What is RILx?

There are commonalities and differences in the roles of locally-led humanitarian actors and international actors in a response innovation ecosystem. The definition of innovation as a challenge-based, social impact-focused process is common across both sets of actors, as is the concern that humanitarian and development funding do not allow much room for experimentation and failure. Donors are asked to provide more of an enabling environment in their awards and their policies to leave more room to try out innovations, which might range from bold new ideas to adopting emerging solutions that are proven to work. There is also broad agreement that humanitarian actors of all types need to learn to “fail better” and to share information of what has worked and what has failed in a particular context. This will require revisiting MEAL/M&E tools that are not designed to capture early results and adoption of solutions by communities. 

The role of INGOs and Local NGOs (LNGOs) differs in how each can generate partnerships in the wider ecosystem. As DRC Bangladesh demonstrated, an INGO is well positioned to broker partnerships with global actors who have interests in a particular context that bring resources, expertise and the capacity for system transformation in that area. Meanwhile, ADRRN made the point that LNGOs are a critical link to communities in vulnerable or crisis-impacted areas and have the ability to co-create solutions that are uniquely adapted to the context and have a higher sustainability potential. 

Social innovation and entrepreneurship platforms must bring added value to the innovators who seek their support and to the ecosystem at large. More than funding and technical assistance, these organizations offer opportunities for networking and visibility, allowing start-ups and social enterprises to generate new partnerships and establish trust and credibility with stakeholders.   

These platforms can also help steer more resources and attention to a context by providing market intelligence and other valuable information to potential investors, donors or clients. Too many duplicative platforms can render the ecosystem too complex for external actors, however, so organizations seeking to create one should first try to partner with existing actors. 

Incubators, accelerators and hubs also need to provide the right kind of guidance to innovators and entrepreneurs, from people who understand their journey and the context.  They should also engage with the government to facilitate the proper registration of the businesses (or NGOs) that they support, while possibly also advocating for more enabling policies.  

For solutions to scale, a thorough understanding of the demand for different types of innovations in a particular context is important and must be built into the selection process. By championing the most promising ideas, despite limited funding, these platforms can help steer the system toward the most sustainable and scalable solutions. 

The perception of innovation by donors has been evolving from a portfolio approach that focuses on the merits of individual solutions to a broader understanding of innovation as a process that can improve impact, facilitate localization and lead to broader systems change.  

There has also been a welcomed shift to embed innovation processes at the community level, where the people impacted by crisis and fragility best understand the impact of challenges and the potential for durable solutions. The challenge remains of how to scale these solutions across communities and what roles global, national or response-level actors could play in maximizing the impact. 

Humanitarian donors are conscious of the limitations of traditional funding mechanisms, especially compliance-driven grant funding, and are actively exploring more flexible mechanisms like co-creation and innovation prizes.

Meanwhile, private investors clearly see the benefits of investing in ecosystems to improve the quantity and quality of emergent social enterprises but also see that non-profit actors can harm these entrepreneurs by de-prioritizing profitability and thus undermining long-term sustainability of these solutions. 

When there is market failure, using the traditional market approaches will not work. In times of great disruption and humanitarian crisis, aid actors can “create” markets that operate differently than the norm, through the provision of free or heavily subsidized goods and services to populations that cannot presently afford these at market value. These “artificial” markets are temporary and/or can shift based on aid funding flows and priorities, however, so sustainable solutions need to eventually function and succeed in a more traditional economic context. Therefore, humanitarian actors must prioritize business models that can adapt to these shifts. 

Social enterprises, whether on a for-profit or non-profit model, and their backers need to understand market segmentation and the political economy of the context so that solutions fit within reality as opposed to expecting new economic conditions to emerge. Moreover, understanding the intersectionality in the context of the community being served is important. Geography, gender, economy, level of education... understanding the complexity of the demographics helps the actors truly understand the needs and the demand, so that businesses and the civil society can work better together ensuring that the initiatives being developed can be well integrated into the society. 

Mixed models that incorporate aid subsidies or upfront investments that reduce costs or facilitate access can help leverage the strengths of the non-profit and for-profit approaches. However, if a solution is structured as a commercial actor (i.e. a social enterprise), it must be able to demonstrate a potential for profitability as it scales. 

The true driver of a nation's prosperity lies in the private sector, which now must take a more active role in advancing humanitarian innovations. 

Both the private sector and NGOs can leverage their distinct strengths, working collaboratively to enhance each other’s impact and even foster mutual transformation. The private sector offers key advantages: 1) financial resources; 2) leadership skilled in driving efficiency and results; and 3) a robust organizational culture anchored by clear vision and lived principles, exemplified by the adage "culture eats strategy for breakfast." On the other hand, NGOs bring invaluable insights, including: 1) a deep understanding of communities beyond their roles as consumers; 2) the capacity to enable participatory approaches, such as community-led design; and 3) a commitment to social and environmental responsibility. 

Innovators call for greater coordination, co-creation, and flexibility in both policy frameworks and ecosystem structures, recognizing the diverse roles and languages spoken by various actors. Looking ahead, trust-based partnerships will be critical to achieving the changes we seek. However, ongoing reflection is necessary: “How do we cultivate such trust?” and “Who exactly constitutes the private sector in this context?” 

When discussing sustainability, it is essential to address both the "needs" and "demands" of the community. Innovations must have the capacity to evolve independently, adapting to multiple needs rather than being limited to a singular focus. This is why innovations exist in different stages. Sustainability is also about accessibility—ensuring that social innovations are truly available to the communities they are meant to serve. Additionally, fostering a culture of scientific thinking and evidence-based decision-making is vital for long-term sustainability. Co-creation with communities lies at the heart of such solutions. 

This question may not have easy answers, but we do know the common factors that hinder sustainability. One major obstacle is the inability to effectively market or "sell" innovations, often due to issues with storytelling or financial constraints. Another challenge is the failure to adapt to necessary changes as they arise. Sustainability also suffers when there is an imbalance between inputs and outputs, or when stable funding—whether from external sources or self-sustaining mechanisms—cannot be secured. Conflicts between ownership and leadership roles can further complicate matters, as can the absence of community-based, human-centered solutions. Ineffective stakeholder engagement and difficulties in managing contractual relationships are also significant barriers. Additionally, excessive dependence on a single entrepreneur or a small group of funders can weaken long-term viability. Finally, losing sight of the broader ecosystem or failing to gain cultural and social acceptance can prevent innovations from taking root and flourishing. 

The key question then becomes: how do we learn from failures—our own, those of others, and those across different contexts? 

Innovators must recognize the importance of consistently delivering value to stakeholders, as this is essential to avoiding the "innovation grant trap." However, a "grant mindset" often risks overshadowing the broader goal of building sustainable businesses, shifting the focus toward securing grants rather than long-term growth. Overreliance on grant-based funding can limit development and potentially erode trust with government partners. Therefore, diversifying funding sources is crucial. Moreover, innovators should ensure that open-source solutions are carefully localized and adapted to specific contexts, as directly applying them without consideration may not yield the desired results.

The broader humanitarian ecosystem can also do more to support innovators in this regard. Capacity building is critical in helping innovations move beyond traditional business models, ensuring that solutions remain human-centered and aligned with actual community needs. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that innovation should not be restricted to a single humanitarian agency. Allowing multiple agencies to adopt and scale these solutions can amplify impact and enhance sustainability.

The discussion also highlighted key traits of successful innovations that have managed to scale and achieve sustainability. These include addressing genuine community needs, obtaining the necessary certifications, and integrating effectively with existing humanitarian procurement processes.

Continuous learning and knowledge sharing are crucial in the humanitarian and development sectors. However, the current system faces challenges in effectively capturing and applying lessons learned, as it is primarily designed to respond rapidly in crisis situations rather than to engage in transformative learning. At the response level, there is a clear need for real-time learning, alongside innovative methods for capturing and applying insights during humanitarian operations, rather than relying solely on after-action reviews.

Greater efforts should be made to localize learning and knowledge-sharing. Creating interdependence between international and local entities is essential, supporting the sharing & application of local knowledge and resources while also bringing in global expertise. This approach fosters a more balanced and sustainable exchange of insights that strengthens the overall ecosystem.

Many local organizations have been negatively impacted by traditional development modalities rooted in neocolonialism, highlighting the need for more flexible, community-driven approaches. This shift calls on the broader ecosystem to explore process and technological innovations that can help local organizations build capacity, trust, transparency, and accountability. 

Decentralized network, platform, or hub models can effectively facilitate the exchange and showcasing of ideas. However, the challenge lies in the proliferation of similar platforms. The focus should be on integrating local communities into the humanitarian system while addressing capacity gaps and tackling colonial or racist elements that have hindered equal participation and contribution. Additionally, the issue of innovation ownership must be addressed. 

Innovation and good ideas can arise from South-South exchanges, not just North-South dynamics. Indigenous and local knowledge should be recognized and integrated, rather than needing to prove their effectiveness and gaining acceptance within the existing development frameworks. Implementers must remain open to community needs, acknowledge power dynamics, use language and communication that resonates with local communities, and recognize the potential of local innovators, whose perspectives may differ from those of more "advanced" innovators.