INGOs work to fulfill a mission. However, how the mission is fulfilled will affect not only the beneficiaries they intend to serve, but also many other components of its existence. This means that there are those who the INGO intend to affect, and those who are affected by the work of the INGO. A good INGO should understand and listen to the needs, rights, desires, and positions of each and analyze the potential positive and negative impacts of the action they decide to take.

It must be remembered that more often than not, the intended beneficiaries did not elect or delegate the INGO to look after their interests. The INGO often takes this responsibility on moral grounds rather than waiting for this responsibility to be given. This is not to say it is wrong, especially as the world becomes more aware of what are considered global concerns. However, it is a fact to be remembered, and respected. This should be reflected in an organization’s internal operations. An organization should only be trusted if systems, processes, and tools are in place to ensure that the intended beneficiaries opinions and decisions are an integral part of the INGO’s decision-making processes, programming and reviews. It is also important to consider those inadvertently affected by the actions and decisions of the organization. There should be systems to ensure that those responses and consequences are also duly considered.

An example of how this may work can be drawn from recent lessons in the Tsunami region. An organization set out to provide boats to intended beneficiaries who had been fishermen before the tsunami and had now lost their livelihoods. The staff conducted a survey to determine how many fishermen were now living in a given area. The organization supplied the same number of boats as the number of fisherman. This seems like an appropriate response to a devastating situation. Unfortunately, it only served to further complicate already strained community relations. Before the tsunami, the Fishermen’s Associations were very strong. Most fishermen were allotted time on boats by the Fishermen’s Association as the majority did not own their own boats. The systems they had in place were arranged to ensure sustainability of the fish, the individual fishermen, the market, and the Association. This arrangement worked for them in their given circumstances and the fishing community was organized around this understanding. The provision of boats to all fishermen undermined this system and threw the community and Association dynamics into chaos.

This situation may have been avoided had the proper priority been given to the fishermen. Instead of conducting a survey to poll the number of beneficiaries, participatory decision-making sessions could have been employed. Other methodologies in existence are beneficiary or public reporting systems and participatory planning workshops. Also important to include are those people who may not be intended beneficiaries, but who are affected by the decision to provide boats to all fishermen. Such stakeholders may include the boat owners who may not have been fishermen, but who lived off of the rent from fishermen, or boat builders and repairmen who lost their livelihoods through external provision of boats and materials.

Of course not every consequence of every action can be foreseen, but with the proper tools, INGOs can put quality systems in place to ensure their beneficiaries participate in the planning and decision-making process.

Trust is also developed when people, products, governments, and INGOs do what they say they will do. When a consumer buys a ‘better quality picture and sound television’, it is expected that the product will be a television with better quality picture and sound. If the consumer can see more vibrant colour and hear a fuller sound, they will trust the product and the company that sold it. An INGO is no different. If an INGO says they provide clean water, it is expected that they provide clean water.

This is the traditional concept of inward responsibility. Today, INGOs need to think more about how they operate and for whom. They are employers, associations, member groups, and workplaces. They have codes of conduct, principles, values, policies, plans, and objectives, supporters, and personnel. Each of these is central to the achievement of its mission. An INGO must put systems in place to ensure that they are answerable to their internal stakeholders, values, mission, and goals. If these systems are in place and operating correctly, it can be assumed that an INGO that values sustainability and is beneficiary-driven, has high quality, well managed and empowered staff, trusting followers, official grievance and complaint channels, and ongoing performance checks will not only provide clean water, but will make every effort to efficiently and effectively provide clean, potable water that is constant, sustainable, well managed and maintained and was requested or prioritized by the people who will ultimately care for it.

INGOs do not work in a vacuum. The number of INGOs operating around the world has more than tripled in the last several years. These INGOs not only work together, but also in the same complex environments as local governments, NGOs and groups, UN bodies, private businesses, lobbyists etc. In many situations, especially during strife or disaster, these groups can be competing for resources, power and/or space. Even under less demanding circumstances, these groups can duplicate each other’s work or worse yet, contradict or undermine each other.

To be responsible outward is to understand that INGO work is not an independent crusade; it is an industry with a goals and trusts to uphold. It is about coordination and cooperation with other like-minded and opposing views and operations in order to achieve long-term positive results. The Outward Recognition systems are just as important and integral to the trust package as any other aspect.

To offer a small example, an organization responding to a disaster may have trained staff that uses a credible needs assessment to respond to the needs of a group of internally displaced people (IDPs). These well-meaning staff members create teams of ‘cash for work’ IDPs and gather them to work at the camp. However, because coordination mechanisms were not in place, they have unknowingly undermined the work of another NGO who has organized volunteer teams to do the same work in the same place. Now these volunteers not only do not want to work for free, but also feel they were taken advantage of and develop distrust for the NGO. The operational systems and policies within an INGO that ensure the staff work as part of a larger system is important. Also important are the mechanisms they use to open themselves to outward review, scrutiny, and criticism. Should a peer review reveal that the NGO had been undermined, to what extent is the INGO willing to change its program, and/or operations? An organization that recognizes the importance of outward relationships should be willing to alter its actions or give adequate reason for not attempting to change. .

INGOs need to ensure that those who financially support them, their governing bodies and, bodies responsible for legal frameworks, also trust them. Traditionally, this trust has been developed by meeting donor reporting requirements and agendas, completing projects in a timely manner and on budget, through donor evaluations, and long-standing relationships. Through use of the Recognition System, upward trust can be based on the Recognition Standing of an INGO. Donors who respect the ideals of the Recognition System can free up resources that had previously been used to administer, monitor, verify, and evaluate INGO work. These funds can be used to develop longer-term relationships for longer-term, lasting results. When working with a ‘Recognized INGO’, donors can avoid lengthy and costly evaluations due to its ability to trust an INGO’s own results and reports. As a result, donors can focus on different methods of assessment and learning based on long-term change.