The Blue Economy has enormous potential to generate sustainable growth, but realising this promise requires more than just protocols and good intentions. In this article, Manuel Melo examines why traditional forms of cooperation often fail to keep pace with the sector’s complexity. From regulatory delays to the constant evolution of market signals, he identifies the systemic barriers that hinder progress — and advocates a more in-depth, agile and effective approach to collaboration, one that goes beyond formal agreements.

The Blue Economy is full of potential — but also fraught with challenges. From floating offshore wind farms to green fuel supply infrastructure, or land-based aquaculture projects, the sectors involved often face enormous technological, regulatory and financial uncertainty.

This uncertainty makes long-term strategic planning difficult. Testing is slow and costly. Regulatory approval is unpredictable. Market dynamics and expectations are constantly changing. Supply chains face frequent bottlenecks that are difficult to anticipate. As a result, many companies and institutions adopt a “wait-and-see” approach, postponing the innovation and investment that the sector so badly needs.

In this context, cooperation seems to be an obvious solution. But in practice, the way we cooperate often falls short of what is needed.

When Protocols Become Red Tape

Formal mechanisms for cooperation — memoranda of understanding, protocols, strategic alliances — are ubiquitous in the Blue Economy. Major research centres may have more than a hundred partnerships running simultaneously, whilst clusters such as the Ocean Forum regularly facilitate multilateral collaboration between institutions.

At first glance, this looks like progress. But many of these agreements fail to realise their true potential.

In their report on the evolution of alliances, Madhok et al. (2015) cite failure rates for strategic alliances that are often in excess of 50%, whilst Hughes and Weiss (2007) put these rates at between 60% and 70%. It could be said that, in many cases, the success of a partnership is almost like tossing a coin. And that is not a sufficiently reliable probability for companies to commit seriously to cooperation.

In practical terms, many stakeholders feel that protocols have become bureaucratic exercises rather than tools for creating value. When results fail to materialise, internal advocates of collaboration lose confidence. Some become openly resistant to future cooperation initiatives, viewing them as symbolic, time-consuming and, ultimately, pointless.

This disillusionment is dangerous. When those responsible for fostering collaboration become sceptical, the whole ecosystem suffers.

The Underlying Problem: The Foundations of Good Partnerships Are Crumbling

Why do so many partnerships in the Blue Economy fall short of expectations?

Although every failed collaboration has its own story — overly ambitious deadlines, a lack of leadership, unclear deliverables — many fail for a more fundamental reason: they were not designed with genuine cooperation in mind.

Authors such as Dwyer et al. (1987) have emphasised the importance of the “awareness” and “exploration” phases in partnerships. It is at this stage that organisations must assess not only what they wish to do together, but also whether they should cooperate at all — and in what way.

At this initial stage, two concepts that are often overlooked become essential: complementarity and compatibility.

Complementarity: The Driving Force Behind Mutual Value

Complementarity refers to the extent to which each partner’s resources, knowledge or assets make up for what the other lacks. It is not about having the same tools — it is about combining different strengths to build something new.

For example, Muthoka et al. (2019) found evidence that resources accumulated through strategic alliances can improve the performance of firms with limited resources, in the case of industrial SMEs in Kenya.

By contrast, alliances between organisations with overly overlapping capabilities tend to fall apart quickly. Partners face difficulties relating to unclear value exchanges and competition for the same roles. The result? Misalignment, frustration and, eventually, a breakdown in the relationship.

In the Blue Economy, this means clearly identifying what each partner brings to the table — unique technologies, market access, datasets, expertise — and mapping out how these pieces can fit together before any agreement is signed.

Compatibility: The Cultural Glue That Holds Partnerships Together

Even when resources are perfectly aligned, cooperation can fail if the organisational cultures are not compatible.

Compatibility refers to the degree of alignment between partners’ internal standards, communication styles and decision-making processes. It is the difference between a partnership that flows naturally and one that constantly requires translation — both figuratively and literally.

Murray and Kotabe (2004) argue that appropriate alignment between the attributes and forms of an alliance improves its performance. In other words, if social relationships influence inter-firm relationships by fostering trust, then the ability to foster such relationships becomes a critical success factor for inter-firm cooperation.

On the contrary, cultural misalignment increases coordination costs and slows down implementation. In an ecosystem as complex and uncertain as that of the Blue Economy, such delays can prove fatal.

The Way Forward: Smarter Cooperation, Not Just More Cooperation

The conclusion is not that the protocols are useless. It is that they are, all too often, used without the groundwork needed to make them effective.

Rather than rushing to formalise cooperation, organisations should take the time to assess complementarity and compatibility — the two pillars of sustainable collaboration. This initial analysis helps to avoid the disappointment that threatens the entire culture of cooperation.

Because the cost of failure is not just a missed opportunity. It is also the erosion of trust. And trust is the most valuable — and most fragile — currency in an emerging ecosystem.

The Blue Economy does not need more protocols. It needs better protocols.