International Branch Campus Insights Series - Beyond Reputational Risk: Understanding Risk in an IBC Delivery Partnership - July 2026

By Raymi van der Spek

“Reputational risk is real—but it is only one element of a much broader risk landscape. The strongest international partnerships succeed because they recognise the full spectrum of risks carried by both parties and allocate responsibility accordingly."

Where an International Branch Campus (IBC) is established through a long-term strategic delivery partnership between a university and an operating partner, discussions about risk often begin—and end—with one concern: the university’s reputational risk.

That concern is entirely legitimate. Universities must protect their academic standards, students, awards and institutional reputation.  But successful partnerships recognise that reputation is only one part of a much wider risk landscape.

The university and the operating partner each bring different strengths to the partnership. They also carry different risks.

University Operating Partner

Academic quality Capital investment

Academic awards Infrastructure

Regulatory compliance Market demand

Institutional reputation Operational delivery

Academic governance Financial sustainability

Brand integrity Campus execution

Neither column is more important than the other.

They are simply different.

The diversity of these risks highlights a broader point. Successful delivery partnerships require both organisations to move beyond a purely contractual mindset. Universities should not regard the operating partner merely as a supplier of operational services, while operating partners should not view the university simply as a provider of programmes and degrees. Each brings expertise, resources and responsibilities that are fundamental to the success of the campus. Recognising that interdependence is the first step towards building a genuine partnership rather than simply managing a contract.

History also suggests that we should distinguish between perceived and actual reputational risk. Several well-known international branch campuses—including UNSW Singapore, Michigan State Dubai and George Mason Ras Al Khaimah—closed after failing to achieve their commercial objectives. Yet there is remarkably little empirical evidence that these closures caused lasting damage to the universities' global reputation or long-term institutional standing.

That does not mean reputation is unimportant.  Rather, it suggests that reputational damage is more likely to arise from how a partnership responds to difficulty than from the commercial outcome itself. Protecting students, maintaining academic standards, communicating openly and delivering an effective teach-out are ultimately far more important than avoiding every commercial setback.

In my experience, perhaps the most significant risk is the one that receives far less attention: partnership risk. I have seen highly successful delivery partnerships emerge because both organisations invested time in understanding each other's culture, governance and decision-making long before the campus opened. Equally, even well-intentioned partnerships can be undermined when different expectations are left unexplored. Partnership risk is rarely created by poor intentions; it is more often the result of assumptions that were never openly discussed.

The strongest IBC partnerships therefore do not ask, "Which party carries the greatest risk?" Instead, they ask two questions: "Who is best placed to manage each risk?" and "Have we really understood the risks that each partner carries?"

That simple shift in thinking leads to better governance, more balanced agreements and ultimately more resilient partnerships and International Branch Campuses.

Risk does not weaken partnerships. Failing to understand it does.