, and social media, to enhance our empirical analysis. We show how the CPE factors have influenced and redefined cultural controls across various PPP models, enabling and obstructing the shift towards a ‘knowledge-based economy’ discourse. Variations in cultural controls have been observed across different PPP models, depending on the nature of political interference, the influence of political party-based trade unions, top management’s resistance to political authority, and new public management reforms. For instance, cultural controls within the telecommunication-based PPP tend to be receptive towards political interference, often supported by powerful, party-based trade unions, and primarily focus on innovation to cater for the local market. Cultural controls at both energy and high-tech-based PPPs demonstrate resistance to political interference, thereby fostering a robust commercial and professional approach to knowledge-based innovation. Our study enhances the understanding of operational-level struggles and tensions led by the CPE factors during innovation transitions in PPPs in developing economies. The findings will assist managers in redesigning internal controls, managing, and evaluating the PPPs operating in developing economies.

Although public-private partnerships (PPPs) have become omnipresent to engage in public procurement, research lacks insights on how cooperation is sustained in this type of partnerships. Deploying theorization on hybrids, I aim to shed light on how interpersonal, interorganizational and market-based (i.e. micro-, meso- and macro-level) control practices and processes contribute to sustaining cooperation within PPPs. Prior literature has predominantly focused on the influence of these control practices and processes in isolation, largely ignoring their potential interrelationships. Using a multiple case study approach including five long-term PPPs, this paper identifies how interdependences between hybrid control practices and processes at different levels help to sustain cooperation. Findings indicate that interorganizational control practices trigger interpersonal control processes (i.e. sensemaking, reciprocity and interpersonal trust) to sustain cooperation between partners even beyond the formal contractual boundaries of the partnership. Moreover, as the PPP market is characterized by a strong interconnectedness between the various partners, interpersonal experiences escalate to the macro level, codetermining an organization’s reputation within the broader PPP market. As upholding a good reputation is strategically important within such interconnected markets for the purpose of future projects, it contributes to sustaining cooperation within a focal PPP. My findings emphasize the importance of taking on a multi-level perspective to understand how control practices and processes contribute to sustain cooperation across organizational boundaries. Moreover, it demonstrates the relevance of practices and processes in the conceptualization of hybrids beyond the typical focus on organizational forms.

Integrating sustainability into organisational practices has gained traction as organisations increasingly recognise their societal and environmental responsibilities (Ismaeel & Zakaria, 2020). Sustainability reporting, or non-financial reporting, was introduced to assess contributions beyond traditional accounting boundaries (Dumay et al., 2016; Farooq & De Villiers, 2018; Rinaldi et al., 2018). Scholars such as Hooks, Davey, and Coy (2002) and Kaur and Lodhia (2019) emphasise the importance of evaluating the alignment or disconnect between sustainability disclosures and actual practices.

By investigating the Kuwait Direct Investment Promotion Authority (KDIPA), a public sector organisation central to Kuwait's economic diversification strategy under the New Kuwait Vision 2035. Despite the growing presence of sustainability disclosures, actual implementation remains inconsistent due to barriers such as resource constraints, weak enforcement, and conflicting stakeholder interests (Baumgartner, 2014; Epstein & Roy, 2001; Tauringana, 2020).

Sustainability in developing countries often faces added socio-political and institutional challenges, especially in the Middle East (Engert & Baumgartner, 2016; Ismaeel & Zakaria, 2020; Juusola & Srouji, 2022). While developed countries benefit from robust regulatory frameworks and stakeholder involvement (Ball & Grubnic, 2007; Klettner et al., 2014), developing countries' sustainability practices are frequently shaped by external pressures such as global standards and foreign investment, rather than internal organisational objectives (Othman & Ameer, 2010; Amran & Siti-Nabiha, 2009). This can lead to symbolic or surface-level reporting without meaningful internal reform (Azizul Islam & Deegan, 2008). Prior research has predominantly focused on external disclosures by public sector organisations, often neglecting the analysis of internal implementation processes (Ball et al., 2014; Dillard & Vinnari, 2019).

To address these gaps, this research critically examines both disclosed and actual sustainability practices within KDIPA. Established in 2013, KDIPA plays a pivotal role in promoting foreign direct investment (FDI) and advancing national sustainability goals (KDIPA, 2024). This study assesses whether KDIPA’s disclosures align with its internal practices and broader developmental objectives.

The research is grounded in Political Economy Theory and guided by Cooper and Sherer’s (1984) Political Economy of Accounting (PEA) framework. This perspective views accounting not as a neutral tool, but as one embedded in socio-political contexts, often serving to legitimise dominant power structures and shape resource allocation (Tinker, 1980; Guthrie & Parker, 1990). Cooper and Sherer’s framework offers a three-pronged analytical lens: descriptive, normative, and critical.

The study uses a qualitative case study design, combining documentary analysis, semi-structured interviews, and field observations (Della Porta & Keating, 2008; Yin, 2013). The data are analysed thematically using NVivo to identify patterns across sources (Gibbs, 2002). This allows the descriptive mapping of disclosure content, normative evaluation against national goals, and critical reflection on institutional influences and constraints.

The research contributes to sustainability accounting literature by bridging the gap between disclosure and practice in developing countries. It also highlights the role of power, governance, and accountability in shaping sustainability outcomes. The findings aim to inform both academic debates and public policy reforms, encouraging more transparent and effective sustainability reporting in Kuwait’s public sector (Kaur & Lodhia, 2019; KDIPA, 2024; Soobaroyen & Mahadeo, 2016).