We all know that impact projects have a history of being funded, designed, and executed by those outside the communities they seek to serve. No matter how well-intentioned, this approach perpetuates a cycle where those with power, resources, and influence dominate the agenda. Further, without effective community participation, these projects inevitably squander essential resources and produce sub-optimal results.

Sovereignty without agency is meaningless ...

... and one of the ways in which we can best support lasting impact is by ensuring that the individuals, organisations, and communities who can most benefit from our work are equitable participants in it.

This requires us to move beyond tokenistic invitations to ‘sit at the table’ and to ruthlessly interrogate who designs, builds, and owns the table—or whether a table is even the most culturally appropriate place for a meeting to take place.

If we’re genuine about creating a more equitable world, we have to go significantly further than merely asking for community feedback during the design and execution phases. We need to shift our focus towards a more co-everything model—co-creation, co-design, co-ownership, and co-governance.

This doesn’t mean that every impact enterprise, civil society organisation, or economic development agency needs to fundamentally upend its way of working—it may not always be useful, appropriate, or permissible to provide pathways to ownership or governance, for example.

But equity ≠ ownership. The word comes from the Latin aequitas, meaning “even, just, equal,” and perhaps surprisingly, also referring to “a quiet, tranquil state of mind; moderation, evenness of temper.” It seems fair to suggest that equity would give rise to a more relaxed temperament, as there’s no denying that its absence gives rise to the inverse.

And ‘ownership’ is as much a felt sense of responsibility as it is representative of possession. The most successful brands in the world have created a sense of ownership with their customers. Surely, we want our customers, partners, and stakeholders to feel this deeply connected to our work? Surely, we want them to not only materially benefit from our goods and services but also to experience the dignity that true participation in our work confers?

Inclusive Ownership

When it comes to ownership in the more traditional sense, there is ample evidence to support the idea that when communities are given ownership stakes—whether in the governance of a project, the distribution of profits, or the setting of priorities—they become true partners in the work. This model is not only more just; it’s also more effective. Communities that actively participate in the design and management of initiatives are far more likely to stay engaged and committed, ensuring that solutions are sustainable over the long term.

(Like that pesky democracy thing that keeps producing results that those most committed to its existence are often most resistant to).

For example, in Germany, citizen-owned energy cooperatives have driven the country’s renewable energy transition. Communities have invested in and governed local wind and solar projects, resulting in economic benefits and increased buy-in for sustainable energy initiatives. By giving local residents ownership stakes, these projects have achieved higher levels of engagement and long-term success.

Rethinking Governance

This brings us to the question of governance. While advisory boards and community councils can provide insight into the evolution of a project in alignment with community needs, they’re generally toothless. If we’re truly committed to achieving equitable and lasting impact, we need to embed shared governance into the fabric of our organisations. This might mean restructuring boards to include representatives from the communities impacted by our work or designing mechanisms that allow those communities to have veto power over key decisions.

For example, the MONDRAGON Corporation in Spain, a worker-owned cooperative, has successfully implemented inclusive governance structures. In Mondragón, each worker has a vote on strategic decisions, ensuring that those directly impacted by policies have a meaningful say in their development. This model has resulted in higher employee satisfaction and sustainable business practices, demonstrating that shared governance leads to better outcomes.

And In the field of urban planning, the participatory budgeting model in Porto Alegre, Brazil, is another example of shared governance in action. Residents decide how to allocate a portion of the municipal budget, leading to more equitable resource distribution. By prioritising projects that directly benefit underserved communities, participatory budgeting empowers citizens to take control of decisions that affect their daily lives.

Ultimately, this shifts the dynamic to one of mutual benefit and shared growth.

In an earlier newsletter, I explored the power of collective agency in driving transformational solutions. Now, it’s time to take that concept further by embedding that agency into the DNA of our projects and organisations. True impact doesn’t happen when we invite people to speak; it happens when we acknowledge and enable their power to decide.

A shift from consultation to co-creation and control is what will truly democratise the impact sector.

Empowering Local Leadership

This isn’t about giving up power for the sake of it—it’s about recognising that the people closest to the problem are also closest to the solution and most implicated in its long-term success. When communities control not just the implementation but also the governance of projects, we see more resilient, culturally relevant, and effective interventions.

For instance, the Start Network , a global coalition of humanitarian agencies, prioritises local leadership by funding responses directly through local organisations. This decentralised approach has reduced response times significantly, ensuring that aid reaches those in need faster while empowering local leaders to tailor interventions to their communities’ specific needs. By giving communities control over resources and decision-making, the Start Network has demonstrated that locally-led responses are faster, more cost-effective, and more aligned with community needs.

The Path Forward: From Inclusion to Co-Governance

So, how do we get there? It starts with asking tough questions about who holds the power in our projects and organisations. Where are community members on the spectrum—from co-creators to a checkbox on a stakeholder engagement plan? Are they able to shape priorities, approve budgets, or even redirect resources? Also, it’s important to check if they even want it—because insisting upon unwanted community participation is just as ineffective as not inviting it in the first place. If there’s a lack of community participation, that’s something worth understanding!

While there’s still a place for private ownership and more traditional corporate and governance models, it’s clear that we must redesign our structures to not only include diverse voices but also ensure they have genuine authority. It’s not enough to talk about equity—we need to incorporate it into everything we do. That means shifting from tokenism to genuine ownership, from consultation to shared governance, and from participation to real control. Only then can we claim to be truly inclusive in our work.

Before you go:

End of year is a particularly challenging time for impact entrepreneurs, what with conferences in full swing, sales slowing, and funders often punting on decisions until the new year. And with the recent news about a pending change of government in the USA our collective capacity to navigate crisis is more important than ever. That's why I've put together a free 90 minute webinar for impact entrepreneurs and non-profit leaders that I'll be hosting in a few weeks. To find out more about that, please visit my website here.