Too many scaling efforts focus on scaling ‘up’ an innovation or initiative. As such, their impact is limited to reaching larger numbers of people. But when the goal is the public good, scaling ‘up’ is only valuable if it leads to a commensurate change in positive impact. What if a larger scale isn’t sustainable? Or if the intervention benefits one group of people, but when it is scaled to other groups it has negative impacts? What if ‘scaling benefits the owner and proprietor, but not social and planetary health?
‍
It’s time to rethink the purpose of scaling.  We argue that the focus should be on scaling the positive impact that an innovation or initiative has on lives, livelihoods and our natural environment. This involves considering the trade-offs between different dimensions of impact produced by scaling processes — the magnitude, variety, equity and sustainability of impact. Thus, rather than thinking ‘bigger scale’, we call for thinking  in terms of impact at ‘optimal scale’.

Who defines and contributes to impact at optimal scale? Approaches that overlook strong local agency risk leaving behind those most in need of positive results, and those who may be best placed to contribute to positive change.
‍
Broad and evolving participation in the scaling process is critical to navigate the different ways in which scaling will involve and affect different stakeholders, and to balance potentially competing interests that underpin the justification of scaling efforts.
‍
A truly participatory approach means considering not only those who may support a scaling process or be impacted by it, but also potential conflicts of interest and those who may stand to gain from hindering scaling for the public good. There is a need to proactively identify and mitigate these challenges in a transparent manner.
‍
We call on funders and development agencies to support participatory and transparent approaches to scaling as a means of ensuring that pursuit of optimal scale considers the perspectives of, and is endorsed by, a diverse and evolving group of key stakeholders. We know this takes time and resources; but we also know that it is a non-negotiable for sustainable development.

We are not only in a fight against poverty and environmental degradation but also for equality and social justice. Indeed, the root cause of poverty and instability is often inequities between and across social groups.

Stories of big and bold impact help to attract funds, private donations and public approval for ‘overseas development’. However, for our research and innovation to meaningfully benefit all, we must place equal emphasis and scrutiny on who exactly we are helping and who is being left behind.

To do this, we have to be constantly thinking about and assessing the implications of our impact on equity – for example how scaling impact might affect different groups based on factors such as gender, ethnicity, or age, in different ways. This requires qualitative and dynamic approaches for assessing  impact.

Thus, we call on funders and development agencies to value and encourage results that contribute to equity of impact  and to consider these as equally important as those that build magnitude of impact. This requires decisions about scaling to be informed by ongoing consideration of, and engagement with, the people who stand to benefit (or to lose) from scaling. It requires putting aside the allure of counting people in the Global South as the equivalent to counting your impact.

Scaling affects and is affected by more than just people. The effects of a scaling process on the natural environment must be considered among the variety of impacts to be weighed up in pursuing optimal scale. At the same time, environmental factors and changes in the environment or climate over time can enable or constrain scaling efforts.

Given that  the climate crisis disproportionately affects populations that are socially, economically or otherwise marginalised – often due to uneven development processes – consideration of environmental impacts is especially likely to interact with equity of impact.
‍
Typically, the Global South has been quick to acknowledge the urgency of environmental challenges that the world is facing. We call for explicit and focused attention to our natural environment in support for scaling impact.

While project funding cycles tend to last around two to three years, it takes significantly longer to scale the impact of research and innovation.

Scaling demands paying greater attention to the root causes of the challenges that need to be addressed, and to strengthening the institutions that are necessary to deliver solutions effectively and sustainably – in other words, a ‘systems approach’. A single project, or even a single funder, is unlikely to be able to implement this successfully in isolation.
‍
Those who want to scale the impact of their investments need to reimagine their approach. For example, structure investments so that scaling is an objective, even if this takes a longer, more uncertain outlook. Introduce multi-phase programming to continue investments for research and innovations that show promise to scale. Build coalitions with other funders and development agencies who have complementary mandates and interests to support scaling processes and encourage collaboration among researchers and innovators across geographical borders, sectors or disciplines.

Scaling is a dynamic process that happens in a dynamic world. And the change we’re witnessing in the Global South today is happening faster than ever. Funders, development agencies, researchers and innovators need to learn to live with uncertainty, and be ready to learn about and respond to new challenges and opportunities. This requires an open mind and quick responses during implementation phases, adapting even the best laid plans.
‍
‍Impact evaluations are a useful means of understanding the impact of an innovation in a particular time and place, but are insufficient to understand the complexity and heterogeneity of factors at play as a scaling process unfolds.

We call on funders and development agencies to endorse and support a learning culture that values multiple forms of evidence, embraces humility, and enables more dynamic evaluation. This means considering the entirety of the scaling process as the possible subject of inquiry, not just the ‘end-of-project’ result. It also means being open to adjusting our approach and our questions in response to our ongoing learning. We know this will create new challenges and reporting standards. But sustainable development is a challenge that requires experimentation and innovation from funders and development agencies, too.

There is a wealth of existing research and innovation in the Global South that has had a positive impact, or shown potential to do so, that has not gained sufficient traction with funders.

Locally generated evidence is often overlooked - whether for failing to fit criteria defined in the Global North or based on preference for partners or innovations developed and validated in the North. If funders are serious about scaling impact in the Global South, they must consider how to find and prioritise locally driven solutions.
‍
We urge funders and development agencies to take learning from Southern experiences seriously by prioritising innovations and knowledge generated in the Global South; to formally and purposely include Southern experience and expertise in scaling efforts and decision-making; and to work together to identify and overcome systematic biases against evidence and experience from the Global South.

No single organisation, strategy, framework or model will solve the global challenges of today. Funders and development agencies must work with each other, and with us, to find and scale solutions.

We need to be systematic and scientific about the way research and innovation is scaled, so as to increase the likelihood that it will lead to meaningful change. We call on funders to invest in collective learning about scaling the impact of research and innovation. For example, by supporting and building communities of practice, by testing models and commissioning research within and across project portfolios, and by sharing that learning with others. Supporting research, debate, and continuous improvement will reap benefits now and for generations to come, in the Global South and Global North.