Innovation for Social Impact

In 2021, I proposed an initiative I thought was brilliant—it would help my team make faster progress and better leverage each member's unique skills. Brilliant, right? Yet, it didn’t take off. Many ideas or initiatives fail because we struggle to gain buy-in. The reasons for resistance are many, but Rick Maurer simplifies them into three core categories: (1) "I don’t get it" Resistance here is about lack of understanding or information. People may not fully grasp the reasons behind the change, its benefits, or the implementation plan. This often leaves them feeling confused or unsure about the impact. (2) "I don’t like it" This is rooted in a dislike for the change itself. People might feel it disrupts their comfort zones, poses a negative impact, or clashes with personal values or interests. (3) "I don’t like YOU." This is about the messenger, not the message. Distrust or lack of respect for the person initiating the change can create a barrier. It might stem from past experiences, perceived incompetence, or lack of credibility. When I work with leaders to identify which category resistance falls into, the clarity that follows helps us take targeted, practical steps to overcome it. - To address the "I don't get it" challenge, focus on clear, accessible communication. Share the vision, benefits, and roadmap in a way that resonates. Use stories, real-life examples, or data to make the case relatable and tangible. Give people space to ask questions and clarify concerns—often, understanding alone can build alignment. - To address the "I don't like it" challenge, emphasize empathy. Acknowledge potential impacts on routines, comfort zones, or values, and seek input on adjustments that could reduce disruption. If possible, give people a sense of control over aspects of the change; this builds buy-in by involving them directly in shaping the solution. - And to address the "I don't like you" challenge, solving for the other two challenges will help. You can also openly address past issues, if relevant, and demonstrate genuine commitment to transparency and collaboration Effective change isn’t just about the idea—it’s about knowing how to bring people along with you. #change #ideas #initiatives #collaboration #innovation #movingForward #progress #humanBehavior

"How do we ensure that the rapid development of AI is more considerate of harms and the public interest? In our inaugural Responsible AI Impact Report, All Tech Is Human (ATIH) aims to reveal our most urgent risks, emerging safeguards, and public-interest solutions, and provide a roadmap for how we will shape how AI impacts society in the year ahead. We examine the state of Responsible AI (RAI) throughout 2025 and highlight what we consider to be some of the most impactful contributions made by civil society organizations this year to enrich this broad and dynamic field. We believe the Responsible AI field can only thrive if we effectively tackle the complex challenges at the intersection of technology and society. When we refer to “Responsible AI,” we mean AI that is well-regulated and guard-railed, governed and assured (documented, standardized, and benchmarked with relevant measurements), and assessed, evaluated, and red-teamed. As we outlined in our recent Responsible Tech Guide (2025), our organization believes in a human-centered future that values our agency in desired outcomes and rejects tech determinism. As such, we are focused on elevating AI models that do as little harm as possible, for use cases in which risks have been carefully considered and meaningfully mitigated; and ethically deployed AI, in which lofty principles are operationalized with grounded KPIs. This Responsible AI Impact Report highlights the growing focus on Public Interest AI that is of, by, for, and in service to the people. This Public Interest AI should be applied to humanity’s most pressing challenges and enable us to reimagine what a better tech future entails. This report also explores a future in which Public Interest AI is developed on public infrastructures for an AI-literate society. At the heart of the years ahead lies a defining question: who determines the purpose of AI and the kinds of lives it will shape?" Rebekah Tweed, with support from David Ryan Polgar, Sandra Khalil, and Sherine Kazim. 

I asked a nonprofit CEO: "Who designed your program?" Her answer: "Our board and I spent months in strategy sessions mapping it out." "And who did you design it for?" "Families experiencing food insecurity in our community." "How many of those families were in those strategy sessions?" Silence. This is why most well-intentioned programs fail before they start. Here's the actual algorithm for lasting change: Step 1: Start with people, not problems Not data about the problem. Not assumptions about the problem. The actual humans living it daily. Step 2: Understand the system, not just the symptom Homelessness isn't a housing problem. It's mental health + addiction + economic + policy issues that show up as housing. Step 3: Design with, not for The people closest to the problem are closest to the solution. Make them co-creators, not beneficiaries. Step 4: Test small, learn fast Before you scale, make sure it actually works. For the people using it, not just the people funding it. Step 5: Design yourself out of business If your solution is working, people shouldn't need you forever. I've seen this approach reduce homelessness, cut recidivism, and save infant lives. It works because it respects the intelligence and agency of the people it serves. Most organizations skip Step 1 and wonder why their communities don't engage. What step does your organization struggle with most?

In 2007, I watched development institutions spend millions wiring Africa for landlines. That same year, Nairobi vendors started buying inventory with just their phones. No bank account. No credit card. Just M-PESA Africa – which now processes 3,000 transactions per second. Development institutions were a step behind – funding yesterday's infrastructure while Africa built tomorrow's economy. I've spent decades watching this pattern repeat itself. And now, as I share in Stanford Social Innovation Review, I fear we’re doing it again with AI – except this time with even less money to waste. Here’s the usual pattern: we chase flashy apps, often designed in New York or London boardrooms. Most flop. Meanwhile, local entrepreneurs build what actually works – like "Hello Tractor" in Nigeria, now connecting 5,000 tractors with 1.2 million farmers. And AI has massive potential to change lives. It’s already slashing stillbirths by 82% in Malawi. Zipline's drones have completed over a million deliveries in Rwanda. M-Shule in Kenya is helping students score 7-20% higher on exams. But potential isn't enough. In many low-resource contexts, similar AI diagnostics are failing because the infrastructure doesn't exist to support them. Sub-Saharan Africa has 2 physicians per 10,000 people. The EU has 41. AI could bridge that nearly impossible gap – if we fund the infrastructure that multiplies local innovation instead of arriving a decade late. With shrinking budgets, the choice gets clearer: connectivity, digital IDs, payment networks, AI in local languages – this infrastructure isn't an expense. It's a multiplier. Fund the foundation, and the future of AI won't just be written in Silicon Valley. It can be made in Lagos, Nairobi, and Mumbai – by entrepreneurs who actually know what works. What are your thoughts? Are we going to miss another revolution? #Development #AI #Infrastructure #GlobalSouth 📷 iStock/Jeff Bergen

🌿🌍 Sustainable innovation is coming at the forefront of business discussions lately, and I'd like to share some thoughts. I propose defining sustainable innovation as “a type of innovation process that deliberately integrates environmental and social considerations into the development of new products, services, or business models, with the explicit goal of creating long-term positive impact at both organizational and systemic levels.” Importantly, it should help companies and entire systems function within our planet's boundaries. However, the path to sustainable innovation is fraught with challenges. In my experience, there are four significant hurdles: 1. 🧠 Lack of relevant human capital: Many organizations simply don't have the specialized expertise needed to address complex sustainability challenges. This knowledge gap can severely hamper innovation efforts. 2. 🏗️ Underdeveloped organizational capabilities: Even with the right people, companies often lack the structures, processes, incentives, and cultures necessary to foster sustainable innovation. Developing these capabilities requires significant time and investment. 3. 🔍 Insufficient absorptive capacity: Many firms struggle to identify, assimilate, and apply existing sustainable technologies. This is about having the internal capacity to understand and implement these innovations effectively. 4. 🤝 Dearth of stakeholder-oriented mindsets: For decades, business education has focused on shareholder primacy. Shifting to a more holistic, stakeholder-centric approach is not just a matter of policy change; it requires a fundamental rewiring of how business leaders think and operate. When it comes to measuring sustainable innovation, we're in a period of profound experimentation. 🧪 Companies are actively testing various initiatives, products, and business models in pursuit of sustainability. We're in the early stages of this journey, and failure is an inherent part of the process. This state of flux makes measurement challenging, as there's no established playbook or universal metrics. Given this complexity, we should embrace diverse measurement approaches as we learn from both successes and failures. 📊 Ultimately, we must remember that sustainable innovation isn't just about individual companies or technologies – it's about systemic change. 🔄 This change occurs at multiple levels: individual, organizational, regulatory, governmental, and institutional. The challenge lies in the fact that our systems can only evolve as quickly as their slowest components. As we continue to innovate for sustainability, we must keep this broader context in mind, striving for solutions that can accelerate change across all levels of our global systems. I'm curious to hear your thoughts. What examples have you seen of sustainable innovation that you believe have had positive systemic impacts? Please share your experiences and insights below! 💬 #ESG #Innovation #SustainableInnovation #Climate

Empowering young people from underserved communities is scale. Creating meaningful outcomes consistently is impact. As organisations grow, there is often a temptation to celebrate the biggest number: young people reached, programmes delivered, geographies covered. But I believe scale comes with a greater responsibility. The larger our footprint becomes, the more rigorous we must be about how programmes are designed, delivered, measured, and improved. We need to know not only how many participants we reached, but what changed in their lives because we reached them. At Magic Bus India Foundation, this means building strong systems around programme quality, measuring outcomes, learning from data, being transparent about progress, and staying accountable to the young people, communities, partners, and governments we work with. Because reaching millions means very little if we cannot demonstrate that the intervention is helping them build agency, complete their education, develop life and employability skills, and move towards sustainable livelihoods. For me, real leadership in the social sector is not about scaling programmes it is about scaling outcomes. Numbers may open doors, but evidence, rigour, and continuous learning are what create lasting change. Sustainable impact is never accidental. It is built through disciplined execution, relentless measurement, continuous learning, and the courage to improve what isn’t working. Scale becomes meaningful only when every young person, irrespective of where they live and their background, has the opportunity to achieve better outcomes and improve their lives. #SocialImpact #ImpactAtScale #Accountability #Transparency #Leadership #LifeSkills #MagicBusIndiaFoundation

75% of femtech startups were refused a bank account. In any other industry, this would be a scandal. For femtech, it's just another day battling systemic bias that's stifling innovation in women's health. I've backed multiple femtech businesses and regularly speak with women in the industry. Their stories are both shocking and depressingly familiar. Despite serving half the world's population and a £22.3 billion market, femtech receives just 1-2% of health tech funding. This disparity isn't just unfair—it's dangerous. An article by The Guardian last week revealed: • 60% of femtech companies had bank accounts closed • 50% faced "excessive scrutiny" from financial institutions • Many spend £100,000 monthly on digital ads, only to face constant bans censHERship's research of 35 femtech companies found 100% experienced similar issues. The result: Two-thirds lost revenue, 54% faced higher costs, 43% delayed launches (credit to Clio Wood for exposing this). My own health tech startup faced weekly campaign suspensions, no-one-to-talk-to appeals, and ‘black box’ algorithms. But my experience isn't unique. Even product descriptions face absurd scrutiny. Béa Fertility couldn't use 'vagina' on Amazon, forced to use 'birth canal' instead. But anything with the word 'semen' in it? No problem at all. Between 2011-2021, only 4% of new drugs for female-specific conditions were approved in the US. We're not just losing products; we're losing progress. This isn't just a women's issue—it's a business, innovation, and human rights issue. Femtech isn't 'niche'. Women are 75% more likely to use digital health tools and spend 29% more on healthcare. The demand and innovation are there. What's missing is equal opportunity. Ironically, the UK has the second-largest share of femtech globally. We have the potential to lead change. Here’s what we can do:  • Follow and amplify femtech voices • Challenge biased policies when you see them • Educate your network about these issues Progress in femtech benefits everyone—women, business, and society. P.S.  Kudos to Farah, Valentina, Alice, Peony Li, and other femtech leaders. Keep fighting the good fight 💪

🤖❤️ The social sector is generally behind in leveraging AI but it doesn't have to stay that way. In my conversation with data experts Joanna Teo and Joel Yeo, we all agreed that AI has the potential to transform social impact — but it’s not magic. The biggest roadblocks are bad data, incomplete data, and lack of collaboration. Social impact organisations need to be (and rightfully so) a lot more careful with their innovation. 3 thoughts on more meaningful use of AI: 1️⃣ Stop collecting data for the sake of it. Focus on data with actional gaps: Too often, NGOs and social enterprises collect data that looks good in reports but isn’t useful for decision-making. Instead of gathering more data, identify the missing data points that would change the way you design solutions. What do you wish you knew? Start there. 2️⃣ Your "competitor’s" data is more valuable than your own – if you share too: Many social organisations hoard data for fear of losing funding or control. But real AI breakthroughs happen when sectors share insights across silos—health, education, urban planning. If you want better AI models, think beyond your own data sets. Who can you partner with to fill the gaps? 3️⃣ AI won’t solve structural problems – but data can expose the right fights: AI can predict which students might drop out of school, but if the real issue is unsafe roads or lack of digital access, AI alone is useless. Instead of asking, “What can AI solve?” start with: “What does the data reveal about the system itself?” AI should be used to challenge flawed policies, not just optimise within them. 🚀 AI isn’t the hero. Better data strategy, radical collaboration, and systems thinking will determine whether AI for social good is transformative or just another tech trend. 👇 I'm still learning! What are some overlooked data challenges in your sector? #AIforImpact #SocialInnovation #TechforGood

💃🏽 “𝗪𝗲 𝗼𝘄𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝗮 𝗰𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗿𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵.” – 𝗟𝗶𝘀𝗮 𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗶 Until 1993, women were largely excluded from clinical trials. Not by accident, but by design 👀 Women were left out of research because our biology was seen as disruptive. Hormones made the data harder to control, so the answer was to exclude us 🤷🏽♀️ The default became male & the consequences followed. What worked in the lab didn’t always work in the real world & it still doesn’t ❌ That choice didn’t stay in the past 🔙 You can still see it in drugs that fail to accurately recognise women’s symptoms, in the medtech equipment that doesn’t quite fit in a female surgeon's hand, in the research that skips over the questions that matter to half the population 🌎 As we move into an AI-first future, we’re building on data that never really saw women to begin with. The risk isn’t just bias, it’s getting things wrong at scale 📈 If women aren’t included in the data, the systems we rely on won’t just miss us, they’ll misrepresent us. We need women shaping the research, the trials, the tech – not just for fairness, but so it actually works 📊 If we want healthcare that works for women, we need to start with research that sees us clearly, not as complications, but as standard 💭 𝗪𝗲’𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗪𝗲’𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲’𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗮𝗹𝗴𝗼𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗺 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗶𝘅 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘄𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 📏 -- ♻ Re-share if this resonated with you. 👩🏽⚕️ Follow Dr Fiona Pathiraja-Møller for more. #womenshealth #AI #science #clinicaltrials

Innovators, Design Thinkers and Change Agents: Check out 5 ways to overcome resistance and get management buy-in for innovation … In my role as facilitator of more than 100 innovation projects, our teams ran into the following seven obstacles while trying to get management buy-in: 1. Fear of Failure: Top managers fears that embracing innovative ideas could lead to failure, jeopardizing their reputation. 2. Lack of Resources: Top managers reject ideas due to a lack of available resources, such as time, money, and manpower. 3. Misalignment with Strategic Goals: Top managers prioritize projects that directly contribute to the company's bottom line or long-term vision. 4. Lack of Understanding: When top managers struggle to comprehend the potential benefits or implementation process, they reject the ideas out of ignorance or uncertainty. 5. Overemphasis on Short-Term Results: Top managers focused on short-term results may be hesitant to invest in projects that may take time to yield tangible outcomes. 6. Lack of Trust: Without a track record of success or a proven reputation, your ideas are met with skepticism or dismissed outright. 7. Organizational Politics: If an idea threatens the power dynamics or interests of influential individuals, top managers may reject it to avoid conflicts. In practice the innovation project teams I helped, applied one or more of the following practices to gain acceptance for innovative ideas: 1. The Perfect Elevator Pitch: Craft a concise and compelling pitch that clearly communicates the value and potential impact of your idea within a few minutes. An essential, but often overlooked, part of it is dedicated on how you are going to mitigate the risks while implementing your new solution. 2. Build a Strong Network: Foster relationships with influential individuals who can advocate for your ideas. Collaborate with like-minded colleagues. You should start innovation by creating your “Innovation Alliance", long before you start your projects. 3. Start Small Experiments: Instead of proposing large-scale changes, begin with smaller, manageable projects that demonstrate the value and feasibility of your ideas. Follow a "Micro-Innovation Approach”, in which experimenting plays a key role. 4. Gather Data and Evidence: Conduct thorough research and gather data from your small scale experiments to support your ideas. Quantify potential benefits, cost savings, or competitive advantages to strengthen your case. Build a "Data-Driven Innovation Strategy." 5. Start to WEnnovate: Getting - and keeping management buy-in is a crucial successfactor. That’s why you should not Innovate but WEnnovate, connecting people from all relevant departments in your team. Put top management in a role of “Innovation Godfathers." Apply these strategies effectively, increase your chances of success and will help you in creating a culture of innovation within your organization. #innovation #wennovation #cultureofinnovation #keynotespeaker